This is mon­ster San­dra Bul­lock would have seen with­out her blind­fold in ‘Bird Box’

The Kansas City Star - - Fyi - BY LISA GUTIERREZ lgutier­[email protected]­star.com

In “Bird Box,” view­ers never get to see the mon­ster that tries to drive San­dra Bul­lock to sui­ci­dal in­san­ity. She avoids mak­ing deadly eye con­tact with it by wear­ing that now-in­fa­mous blind­fold.

But we’ve seen the mon­ster. And it’s OK to look. Re­ally.

Turns out, he’s a big baby.

Spe­cial ef­fects com­pany SFX At­las posted pho­tos on In­sta­gram of the mon­ster that was pur­pose­fully left to lan­guish on the prover­bial cut­ting room floor of the Net­flix hit. The pho­tos have since been deleted, but movie fans grabbed them be­fore they dis­ap­peared and shared them on so­cial me­dia.

“The un­seen crea­ture from Bird Box cre­ated at @kn­b_efx that was sadly cut from the fi­nal film,” the post read. “Andy Bergholtz @andy_bergholtz sculpted and pre­painted the pros­thet­ics. Stephen Prouty @proutyfx went to set and ap­plied the makeup on ac­tor Dirk Rogers @the­hal­loweendirk.”

Bul­lock de­scribed the mon­ster in an in­ter­view last month with Blood­Dis­gust­ing hor­ror movie web­site. “It was a green man with a hor­rific baby face,” she said. “It was snake-like, and I was like, ‘I don’t want to see it when it first hap­pens. Just bring it into the room. We’ll shoot the scene.’

“I turn and he’s like this (growl­ing at me). It’s mak­ing me laugh. It was just a long fat baby.”

Laugh­ter wasn’t ex­actly what the film­mak­ers were after.

“We ac­tu­ally shot that and spent a lot of en­ergy on, but ev­ery time I saw it, I was like this is not go­ing to be tense. It’s just go­ing to be funny,” di­rec­tor Su­sanne Bier told Bloody Dis­gust­ing.

Ul­ti­mately, film­mak­ers de­cided to leave the mon­ster to ev­ery viewer’s imag­i­na­tion.

After the pho­tos were re­vealed, TV Guide wrote that “it’s not hard to see why the film­mak­ers de­cided to let the movie ride with­out ever re­veal­ing the visage of the vil­lain that threw the world into mad­ness.”

Put TV Guide in the “not im­pressed” cat­e­gory.

“This guy ... looks more like the kind of generic hob­gob­lin that might be­long in an en­tirely dif­fer­ent kind of movie, like The De­scent or some moody ’90s Stephen King hor­ror like ‘Storm of the Cen­tury’,” it wrote.

“Cer­tainly, it doesn’t fit with the tone and nar­ra­tive frame­work of ‘Bird Box,’ so who­ever made the de­ci­sion to nix it made the right call and, frankly, that de­ci­sion alone may have been the dif­fer­ence in mak­ing the movie the mini-pop cul­ture phe­nom it has be­come.”

Hor­ror en­thu­si­ast Ja­cob Dressler, writ­ing for ScreenGeek, pro­claimed that “it’s not that bad of a crea­ture de­sign.”

“While the crea­tures in ‘Bird Box’ are sup­posed to take upon the fear of who­ever sees them, the de­sign it­self would’ve been pretty cool for a Hills Have Eyes sce­nario,” he wrote.

“Ei­ther way, I don’t think the idea of show­ing the mon­sters is that bad. They just could’ve put a lit­tle more ef­fort into some­thing more cre­ative. Maybe throw in some David Cro­nen­berg styled body hor­ror, that’d give a nice twist on the con­cept.”

Mean­while, Net­flix is busy warn­ing peo­ple away from the #BirdBoxChal­lenge bub­bling up on so­cial me­dia. Not hard to fig­ure out how that one goes — try to per­form an every­day task while blind­folded.

Stop that, says Net­flix.

Screengrab from Twit­ter

The “Bird Box” mon­ster that drives ev­ery­one to sui­ci­dal in­san­ity is never shown in the San­dra Bul­lock hit movie on Net­flix. But pho­tos — now deleted — were shared on In­sta­gram and re­veal it had a baby face.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from USA

© PressReader. All rights reserved.