Connect with us

Editorials

Javier Botet: Horror’s Most Terrifying Special Effect!

Published

on

There was a crooked man, and he walked a crooked mile.

That is the beginning of the children’s nursery rhyme that paves way for a frightening appearance from “The Crooked Man” in James Wan’s The Conjuring 2. Impossibly thin and unnaturally inhuman, the Slender Man-esque Crooked Man is the stuff of nightmares, and while many have praised the genuinely terrifying design of the character, others have criticized Wan for bringing a computer-generated villain to the screen. CGI is enemy number one to the horror fan, and especially since Wan had previously shied away from utilizing the modern technology in a noticeable way, it was indeed somewhat jarring to see him put it to use in the ’70s-set sequel.

Right? Wrong. Because Crooked Man was played by a real man. His name is Javier Botet, and this isn’t the first time us horror fans have mistaken his work for the work of digital effects artists.

I’ve seen a few critics refer to a Conjuring 2 character as CGI or stop-motion,” Wan tweeted out this week, “but is in fact played by the incredible, and very real, Javier Botet. [He] creates amazing movements with his body. Like a living, jittery, stop-motion puppet. All done in-camera.”

Born on July 30th, 1977 in Cuidad Real, Spain, Javier Botet suffers from Marfan syndrome, a genetic disorder that is characterized by tall statures, slender frames, and elongated limbs and digits. Measuring 6-feet, 7-inches tall and weighing just over 100-pounds, the double-jointed actor has used his condition to become a bona fide icon in the horror genre, responsible for more nightmares in recent years than any other actor who has attempted to, well, give us nightmares.

It was back in 2007 that Botet played Nina Medeiros in the Spanish found footage film [REC], showing up at the end of the movie for an appearance that may have been brief but nevertheless resulted in one of the most frightening scenes in the past decade. The mere sight of a fully exposed Botet, bathed only in the green glow of a night-vision camera, was enough to send chills up the spine and solidify [REC] as one of the scariest horror films in recent years. It’s a role nobody but Botet could’ve possibly played, and the same can be said for his subsequent roles within the horror genre – all of which, we have no doubt, have resulted in you losing some sleep.

Javier Botet was made the star of the show in 2013’s Mama, filling the titular role of an aggrieved mother who died many years prior. Like The Conjuring 2, the Andres Muschietti-directed Mama was criticized for its computer-generated villain, though fans familiar with Botet recognized that he was the man underneath the mask. And while digital effects were no doubt utilized to add little bells and whistles to the character, including her flowing hair, it was mostly Botet’s performance that made it onto the screen – for proof, you’ll find a super creepy movement test below.

Just last year, Guillermo del Toro took to social media to let the world know that the visually stunning ghosts in Crimson Peak were played by actors who were enhanced with CGI, contrary to popular belief, and you’ve probably gathered by now that it was once again Javier Botet who was responsible for much of the confusion. Botet played the ghosts of Enola, Margaret, and Pamela.

More recently, Botet’s one-of-a-kind work was seen in this year’s The Other Side of the Door, an otherwise unremarkable film that is highlighted by his performance as the four-armed creature known as Myrtu. For whatever reason, the character is mostly kept off screen and hidden with quick cuts, but nothing about the movie shines brighter than Botet’s contribution to it.

Check out some of Botet’s creatures below, along with the aforementioned Mama screen test!

javier botet mama

Javier Botet mama

mama botet

botet crimson peak

botet crimson peak 3

botet crimson peak 2

botet other side

Writer in the horror community since 2008. Editor in Chief of Bloody Disgusting. Owns Eli Roth's prop corpse from Piranha 3D. Has four awesome cats. Still plays with toys.

Editorials

Finding Faith and Violence in ‘The Book of Eli’ 14 Years Later

Published

on

Having grown up in a religious family, Christian movie night was something that happened a lot more often than I care to admit. However, back when I was a teenager, my parents showed up one night with an unusually cool-looking DVD of a movie that had been recommended to them by a church leader. Curious to see what new kind of evangelical propaganda my parents had rented this time, I proceeded to watch the film with them expecting a heavy-handed snoozefest.

To my surprise, I was a few minutes in when Denzel Washington proceeded to dismember a band of cannibal raiders when I realized that this was in fact a real movie. My mom was horrified by the flick’s extreme violence and dark subject matter, but I instantly became a fan of the Hughes Brothers’ faith-based 2010 thriller, The Book of Eli. And with the film’s atomic apocalypse having apparently taken place in 2024, I think this is the perfect time to dive into why this grim parable might also be entertaining for horror fans.

