FIVE FILMS FROM...2007

28 WEEKS LATER

(Directed by Juan Carlos Fresnadillo)

'Abandon selective targeting. Shoot everything. Targets are now free. We've lost control.'

As I write this, “28 Years Later” is enjoying a nationwide release .And although it’s great to see the swell of interest for it, the cast that are involved, and the fact that Danny Boyle is behind the camera again…. It comes as something of a shock to realise that it’s not quite been 28 years, but it has been 18 years since this last entry in this hibernating horror franchise. And whilst Boyle’s seminal and hugely influential “Days” is still held in high reverence, much about this very well-done sequel is almost forgotten about. Did you remember that Idris Elba is in it? Or that Jeremy Renner was the real lead. Most people have that opening sequence (more on that in a minute) seared into their memory, the unfortunate twist involving the fate of Robert Carlyle’s character, and Paris being screwed in the last minute. But much else about the film is not really in the collective memory as such.

After the massive success and social/creative impact of “Days” in 2002, the creative team (Boyle, producer Andrew Macdonald, and screenwriter Alex Garland) were keen to capitalise on the “rage” for a new film. Unfortunately, it took longer to pull together than anticipated, and with Boyle busy on “Sunshine”, it fell to Spanish filmmaker Juan Carlos Fresnadillo to take the helm. As Cillian Murphy and Naomie Harris were unavailable (and being the only survivors of the first film), a new cast was put together for the standalone sequel. Along with Renner, Carlyle, and Elba, Rose Byrne and Imogen Poots are there in crucial roles (with the exception of Carlyle, all arguably just before they appeared in the roles that made them as well-known as they are now). Mostly filmed in London (Canary Wharf and surrounding areas) and Wales (Cardiff’s Millennium Stadium standing in for Wembley), and an imaginative promotional campaign was launched. This consisted of several graphic novels and a superb stunt where the biohazard symbol synonymous with the franchise was projected onto the white cliffs of Dover.

The story takes the set-up of 28 Days Later as a starting point, where a chemically engineered and extremely contagious “Rage” virus is introduced into the British population and decimates it (within 28 Days, obvs). However, the film doesn’t start 28 weeks later, but rather during the peak of the initial outbreak. A stunningly edited opening sequence sees bad decision-making befall a group of survivors in a rural area near London. We witness Don (Carlyle) experience a “Force Majeure” moment where he must make a split-second decision to save his own skin or help his wife (Catherine McCormack as Alice). Amid panic, he goes the scumbag route and leaves his missus at the mercy of the infected hordes. Now… we go 28 weeks later, when the majority of the infected have died (being unable to coherently think, they just starve) and the whole of Great Britain is under quarantine by NATO forces. A gradual rebuilding of the social infrastructure is being slowly organised, meaning that uninfected settlers and refugees are being herded together for reintegration. This includes Don and his two children (Poots as Tammy and Mackintosh Muggleton as Andy), with the patriarch crumbling under the guilt of his previous actions. However, the chance discovery of a still-alive Alice (who is revealed as unknowingly being an asymptomatic carrier of the virus) leads to a domino effect that culminates in another massive outbreak.

Within that narrative, some were a bit ticked off that it was Renner and Byrne (as US soldiers that become the unwitting guardians of Dan’s kids) that became the de-facto leads, which felt like it was pandering to an international market somewhat and lost some of the sheer “British-ness” of the first film. But they are good in the roles, and it seems like a natural progression in the story. The whole thing (with extra elements added by Fresnadillo along the way) works really well, both as a continuation of the plot arc and as a standalone story. There are genuinely shocking elements (Don’s desertion of his wife, the unwise kiss with Alice, etc). It’s not quite as “raw” or innovative as the first film, but it’s certainly no slouch in its visuals and with the emotional gut punches that it throws about.

The first thing to praise is that absolutely stunning opening sequence. It’s filmed as a real-time depiction of breathless sequences, with the same jittery and personal camerawork that personified the tone of “Days”. People admit a scared boy into the midst, paying for their humanity immediately, as this attracts a “Rage” horde in a series of relentless attacks. As the biting and screaming of the innocent ensue, the instrumental metal-ish theme music (“In the House – In a Heartbeat” by John Murphy) is gradually ramped up to deafening levels, whilst Carlyle runs like the clappers from frothing-mouthed nutters who look like they’re just about to overtake him at any second. It’s breathless stuff and immediately silenced anyone who thought that this would be a lightweight also-ran sequel. Incidentally, Murphy’s score and work are outstanding throughout “Days” and “Weeks”, but he is not scoring “Years”. Boo.

And if Boyle’s original emphasised the breakdown of society through loneliness and unexplained threats, then “Weeks” ramps up the feeling of chaos and hopelessness in the face of overwhelming odds. This is no more apparent than the heartbreaking scene where Don is infected (sorry for spoilers, but it HAS been 18 years!) and when certain lead characters bite the bullet (or are burned alive!). Pure nightmare fuel is supplied when Don goes berserk in the shelter and pretty much starts another infection wave. The necessity of indiscriminate violence in a “war” is shown when Renner’s character snipes away at an unstoppable horde, especially when innocents are in the crossfire. Could’ve done without the eye-rolling “It’s all gone FUBAR” quip though, and some attempts to “Americanise” the action sequences.

