Happy Death Day (2017)

[OneWayFilms]

Originally Posted by El_Fez

Funny. I come from, calling someone infantile and then responding with the rolling eyes emoticon is considering being insulting.

Whatever dude. Have a nice life. I'm done with you.

Maybe I could have expressed myself better. I would like to apologize if I came across rudely, it really wasn't my intention. Please don't take anything I said personally, you seem like a decent fellow, even if we don't see eye-to-eye on that subject, it's OK. I'm not judging you or anyone else.

Sorry we got off on the wrong foot, hopefully, you will see I'm not an aggressive jerk, and I DO respect other opinions.

Peace.

[SammyJankis]

Jessica Rothe is the reason this film was such a blast. I could see it becoming a Halloween staple over the years.

[Batman1980]

I like how little the serial killer was actually in the film, just more proof the slasher element wasn't the actual focus.

[TXMoviebuff77]

I might just Redbox it first & if it’s decent, I’ll save it for when it’s a price worthy rate.

[TheBoss062]

Originally Posted by El_Fez

Sorry, I don't like wussified horror movies with all the bite cut out. I had a friend who's opinion I trust in these matters said that the movie felt incomplete, like a made-for-tv movie.

(and I loath that Hollywood only chases the PG13 rating at the exclusion of everything else, but that's a whole new can of worms)

But hey, thanks for insulting me. I'm sure that will lead to a productive conversation between us.

Oh cry me a river already

You're just trying to start a fight at this point. This movie along with The Final Girls is proof that PG-13 slashers can actually work out.

Originally Posted by OneWayFilms

Maybe I could have expressed myself better. I would like to apologize if I came across rudely, it really wasn't my intention. Please don't take anything I said personally, you seem like a decent fellow, even if we don't see eye-to-eye on that subject, it's OK. I'm not judging you or anyone else.

Sorry we got off on the wrong foot, hopefully, you will see I'm not an aggressive jerk, and I DO respect other opinions.

Peace.

You're giving too much benefit of the doubt. Don't feel so guilty of being judgmental, there's nothing inherently wrong with that.

[MazeRunner]

January 16th!!! Sucks there's no 4K (yet.)

[noirjunkie]

I just checked the box office totals, and this film has earned over $105 million worldwide against its $4.8 million budget. I'd say the chances of getting that sequel the director has discussed look pretty good.

[darkness2918]

Originally Posted by TheBoss062

Oh cry me a river already

You're just trying to start a fight at this point. This movie along with The Final Girls is proof that PG-13 slashers can actually work out.



You're giving too much benefit of the doubt. Don't feel so guilty of being judgmental, there's nothing inherently wrong with that.

I haven't seen this yet but The Final Girls was a movie I thought could've greatly benefitted from being Rated R instead of PG-13. PG-13 can work well for supernatural horror films but for slashers I think R rated is always best.

[darkness2918]

Originally Posted by El_Fez

Having not seen Death Day, I cant comment - but yeah, that's exactly my thoughts with the Final Girls. I love the hell out of the movie, but if you are going to make a love letter to the eighties slasher genre, then keeping it PG-13 really undercuts the movie. That scene where - oh, crap, I forgot her name - was strip dancing as bait was the time I went "Ya know, they really needed some boobs there." Keeping the boobies out of the movie until that moment would have really worked - the Precision F-Strike, if you will, but with tits.

I kept hoping for a more adult disc, but it was not to be.



I'm not saying it's a bad film. Actually, I don't know beyond what my friends told me about it. I'm just saying that I was disappointed at studio mandated neutering of movies and that they didnt embrace their slasher movie roots when given a chance.

But please, keep rolling your eyes at me. I'm sure that will help your argument and endear you to me more.

The PG-13 is also what kept me from really loving The Final Girls. As for the bolded part I think Lost After Dark was a much better homage to 80s slashers then The Final Girls.

[Padawan9188]

Jessica Rothe is great in this, but I always find it funny that they call her "the girl from La La Land." In that movie, she doesn't stand out at all. Everyone who isn't Stone, Gosling or Legend might as well be wallpaper. I hope HDD leads to bigger things for her.

[bigdaddyhorse]

Originally Posted by OneWayFilms

Surely people aren't thinking "Gosh, I wish that movie had more boobs and sex in it, then it was be a GREAT film."

Or ARE they???

I ended up going to see this despite my usual avoidance of PG-13 horror (might as well save the money for the unrated blu 90% of the time), but did feel this way to some extent.

While the movie was fun as is, I can't help but think of how much more enjoyable it could've been with a good kill or 3, and a couple of boob/butt shots (hold the sex though, we got porn for that!). I mean why not go all the way with the homage to a certain more recent light-hearted horror series which was known for it's innovative kills? As is, we got

[Show spoiler]Final Destination without the gravy.

Could've easily added some skin on the

[Show spoiler]"naked day" sequence!

I'll probably still pick up the blu as it was still hella fun as is, but could've been a classic horror-com masterpiece with those couple things, IMO of course. Same goes for Shark Night. If that had gone the Piranha remake route, it would already be a cult classic! SN is dumb enough that it still might become a cult classic despite it's shortfalls in the skin/gore departments.

