Editorials
Best & Worst of 2010: The Year’s Worst One Sheets
The task of selling a film is probably much, much harder than any of us realize, which is why posters meant to stir up excitement for upcoming releases are often so badly calculated. 2010 has been no exception, with a large number of god-awful (or just plain boring) one-sheets cluttering up the lobbies of multiplexes all across the country. Here’s B-D’s list of the worst offenders from the past year.

BEST ONE SHEETS | WORST ONE SHEETS
WORST ONE SHEETS OF 2010
Click any to see it larger
Posters listed in no particular order

Remember the posters from the first few movies? They were hand-drawn, imaginative, museum-quality works of art. As for the remake, I guess this generic one-sheet is the best they could come up with – a sentiment you could also apply to the movie itself. When it comes right down to it, simply throwing up an image of the “new Freddy” and calling it a day is just lazy marketing.

The problem with this poster is pretty simple – we have no idea what kind of movie they’re advertising. Judging by the soft blue light shining from above, this could very well be a tear-jerking drama about a…fucked-up mutant woman with a tail. The film itself was a boundary-pushing horror/sci-fi (albeit an uneven one), and this one-sheet should’ve done a better job at communicating that.

The issue here is the same as with the Nightmare on Elm Street poster – simply showing us an image of the villain is a really weak, uninspired way to sell a movie. Also, the movie is called Predators, plural, right? So where are the rest of them?

What is he firing that gatling-gun at, the ground? And why are they hiding the scarred half of Jonah Hex’s face? This poster is far too generic for the adaptation of a comic-book series known for its imaginative genre-mixing.

From quite possibly the two laziest filmmakers on the planet comes one of the most godawful one-sheets in the history of film advertising. From the looks of it, Fox just farmed this puppy out to a bunch of high school freshmen taking a “Beginning Photoshop” class. Hey, is that someone dressed up as Lady Gaga in the background? A-hardy-har-har!

While the other Piranha one-sheet made our “best-of” list, this one qualifies as one of the year’s worst. Talk about generic – this could’ve been the poster for any number of “killer underwater creature” movies from the last twenty years. Also, the tagline should’ve read “This Summer Fake 3D Shows Its Teeth”, don’t you think?

When you have a winning formula, I guess there’s no reason to mix it up. Still, seeing the same basic image on every single Resident Evil one sheet is getting a little tiresome. Also, I’d like to call for a moratorium on jagged shards of glass representing the 3-D experience on movie posters.

It’s soft-core porn meets Captivity in this awful, lowest-common-denominator one-sheet advertising the upcoming remake of the cult classic 1970 thriller. Pass the cheese.

It’s no wonder Case 39 failed at the box-office. After years of delays and overwhelmingly negative buzz, Paramount couldn’t even be bothered to come up with a decent poster. So what’s it about, exactly? A haunted house? An evil child? Killer luggage? Kinda hard to tell from the pedestrian imagery featured here.

Look, we made $100 million with the first one – do people really give a shit about the poster? Just slap a still from the movie on there like we did with the original! Gosh, this money smells good.

For a cult phenomenon like Hatchet, you’ve gotta give the uninitiated (and those who were only lukewarm on the first movie) a reason to see it. How is it different, etc.? This generic poster is a snooze that could’ve been used to advertise almost any other slasher flick released in the last 30 years.

The sight of Amanda Seyfried walking through a forest just screams “excitement!”, doesn’t it?

Cursed with a premise that’s about ten years too late, this movie follows a group of teens who are forwarded a chain letter (over that new-fangled email) and murdered one by one when they fail to send it along. So I’m just gonna take a guess that in crafting this head-scratching poster, the marketing team at the studio was attempting to hide the fact that the concept of their movie reached “horribly dated” status right around 2005. What other explanation could there be? So there’s a dude wearing pajamas…in chains…lying on top of a barcode…and the tagline is “The Art of Killing”. Ok, I give up.

As if the negative buzz surrounding My Soul to Take wasn’t already bad enough, Rogue had to go and release this incredibly shitty one-sheet to advertise it. Not that I can necessarily blame them – the film’s needlessly complex premise is nearly impossible to sum up in a single image. This poster is the equivalent of the entire marketing team throwing up their hands in frustration.

Here’s an idea: just copy the exploitative poster art used to market the original movie, except render it in B&W so people think it’s more artistic. Then print it. Easy breezy!

