Editorials
The 5 Most Polarizing Horror Films of 2017
*Keep up with our ongoing end of the year coverage here*
No one said all movies had to be easy to watch. 2017 was a landmark year for the horror genre, filled with critical darlings (Get Out, It, Gerald’s Game, Raw) and box office winners (It, Get Out, Split, Annabelle: Creation). There were a handful of films, however, that proved to be more controversial. Loved by some and loathed by many (or vice versa), these films were truly love-it-or-hate-it experiences. In no particular order, these are the 5 most polarizing horror films of 2017.
1. It Comes at Night
Plot – Secure within a desolate home as an unnatural threat terrorizes the world, a man (Joel Edgerton) has established a tenuous domestic order with his wife (Carmen Ejogo) and son (Kelvin Harrison Jr.). Then a desperate young family (Christopher Abbott, Riley Keough and Griffin Robert Faulkner) arrives seeking refuge.
CinemaScore – D
Rotten Tomatoes Score – 88%
MetaCritic Score – 78
Production Budget – $2,400,000
Box Office (Domestic) – $13,985,117
Box Office (Foreign) – $5,295,814
What Made It So Polarizing? – This is a classic case of mis-marketing. It Comes at Night was advertised as a horror movie about people locked in a house so as to protect themselves from whatever it is that comes at night. The movie is actually a slow burn paranoia drama with horror elements. If your movie title tells people that something comes at night and then the movie doesn’t tell you what that is, it’s not going to go over well. Of course, the “it” of the title is up to interpretation, but it isn’t a physical entity. It Comes at Night is essentially an arthouse film that was marketed as a mainstream horror film, and people felt cheated when they walked out of the theater. Make no mistake: it is a great film, but make sure you go in with your expectations in check.
2. mother!
Plot – Darren Aronofsky’s film follows a young woman (Jennifer Lawrence) whose tranquil life with her husband (Javier Bardem) at their country home is disrupted by the arrival of a mysterious couple (Michelle Pfeiffer and Ed Harris). Their personal family drama spills over into the house leading to the death of their son (Brian Gleeson) and a memorial service held at their house. After the guests leave, the couple who own the house end up at the center of a cult that turns their home into a warzone.
CinemaScore – F
Rotten Tomatoes Score – 68%
MetaCritic Score – 74
Production Budget – $30,000,000
Box Office (Domestic) – $17,800,004
Box Office (Foreign) – $26,716,995
What Made It So Polarizing? – Much like It Comes at Night, Darren Aronofsky’s mother! was marketed as a home invasion-type horror film. Add to that the star power of Jennifer Lawrence, Javier Bardem, Michelle Pfeiffer (who is on a roll this year) and Ed Harris, and you’ve got a major box office draw of a film. Unfortunately, mother! is not an easy film to watch so extremely negative word of mouth caused the film to flop (domestically, anyway). While many of the events that take place in the film are horrifying, it’s not your average horror film. Essentially an allegory for the Bible (this is my favorite interpretation of the film’s plot), mother! is a film filled with random occurrences that Aronofsky offers no explanation for. Of course, if you buy into the aforementioned allegory then it all makes sense, but it appears that many viewers still weren’t fond of the film (hence that F CinemaScore). The final 20 minutes are filled to the brim with such grotesque imagery and brutal violence that many viewers expecting a more straightforward horror film may have found a bit too disturbing. Is it genius? Or is it pretentious dreck? That is up for you to decide, but there is no right or wrong answer.
3. The Killing of a Sacred Deer
Plot – A cardiac surgeon (Colin Farrell) secretly befriends a teenage boy (Barry Keoghan). He introduces the boy to his family (Nicole Kidman, Raffey Cassiddy and Sunny Suljic), who then fall mysteriously ill. The boy reveals that this is revenge for the doctor killing his father on the operating table three years earlier and it will only end with the death of a family member, a decision he must make.
CinemaScore – N/A
Rotten Tomatoes Score – 79%
MetaCritic Score – 73
Production Budget – N/A
Box Office (Domestic) – $2,141,430 (as of November 30, 2017)
Box Office (Foreign) – N/A
What Made It So Polarizing? – Probably the film’s lack of explanation and the overall surreality of the film. The world in Yorgos Lanthimos’ The Killing of a Sacred Deer is a peculiar one. The way the characters talk and react to things lead you to believe that this isn’t the “real” world, but rather one of Lanthimos’ design. This is apparently a trait from all of his films (The Killing of a Sacred Deer was my introduction to Lanthimos, so I can’t say for sure), but if you don’t know that going in then you may be taken aback. Also, no explanation is given for the seemingly supernatural events in the film. Things just…..happen. As mentioned above, audiences want to know why things are happening. If you don’t give them that, they will walk out frustrated. The film is splitting audiences right down the middle (even us at Bloody Disgusting were divided, as evidenced by my glowing review and Benedict Seal’s scathing one), but one thing it also does is demand discussion. Whether you love it or hate it, you will want to talk about it the second you walk out of the theater.
4. We Are the Flesh
Plot – After wandering a ruined city for years in search of food and shelter, two siblings (Mariía Evoli and Diego Gamaliel) find their way into one of the last remaining buildings. Inside, they find a man (Noé Hernández) who will make them a dangerous offer to survive the outside world.
CinemaScore – N/A
Rotten Tomatoes Score – 75%
MetaCritic Score – 62
Production Budget – N/A
Box Office (Domestic) – $8,438
Box Office (Foreign) – N/A
What Made It So Polarizing? – Besides the fact that it’s basically porn, Emiliano Rocha Minter’s debut feature We Are the Flesh (review) is quite possibly the most difficult film to digest this year. The film is primarily interested in breaking a plethora of societal taboos, including but not limited to incest, pornography the ingestion of period blood. It can’t be denied that Minter has filmmaking talent (sound design is one of the highlights here), but whether or not you like what he puts on screen is another matter entirely. We Are the Flesh will try your patience in a way almost no other film will.
