Film Review: April Fool's Day

 "April Fool's Day"  

** 1\2 (out of ****)

Is "April Fool's Day" (1986) a prank worth falling for?

The 1980s are considered by some - mostly those that lived through the decade and bask in nostalgia - to have been a creative peak for the horror genre. The decade brought us a seemingly endless supply of slasher movies featuring Michael Myers, Jason Voorhees and Freddy Krueger, arguably the three most iconic movie villains of the decade. But to quote Charles Dickens, "it was the best of times, it was the worst of times". The best meaning, the genre enjoyed great popularity. The worst meaning, the movies weren't very good and the various franchises quickly became tiresome. The market place became over saturated, as often happens in the greedy hands of movie studio executives and producers - cash in quickly on the latest fade!

For some that makes "April Fool's Day" stand out among other horror movies from the decade. The movie has earned a kind of cult status. Much like a full decade later, when Wes Craven and Kevin Williamson gave us "Scream" (1996), here is a movie that wanted to be hip and in on the joke. While there aren't exactly big laughs in the movie it does have a playful quality to it, at times. It would seem screenwriter Danilo Bach, perhaps best known for "Beverly Hills Cop" (1984), wanted to play around with horror movie conventions and infuse some new blood into the genre (a deliberate choice of words).

I can't say the experiment is a resounding success but it's not a failure either. It falls somewhere in a murky middle. I've watched the movie a few times and each time my reaction has been the same. It doesn't succeed as a comedy or as a horror movie. It's not fair to compare the movie to "Scream" because contemporary critics wouldn't have been able to at the time, unless of course they were clairvoyant but "Scream" is the template for how this hybrid can be pulled off correctly. "Scream" was smart and hip. It commented on the genre while also working within the genre's conventions. "April Fool's Day" doesn't seem as ambitious. Even Craven's own "New Nightmare" (1994) was more genre defying than "April Fool's Day".

A big problem for "April Fool's Day" is it shows us its cards too quickly leaving viewers fully aware of what to expect. This takes away any and all suspense. The opening shot of the movie looks like a home movie or fake documentary as a pretty young female, with a phony Irish accent and exaggerated Irish name, explains who she is to the camera and her interests. She then quickly makes a vulgar joke and declares "April Fool's"! If that doesn't explain everything to you, the movie goes for a one-two punch as the movie's credit sequence features a home movie of a young girl's birthday party. Sweet, tender music plays in the background, creating a sense of nostalgia, as the young girl opens one of her gifts. It is a jack-in-the-box toy. Her family looks around her as she winds up the toy and instead of a Jester popping out a monster does. The girl screams while the family laughs. And there you have it. The entire set-up of "April Fool's Day". Everything is a prank. It's all fun and games. From that point forward how can we take anything we see in the movie serious? The movie's formula has been established after two sequences (!). It is all set-up and prank. This is done repeatedly in the movie, reinforcing the concept nothing is to be taken serious. 

The young girl grows up to be Muffy St. John (Deborah Foreman) and perhaps because of the birthday party incident turns out to be a prankster and an apparent lover of April Fool's Day as she invites a group of friends over to her wealthy estate to celebrate and spend the weekend together. Those friends include sex kitten Nikki (Deborah Goodrich), horndog Arch (Thomas F. Wilson), social climber Harvey (Jay Baker), the studious Nan (Leah King Pinsent), amateur filmmaker (?) Chaz (Clayton Rohner) and the committed couple; Kit (Amy Steel) and Rob (Ken Olandt).

The group catches the last ferry on the island to the secluded St. John estate. While en route a prank seems to have resulted in a near deadly accident when one of the ferry boat workers jumps into the water, to rescue one from the group, and gets hit by the ferry when he is unable to move out of the way in time. Though the worker is immediately rushed to the hospital the friends can't help but feel guilty and responsible. They will soon begin to question if the worker will seek revenge.