Based on this poster, we know the following about The Rite: 1) Academy-Award winner Anthony Hopkins is in it, and his eyes are really blue; 2) the movie has something to do with religion (hence the cross!); and 3) You can only defeat it when you believe (like “evil”, maybe)? Gee, I haven’t been this excited about a slot-filling religious horror movie since Lost Souls dropped back in 2000.
Editorials
How Marina de Van Uses Body Horror and Pain to Explore Trauma in ‘In My Skin’ and ‘Dark Touch’
Pain is the language of New French Extremity.
Known for excruciating violence and gore, what often distinguishes these visceral films is the depiction of emotional turmoil manifested as the destruction of human flesh. Few filmmakers make this comparison so literally as Marina de Van.
The French writer/director burst onto the scene in 2002 with her shocking In My Skin, a tale of self-discovery via grisly self-harm. Eleven years later, she would write and direct Dark Touch, the harrowing story of a traumatized girl who expresses her pain through telekinetic force.
Though they differ wildly in tone and subject, both In My Skin and Dark Touch deal with the horror of unexpressed agony and its tendency to break the skin, ripping and shredding through anything in its path.
In My Skin (2002): Self-Harm as a Response to Emotional Repression

This intensely personal film stars de Van as Esther, a corporate analyst on the verge of having it all. Her adoring boyfriend Vincent (Laurent Lucas) is poised to move in, and she’s been targeted for promotion thanks to her diligent work. During a high-pressure networking party, Esther wanders outside and trips over an open construction site, ripping her pants on an abandoned tool. It’s only later that she notices blood on the floor and realizes that she’s torn the skin of her calf as well. Surprisingly, Esther has not felt a thing.
The surgeon who stitches up the wound marvels at this lack of sensitivity, wondering if the problem is not her shredded flesh — she’s still able to feel the lightest touch — but a misalignment in her head. This wound unlocks a disturbing pattern of dissociative self-mutilation as Esther begins cutting and gouging her skin to cope with moments of emotional stress.
Her first intentional act of self-harm follows a minor mistake in a document. After noticing that she’s misused a word, Esther fixes the error, then sneaks away to slice her thigh with a stray piece of metal. Though she has caught the mistake herself, Esther anticipates punishment for imperfection. The subsequent wound on her thigh is proof that she has paid for her transgression and can now return to solid ground, having completed the cycle of shameful correction.
As we peel back the layers of Esther’s life, we’re aghast at the toxicity of her environment. The inciting fall happens shortly after she politely declines a dinner invitation from her older colleague, an inappropriate sexual advance dressed up as an offer for mentorship. At another party, her male coworkers drag her towards the pool, threatening to pull off her pants when she screams that she’s not wearing a bathing suit.
Esther flees this disturbing scene, but not because of the men’s aggressiveness. She’s disturbed to find that her struggle to break free has reopened the still-healing wound on her leg, causing unsightly blood to seep through her pants. Like many women in the corporate world, she’s been conditioned to view her presence as an optional privilege and to create comfort for her male colleagues. Should she negatively react to their atrocious behavior, they may deem her “too emotional” and take away her hard-earned position.

But this toxic environment only exacerbates Esther’s need to self-harm. At a working dinner, a wealthy client pressures her to drink expensive wine, then continues to refill her glass. Increasingly unmoored, Esther finds her hand creeping onto her dinner plate. After repeatedly dragging it out of her food, she notices the appendage lying limp on the table, completely disconnected from her upper arm. This surrealist moment in an otherwise grounded film is a turning point in her violent journey. Esther sees how desensitized her body has become and the lengths she will go to perform unobtrusive compliance.
Desperate to regain control, Esther gouges her forearm with a steak knife stolen from the table, hiding the carnage under a napkin. Humiliated, she concludes the evening in a nearby hotel, where she indulges this dangerous new compulsion. For hours, Esther lovingly slices her arms and legs, gnawing on loose flesh and suckling blood from extensive wounds. She seems enamored with her ability to feel again without being perceived by anyone else.
Disturbed by her scars, Vincent offers shaky support while contributing to Esther’s unexpressed pain. During an intense discussion about buying their first home, Esther forgets her PIN at an ATM and bursts into tears on the street. Vincent offers an easy solution, only showing his frustration behind closed doors. He lashes out at his stunned girlfriend, conflating her emotional stress with his own inadequacy.
Clearly destabilized by her tears, Vincent baits Esther into soothing him, an echo of the cycle she performs at work. We see that even at home, her emotional needs come second to men who are unequipped to handle their own feelings. Esther has internalized the responsibility of managing Vincent alongside the message that any break in her calm demeanor will lead to more suffering later on.

In the wake of this argument and a rebuke from her boss, Esther suffers a panic attack while walking to work. In a daze, she buys another knife, then takes a hotel room for the day. Blood runs over Esther’s face as she again luxuriates in self-mutilation. De Van finds an uneasy juxtaposition between gruesome carnage and euphoric escape. Alone again with her exquisite pain, Esther seductively runs the knife over her face, digging into the skin around her eye. She chemically preserves a severed piece of flesh then lovingly tucks it inside her bra, a keepsake to honor this violent vacation.
The next day, Esther prepares for work, pulling office attire over her blood-stained skin. De Van does not follow her out the door, leaving us to imagine how she will be received by the men in her life. Will they finally see what they’ve put her through, or will life continue as before, with Esther pretending that nothing is wrong and performing perfection until her body gives out? De Van ends the film with the striking image of Esther lying on the hotel bed, fixing the audience with a knowing stare. Though she carefully hides her fragility, we alone have seen the true cost of survival in this destructive world.
Dark Touch (2013): Trauma, Abuse, and Supernatural Revenge