It does, perhaps, go a bit overboard with the jerky and blurry movements of the camera in many sequences, with motion sickness sufferers being urged to keep a vomit bag with them at all times. But at least this visual punchiness underlines the carnage and carries on the dynamic motifs from “Days”. All in all, this is a very worthy sequel that builds on the premise and promise of Boyle’s offering. A personal highlight is the amazing sequence where an army helicopter literally mows down an infected horde with its blades, scattering limbs, heads, and blood everywhere! Now that’s zombie entertainment!

It got a decent critical and audience reaction at the time, although it was somewhat undermined by the release of Spider-Man 3 (and we all know how that’s thought of these days). It remains surprising, then, that further follow-ups were not immediately approved. This is probably due to Boyle (and Alex Garland), being the creators of the original film, moving on to many other projects. In fact, it was only recently revealed that Sunshine was going to be part of an interplanetary trilogy. Somehow. The bolted-on ending (see the “Fun Fact” below) could have easily led to other stories in other countries. But the hilarious online furore over a misplaced identification of Cillian Murphy in the 28 Years Later trailer only proves the amount of investment that people have in the brand. “Weeks” might not be as impactful or as fondly remembered as “Days”, but it’s still a great film that deserves revisits and a better reputation in the horror annals.

Fun Fact: Ironically, the very last scene-stinger (suggesting that France is now overrun by the Infected, presumably due to the events that immediately precede it) was an unintended and last-minute addition to the movie. Two days before the final edit was due to be handed into the studio, Fresnadillo and a small crew flew to Paris on a whim and shot the very last sequence completely guerrilla style. Only twelve local actors are playing the infected, and just one DV camera was used. Sound for the scene was only added and mixed back in London after their quick return. It works brilliantly, although it looks like France lucked out whilst the UK remains in quarantine in “28 Years Later”. We have yet to verify this.

ROGUE

(Directed by Greg McLean)

'The tide is moving in quick and people are falling apart. We've got to do something. Now.'

So, you’re an Australian filmmaker who’s just had enormous international success with the gritty and nihilistic story of an Outback serial killer. What do you do next? Obvious, really, you make an animal horror film about a bloody huge man-eating saltwater crocodile, drawing on the popular perception that all wildlife in Australia seemingly wants to kill, bite, eat, or sting you. A place so infamously insidious with its wildlife that several films have been made about the completely fictional “Drop Bear”. That filmmaker was Greg McLean. That first film was the inimitable “Wolf Creek”. And this follow-up was Rogue … or Territory if you were in Finland… or Solitaire (?!?) if you were in France. Rogue is its best-known moniker, though, and it certainly deserves mention in the pantheon of worthy croc-horror that’s out there. Shot on location in the Northern Territories, the cast includes several notable names, including Sam Worthington (the “Avatar” films), Radha Mitchell (Pitch Black), and John Jarratt (Wolf Creek, of course). It also features Kevin and Burt, whom we’ll get to shortly.

The story takes place in (unsurprisingly) a remote area of Northern Australia, with a group of typical tourists engaging in a river cruise in a National Park. The tour is being run by wildlife researcher Kate Ryan (Mitchell), who hopes to highlight the natural beauty (and dangers) of the surroundings. However, some way into the boat journey, a distress flare is seen, and the decision is made to veer into an estuary to investigate. Admirable ethics, but it’s not a good move. Coming across a sunken boat (but no survivors), the vessel is rammed by “something” underwater and ends up wrecked on a small tributary island. Safe for the moment, they realise that the tide is rising and the (initially unseen) predator will be able to pick them off easily when they are forced to swim for it as night falls. When it does reveal itself, the stage is set for a battle of wits between this toothy behemoth (a saltwater crocodile in excess of 7 metres in length) and the poorly equipped group. Place your bets as to who survives and how they do it…

On paper, there’s not really much to separate Rogue from similar films about killer crocs. Black Water and Lake Placid are the most obvious comparisons, but it also has similar traits to the multitudes of cheap Italian exploitations that used these reptiles as a substitution for a shark in all the Jaws rip-offs from the 80s onwards. Not to mention the sublime and goofy thrills of Alligator (1980). It can’t compete with “Placid” in terms of effects, budget, or spectacle. But what it does do is play the story absolutely straight and wrings out all the tension possible from such a simple set-up.

What is somewhat atypical is that the “antagonist” is kept mostly from view until the final sequence. If that seems a bit “Jaws”-ish, then that is probably intentional, and also serves to up the tension and keep the SFX budget lower. But it does work here. You can point out a few horror and disaster-movie tropes or clichés. Such as the person who lingers juuust a little too long on the beach, the individual who freezes in terror, the good-boy dog (that’ll be Kevin), or the character you think is the assigned hero becoming unexpected monster chow. As such, it’s not hugely innovative or unique, but it is done very solidly and (much like a certain scene) blows comparable films out of the water in some respects.