Fun and games continue however as everyone is on the receiving end of one of Muffy's pranks and events soon take a bizarre turn when each guest finds mysterious items awaiting them in their rooms. Harvey for example finds a newspaper clipping about a car accident. Do each of these guest have a hidden secret from their past that someone is trying to expose? Could it be the ferry boat worker behind all of this?

This premise alone, if somewhat predicable, could have made a more interesting, scary and suspenseful movie. Fast forwarding into the future again, it could have been a kind of precursor to "I Know What You Did Last Summer" (1997). Ironically, the movie's director, Fred Walton, would go on to direct "I Saw What You Did" (1988) about two girls that make a prank call to the wrong man which was a definite precursor to that movie. Unfortunately, it is not an avenue the movie fully explores. In fact it is the avenues the movie doesn't explore that could have made this a better movie.

The fact that "April Fool's Day" doesn't completely work may be somewhat shocking to some movie fans. As I mentioned the movie's director, Walton, was also behind "When  A Stranger Calls" (1979). It has been stated by many that the opening sequence from "Scream" was inspired by the opening sequence from that movie. It would have been better if Walton directed a straight forward horror movie instead of getting involved with this tongue-in-cheek material that never elevates itself.

Besides not exploring better plot options, what the movie does do, it doesn't do entirely well. One of the movie's big mysterious reveals regarding one of the characters and their childhood is absolutely ridiculous because the slow build to the revelation isn't done properly and what exactly is it all suppose to mean to the overall context of the plot? When did the character's switch happen? They seemed fine in one scene and suddenly their demeanor changes. Huh? 

Another downside to the movie is the lack of character development. Not enough is done to make each character distinguishable and seemingly relevant to the story. What does each character contribute to the plot besides becoming an eventual number to the  dead body count total? There is a moment when one character describes another as having only two emotions - collar up and collar down. That pretty much sums up these characters. There is nothing original and/or interesting about them. They don't have characteristic traits about themselves other than collar up and collar down. One guy carries a camera with him and another female looks good in a bikini. This would indicate the characters were an afterthought. They are merely pawns in the gears of the plot and no attention needs to be paid to them. One is just as forgettable as the next. That seems to have been a staple of 80s horror as well. Simply collect a group of attractive teenagers, throw in some brief nudity and kill them off one by one.

However, to the movie's credit it is light on gratuitous violence, playing around with the slasher movie horror conventions. Each death scene occurs off-screen making "April Fool's Day" something other than a blood-and-guts movie, which I've never found scary to begin with. Disgusting? Yes but not scary or suspenseful. There are also no nude scenes, just the suggestion of sex. Again, playing around with the conventions of the genre.

The overall inspiration for the movie seems to be a horror movie trend, still going on, that I find rather distasteful. Taking something innocent and twisting it to become perverse and/or frightening. For example, Christmas. Leaving aside the religious connation associated with the holiday it is seen as a time of generosity and good will. There is the innocence associated with it as children await gifts from Santa. How many horror movies have taken place around Christmas? "Silent Night, Deadly Night" (1984), "Silent Night, Bloody Night" (1972), "Christmas Evil" (1980), "Krampus" (2015) and "A Christmas Horror Story" (2015) just to name a few. April Fool's Day has an innocence associated with it, to a lessee degree. It is a time of pranks and good natured fun. In the twisted mind of horror movies, that would make it a ripe subject to explore. What if those pranks turned deadly? That may or may not happen here (no spoilers) but the connection is the same. Take something innocent and twist it. 

"April Fool's Day" may be iconic to some and cult worthy but to me there is a lot missing from this story. There was material here to make a better straight forward horror movie. The attempts at humor don't work. The movie isn't as genre defying as some may think it is. With modern eyes we've seen better examples of horror movies trying to be hip and relevant. Yes, you can consider "April Fool's Day" a first step and inspiration to those later movies but this is really more of stumble. It is an early draft that would later be improved upon. I doubt many people could watch this and be truly scared. Unless of course, they are pulling a prank on you!