In many ways, this shocking story of catharsis through violence feels like a thematic response to In My Skin and Esther’s unexpressed pain. Also written and directed by de Van, Dark Touch follows an Irish girl named Niamh (Missy Keating) who becomes the sole survivor of a massacre.
We first meet this little girl screaming from her bedroom window, then running through the stormy night to the house of family friends Nat (Marcella Plunkett) and Lucas Galin (Pádraic Delaney). Niamh’s parents smooth over the incident, presenting the illusion of a happy home. It’s only when the doors are closed that we realize something is dreadfully wrong. De Van implies the worst as the sinister couple creeps into their daughter’s room, commanding her to be a “good girl.” But Niamh is saved from horrific abuse by furniture that seems to move on its own.
De Van leans into her French Extremity roots in what will become a gruesome execution. Niamh’s mother is crushed by a splintering bureau, a loose screw driving itself into her face. Her father watches his wife’s grisly death, then falls on the blades of an ultra-modern light fixture. Flames spread through the house as Niamh cradles her infant brother in a tiny cupboard. When rescuers arrive on the scene, we learn that the baby boy has died, mysteriously smothered by an inhuman force. Now an orphan, Niamh goes to stay with Nat and Lucas, who struggle to meet her emotional needs. Unable to explain her traumatic past, Niamh finds that things move whenever she cries, an outward manifestation of her silenced rage.

Though Nat and Lucas offer support, they only seem to make things worse. Lucas volunteers to stay in Niamh’s room when she has a bad dream, oblivious to the discomfort his presence might cause. Growing impatient when she can’t fall asleep, a snide comment betrays his empty concern. Niamh finally finds solace in photos of the couple’s older daughter, who died from cancer years ago. She clings to an image of the little girl blowing out birthday candles while covered in bruises, drawn to the familiar juxtaposition of a child suffering through visible pain while going about life as if nothing is wrong.
But this too enrages Lucas. When he finds the pictures under her bed, the weeping father shakes Niamh and demands to know what gives her the right to bring up such a devastating memory. While perhaps understandable, Lucas’ reaction tells the traumatized girl that his comfort is the true priority, and she is not allowed to soothe herself.
Niamh’s only friends in the tiny town are young siblings from a similarly violent home. Whistling to them in the night, Niamh uses her emerging telekinesis to kill their abusive mother in an attack similar to the one that destroyed her own family. When Nat arranges for Niamh to attend a birthday party, she bristles at the other girls’ treatment of their baby dolls. They slap and rip at their faux children’s hair, seeming to process their own quasi-abusive upbringing. As she bursts into tears, Niamh spreads fire through the party and melts the faces of the mistreated dolls. That night, she lures the children to school and then destroys the building, violently disrupting what she interprets as a continuous cycle of child abuse.

Next, Niamh turns her attention to her foster parents, telepathically trapping them in her former home. For hours, she puts them through a series of torturous humiliations we assume she endured at her own parents’ hands. Now, Nat and Lucas must suffer in silence as Niamh finally reveals the extent of her misery. Forced to sit with their tormentor at a dinner table, Nat and Lucas quietly weep as flames spread throughout the home. Like Naimh once did, they go through the motions of a happy family, unable to protect themselves. Their foster daughter smiles as the fire consumes them all, finally putting an end to her tragic life.
Despite this murderous conclusion, Niamh is not a traditional villain. She’s a horrifically abused little girl who can’t find a way to express her pain. Though she’s managed to remove herself from immediate danger, every attempt to heal is met with stigma, resentment, or the burden of caring for someone else. When her trauma becomes too uncomfortable, she’s advised to simply stay out of sight.
Like Esther, Niamh exists in a world that expects her to create comfort for everyone else, regardless of the suffering it causes her. But Niamh’s agony can no longer be contained. Abandoning all hope for a happy life, she channels her rage and destroys anyone who crosses her path. Perhaps this is not fair to Nat and Lucas or the children of this tiny town. But what happened to Niamh is also unfair, and her trauma can no longer be ignored.
Though they do not narratively connect, Dark Touch feels like a spiritual successor to In My Skin. Both Esther and Niamh try to swallow their pain, but find it too great to be contained. We leave Esther struggling to stay afloat in a world of male toxicity. Picking up Niamh’s story at a similar moment, we watch the child escape her own abuse only to find that the world doesn’t really care. Her community will only offer support if it doesn’t disrupt their own lives.
Though de Van does not offer us hopeful endings, there’s grim satisfaction in revealing the world as it is, one built on the expectation that women will suffer in silence. Both In My Skin and Dark Touch seem to argue that a society built on women’s pain does not deserve a second chance.


You must be logged in to post a comment.