Originally penned by gaming journalist and The Walking Dead: The Game co-writer Gary Whitta, the spec script for The Book of Eli was already making waves back in 2007 when it appeared on the coveted Blacklist. It wasn’t long before Columbia and Warner Bros. snatched up the rights to the project, hiring From Hell directors Albert and Allen Hughes while also garnering attention from industry heavyweights like Denzel Washington and Gary Oldman.

After a series of revisions by Anthony Peckham meant to make the story more consumer-friendly, the picture was finally released in January of 2010, with the finished film following Denzel as a mysterious wanderer making his way across a post-apocalyptic America while protecting a sacred book. Along the way, he encounters a run-down settlement controlled by Bill Carnegie (Gary Oldman), a man desperate to get his hands on Eli’s book so he can motivate his underlings to expand his empire. Unwilling to let this power fall into the wrong hands, Eli embarks on a dangerous journey that will test the limits of his faith.


SO WHY IS IT WORTH WATCHING?

Judging by the film’s box-office success, mainstream audiences appear to have enjoyed the Hughes’ bleak vision of a future where everything went wrong, but critics were left divided by the flick’s trope-heavy narrative and unapologetic religious elements. And while I’ll be the first to admit that The Book of Eli isn’t particularly subtle or original, I appreciate the film’s earnest execution of familiar ideas.

For starters, I’d like to address the religious elephant in the room, as I understand the hesitation that some folks (myself included) might have about watching something that sounds like Christian propaganda. Faith does indeed play a huge part in the narrative here, but I’d argue that the film is more about the power of stories than a specific religion. The entire point of Oldman’s character is that he needs a unifying narrative that he can take advantage of in order to manipulate others, while Eli ultimately chooses to deliver his gift to a community of scholars. In fact, the movie even makes a point of placing the Bible in between equally culturally important books like the Torah and Quran, which I think is pretty poignant for a flick inspired by exploitation cinema.

Sure, the film has its fair share of logical inconsistencies (ranging from the extent of Eli’s Daredevil superpowers to his impossibly small Braille Bible), but I think the film more than makes up for these nitpicks with a genuine passion for classic post-apocalyptic cinema. Several critics accused the film of being a knockoff of superior productions, but I’d argue that both Whitta and the Hughes knowingly crafted a loving pastiche of genre influences like Mad Max and A Boy and His Dog.

Lastly, it’s no surprise that the cast here absolutely kicks ass. Denzel plays the title role of a stoic badass perfectly (going so far as to train with Bruce Lee’s protégée in order to perform his own stunts) while Oldman effortlessly assumes a surprisingly subdued yet incredibly intimidating persona. Even Mila Kunis is remarkably charming here, though I wish the script had taken the time to develop these secondary characters a little further. And hey, did I mention that Tom Waits is in this?


AND WHAT MAKES IT HORROR ADJACENT?

Denzel’s very first interaction with another human being in this movie results in a gory fight scene culminating in a face-off against a masked brute wielding a chainsaw (which he presumably uses to butcher travelers before eating them), so I think it’s safe to say that this dog-eat-dog vision of America will likely appeal to horror fans.

From diseased cannibals to hyper-violent motorcycle gangs roaming the wasteland, there’s plenty of disturbing R-rated material here – which is even more impressive when you remember that this story revolves around the bible. And while there are a few too many references to sexual assault for my taste, even if it does make sense in-universe, the flick does a great job of immersing you in this post-nuclear nightmare.

The excessively depressing color palette and obvious green screen effects may take some viewers out of the experience, but the beat-up and lived-in sets and costume design do their best to bring this dead world to life – which might just be the scariest part of the experience.

Ultimately, I believe your enjoyment of The Book of Eli will largely depend on how willing you are to overlook some ham-fisted biblical references in order to enjoy some brutal post-apocalyptic shenanigans. And while I can’t really blame folks who’d rather not deal with that, I think it would be a shame to miss out on a genuinely engaging thrill-ride because of one minor detail.

With that in mind, I’m incredibly curious to see what Whitta and the Hughes Brothers have planned for the upcoming prequel series starring John Boyega


There’s no understating the importance of a balanced media diet, and since bloody and disgusting entertainment isn’t exclusive to the horror genre, we’ve come up with Horror Adjacent – a recurring column where we recommend non-horror movies that horror fans might enjoy.

Continue Reading