[omenboy]

Originally Posted by bigdaddyhorse

I ended up going to see this despite my usual avoidance of PG-13 horror (might as well save the money for the unrated blu 90% of the time), but did feel this way to some extent.

While the movie was fun as is, I can't help but think of how much more enjoyable it could've been with a good kill or 3, and a couple of boob/butt shots (hold the sex though, we got porn for that!). I mean why not go all the way with the homage to a certain more recent light-hearted horror series which was known for it's innovative kills? As is, we got

[Show spoiler]Final Destination without the gravy.

Could've easily added some skin on the

[Show spoiler]"naked day" sequence!

I'll probably still pick up the blu as it was still hella fun as is, but could've been a classic horror-com masterpiece with those couple things, IMO of course. Same goes for Shark Night. If that had gone the Piranha remake route, it would already be a cult classic! SN is dumb enough that it still might become a cult classic despite it's shortfalls in the skin/gore departments.

I am pretty sure that the reason it didn't have more bare skin and gore is because the filmmakers were thinking of the payday down the road when they licensed the rights for television broadcast. Without having to be censored the film has much more potential for sales in all broadcast markets, not just the handful of subscription-based movie channels that are able to show anything.

[bigdaddyhorse]

Originally Posted by omenboy

I am pretty sure that the reason it didn't have more bare skin and gore is because the filmmakers were thinking of the payday down the road when they licensed the rights for television broadcast. Without having to be censored the film has much more potential for sales in all broadcast markets, not just the handful of subscription-based movie channels that are able to show anything.

I'm sure there's plenty reasons for it, from what you said to the actress' refusing to do nudity.

But isn't your case really kind of like baked-in censorship?. I don't think Halloween has lost any money with edited TV versions. Joe-public don't know the difference between an "uncut" PG-13 film or a 'watered down for cable' R-rated one.

[Batman1980]

She's hot regardless so it didn't really bother me.

[omenboy]

Originally Posted by bigdaddyhorse

I'm sure there's plenty reasons for it, from what you said to the actress' refusing to do nudity.

But isn't your case really kind of like baked-in censorship?. I don't think Halloween has lost any money with edited TV versions. Joe-public don't know the difference between an "uncut" PG-13 film or a 'watered down for cable' R-rated one.

I do agree that it is a form of baked-in censorship (much the same way that The Final Girls was) but maybe they figured it would cost less not having to alter the film for distribution - who knows. If the actress refused to do nudity they could have always cast someone else (even though she really is perfect in the role).

[TenD74]

Originally Posted by omenboy

I do agree that it is a form of baked-in censorship (much the same way that The Final Girls was) but maybe they figured it would cost less not having to alter the film for distribution - who knows. If the actress refused to do nudity they could have always cast someone else (even though she really is perfect in the role).

Remember the good old days when we had body doubles?

[steve_dave]

Originally Posted by TenD74

Remember the good old days when we had body doubles?

We still do. Plus now there is CGI to add stuff.

[TheBoss062]

Originally Posted by darkness2918

I haven't seen this yet but The Final Girls was a movie I thought could've greatly benefitted from being Rated R instead of PG-13. PG-13 can work well for supernatural horror films but for slashers I think R rated is always best.

It still worked out in spite of that, if you want a truly bad PG-13 slasher watch the Prom Night remake.

Originally Posted by bigdaddyhorse

I ended up going to see this despite my usual avoidance of PG-13 horror (might as well save the money for the unrated blu 90% of the time), but did feel this way to some extent.

While the movie was fun as is, I can't help but think of how much more enjoyable it could've been with a good kill or 3, and a couple of boob/butt shots (hold the sex though, we got porn for that!). I mean why not go all the way with the homage to a certain more recent light-hearted horror series which was known for it's innovative kills? As is, we got

[Show spoiler]Final Destination without the gravy.

Could've easily added some skin on the

[Show spoiler]"naked day" sequence!

I'll probably still pick up the blu as it was still hella fun as is, but could've been a classic horror-com masterpiece with those couple things, IMO of course. Same goes for Shark Night. If that had gone the Piranha remake route, it would already be a cult classic! SN is dumb enough that it still might become a cult classic despite it's shortfalls in the skin/gore departments.

This type of argument is the epitome of

This is why the horror genre isn't taken seriously, why do you along with others make it sound like horror movies are not good without gratuity and that precious R rating?

[GeoffOliver]

I do think slashers benefit from an R-rating, but it’s never an absolute requirement, and this movie was just fine without it. Would it have been better with an R? Sure, but I still thought it was smart, funny, and creepy. It did push its PG-13 rating pretty hard.

I’m pretty sure you can show ass in PG-13, and I agree the nude walk scene would’ve been more funny and shocking with it. If Rothe was uncomfortable with it, there’s always body doubles.

[bigdaddyhorse]

Originally Posted by omenboy

This type of argument is the epitome of

This is why the horror genre isn't taken seriously, why do you along with others make it sound like horror movies are not good without gratuity and that precious R rating?

I never said it wasn't good, in fact I said it was fun.
That said, my 13 year old self would've been disappointed is all. Much like my 30-something year-old self was when I finally watched Halloween 4 again, and realized the tape I rented from Hollywood Video wasn't a censored TV version like that Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2 one was. How could that scene end there? HOW?