5. Alien: Covenant
Plot – In Ridley Scott’s second Alien prequel, he crew of a colony ship, bound for a remote planet, discover an uncharted paradise with a threat beyond their imagination, and must attempt a harrowing escape.
CinemaScore – B
Rotten Tomatoes Score – 68%
MetaCritic Score – 65
Budget – $97,000,000
Box Office (Domestic) – $74,262,031
Box Office (Foreign) – $166,483,733
What Made It So Polarizing? – This was a case of a film having an identity crisis. It was trying to please too many people at once. You see, after the mixed reaction to Prometheus, 20th Century Fox and Ridley Scott decided that the sequel (and Alien prequel) needed to feature more xenomorph action. That meant that much of what happens directly after Prometheus had to be abbreviated significantly. So basically an entire film (featuring Elizabeth Shaw’s journey to the engineers’ planet) was condensed into a quick 5-minute flashback sequence. This was both a huge disservice to the Shaw character as well as fans of Prometheus, because despite the mixed reception of Prometheus, it does have its fans. Had the remainder of the film been more original it might have had won over more people (I gave it a middling review), but even the xenomorph action is a retread of multiple moments from the previous Alien films (that underwhelming climax included). Still, Alien: Covenant did also have its fans. The problem Fox has now is that half of their audience wants to see a sequel more like Covenant, while the other half wants the series to go back to a style like Prometheus. They need to pick one route to go and commit to it.
Which films did you find to be the most polarizing of 2017? Let us know in the comments below!
“Elevated Horror.” Of all the combinations in the English language, that one is the most insufferable.
It represents almost a decade of scary movies that, for the most part, took themselves too seriously. Horror responds to the moment, so its “why so serious” lean makes sense as we scuttle through the “worst of times” equation of Charles Dickens’ famous opening lines. But there’s still an opening and a need for a lighter approach; one that not only has fun with its audience but takes the piss out of a genre that is seemingly letting its newfound “respectability” go to its head.
Wes Craven believed devotees see horror films to let out their fears one primal scream at a time. At their core, these movies are roller coasters; they bring us as close to the edge as possible before pulling us back into a safety net of reality. The need for a bigger and badder coaster increases during times when the size of that net decreases.
There’s a thrill that comes from imagining being in a foot race with a madman, or outthinking the hordes of zombies on the other side of the door, plus the scavenger humans coming behind them. There’s even a rush that comes from imagining how one might deal with possession to see good triumph over evil in the end. It’s all about building tension and releasing it through catharsis. That cathartic release usually sounds like screams followed by laughter, which signals relief. Genre heavy hitters over the past 10 years offered very little of that respite when the credits rolled. Films like Hereditary, The Witch, Talk to Me, and even Smile (pick one) keep that tension going after the screen fades to black.
Hereditary
As the genre became obsessed with creating trauma metaphors, that lack of release made sense. Anyone with even a small sample size of traumatic experiences knows those emotions don’t magically resolve themselves in an allotted run time. But how much trauma can one take? Especially when there’s a mess going on outside that few of us can escape from. Movies offer that off-ramp, no matter how short.
Everything can’t be, nor should it be, “elevated.” Audiences need thoughtful explorations of life’s ills via monsters as much as they need murdering masked maniacs with kitchen knives. And no, it doesn’t have to go any deeper than that. Sometimes, a knife is just a knife, and it’s still worth our time and respect. As weird as it sounds, that simplicity is comforting not in spite of the trauma but because of it.
The worst of times should manifest more than just anguish. People need to laugh just as much as they need to think seriously about this moment in time. Even the Scream franchise forgot the meta rock upon which it built its church when the latest foray sacrificed the subtle comedy for serious drama. Scary Movie returned at the perfect moment. It provides the necessary laughs, but it’s not a cure-all.
This isn’t a call for Scary Movie imitators but a return to a mainstream landscape where Killer Klowns from Outer Space sat with The Serpent and the Rainbow, nestled neatly with the latest Nightmare on Elm Street, which took nothing away from The Vanishing.
They Live
Even They Live, John Carpenter’s horror sci-fi satire sandwich, kept its tongue firmly in cheek while discussing serious ideas still relevant in 2026. Yes, a film about aliens taking over the world through subliminal messaging only visible through coded sunglasses is, in fact, a tad silly. Carpenter understood that mainstream horror can’t become so self-important that it never looks itself in the mirror and laughs at that inherent silliness.
The thing is, horror historically excels at poking fun at itself. Most of the Scream franchise, The Cabin in the Woods, or The Blackening show adoration without kowtowing. They recognize tropes and trappings but invert them for an audience already in on the joke, but one that also finds solace in said conventions. This keeps the genre on its toes; once something gets parodied, it’s usually time to evolve. That breeds new ideas and fresh filmmakers, which not only strengthen the genre’s collective voice but also amplify it.
Get Out, as “elevated” as some critics want us to believe it is, is a cathartic, populist scary movie that spoke to an untapped audience rather than speaking down to them. Backrooms is one of the biggest horror hits in years, partially because it’s fine-tuned for modern-day teenagers instead of their parents. Movies like these tell everyone the genre is open for business; open for innovation and, yeah, open for new ways in which people can lovingly poke fun at with a wink and a nudge.
Horror needs dread as much as it needs laughter.
Catharsis is just as important as tension, and pulpy populism has the same merit as more high-brow material. Respectability shouldn’t come at the expense of an experience akin to walking through a haunted house. At a time when joy seems in short supply, horror should look to its past to map out its future, and make things just a tad brighter for audiences.
Backrooms
You must be logged in to post a comment.