Things run pretty much as you would expect, but genuine suspense and palpable tension come from the natural surroundings and the reactions of the cast. Mitchell is an extremely dependable genre actress and comes across as a likeable and commanding character here. Michael Vartan (Bates Motel) as Pete McKell also makes for a decent protagonist, gradually being promoted to cool-guy hero as the film progresses. Several worthy sequences are of note, with the attempted “rope bridge” escape being a prime example, along with the attempted “rescue” from the larrikins attempting to roast Michell’s character after she rebuffs them. Best of all, though, is the climactic descent into the croc’s lair to rescue someone, with two cast members being in constant peril, and one of them coming up with a truly pants-wetting way to combat the creature!

It’s also in this final section that we only really see the monster in all its glory. Whilst the special effects are not going to trouble Jurassic Park or the original Lake Placid (not the sequels, all of which are infamously shoddy in that respect), they are surprisingly effective and realistic. Throughout the film, the croc is represented by animatronics and decent CG, as well as being acted out and visually modelled by “Burt”. Burt was also in Crocodile Dundee and only passed away in 2024 at the age of 90! We salute you Burt, and the memories you left us, you bad-tempered old git! As such, the threat given off by CG-Burt and other filming techniques feels genuinely scary and has a realistic tinge to it, which is missing from other exploitation films.

That’s not to say that Rogue doesn’t have a typically Aussie sense of humour layered through it. “Can’t find the flares…” says one character mournfully. “Would they be in a giant yellow box with the word ‘flares’ written on the side of it?” says another as they look at a floating container right in the middle of the croc’s kill zone. But it happily plays up to the expected sense of danger and torturous dilemmas that films like this are supposed to have. It’s good, simple fun and should easily be in anyone’s top 5 films when it comes to crocodile horror movies. Snappy entertainment. Along with the Wolf Creek movies, the only other direct movie forays that McLean has had into the genre have been The Darkness and The Belko Experiment. Perhaps, he could return to Aussie Animals once again at some point. Funnel Web Fury, anyone?

Fun fact: Whilst the film in no way purports to be based on a “true story”, the narrative was inspired by the genuine existence of "Sweetheart". This inappropriately named animal (so named because he resided in “Sweets Billabong”) was a 16-foot saltwater crocodile known to be responsible for a series of attacks between 1974-79. Without a trace of fear, he attacked outboard motors, dinghies, fishing boats, and anything else that floated into his territory. However, despite chomping down on waterborne vessels with alarming regularity, he never directly attacked or killed any human. But authorities still hunted him down, and in July 1979, Sweetheart was finally caught alive by a team from the Wildlife Commission. However, he drowned during transportation when he became trapped by a log, although this was at least partially due to a large dose of a strong animal sedative. His mounted body is on permanent display at the Museum and Art Gallery of the Northern Territory, all of which just goes to show who the real monsters are…       

PARANORMAL ACTIVITY

(Directed by Oren Peli)

‘I said don't mess with that stuff, because it scared me and what do you do? You go out and get the best looking fucking Ouija board I've ever seen and put it in the middle of our living room?'

Although The Blair Witch Project (1998) was a breath-taking financial success, the found footage subgenre wasn’t brimming with anywhere near the amount of releases you’d expect over the next 7 or 8 years. The Last Broadcast (1998) was made at the same time and a few years later we got The Collingswood Story and My Little Eye (two little gems right there). There was also a film called In Memorium, released in 2005 that’s worth a look if you haven’t seen it. But that’s pretty much it. Well, until 2007 that is - because that’s when things really kicked into gear. Rec (which we will talk about later!) made huge waves internationally, whilst The Poughkeepsie Tapes caused a bit of hype when it was premiered at Tribeca. However, it was Paranormal Activity that changed the face of horror for the next decade or so.

Now look, we realise that it didn’t get its big release until 2009, but it was made and initially released at film festivals in 2007, hence why it’s here. When Paramount/Dreamworks purchased the rights to the film, they intended for director Oren Peli to remake the film on a bigger budget. Peli agreed in principle but said he wanted a test screening of the original to see how it fared. Apparently during that screening, some people walked out. But not because they hated it, but because they were too scared to continue watching. Plans to remake it were abandoned pretty much there and then.

The film is an incredible Hollywood success story. Peli made it in his own house, with three or four actors on a budget of $15,000. It went on to make nearly $200m at the box office. It has spawned 6 sequels and the franchise itself has taken over half a billion dollars. Over the next five or six years, found footage movies were a firm fixture (and you may see a few of these covered in forthcoming blogs).

But financial success aside, is it any good? Well…yeah, it is. But first let me tell you what it’s about in case you don’t know. Katie and Micah are a young couple who have recently moved into their suburban Californian home. They're just a normal couple, trying to enjoy life. But when they start to notice strange disturbances in the house, they set up video cameras in the house to try and capture evidence. At first they record a few weird noises and sounds but soon they start recording more sinister disturbances. Eek! It may not feel like a film that’s particularly cinematic but I can attest to the fact that when I watched it at the cinema, the audience were totally engrossed and there was a palpable sense of dread with each passing night. Morning would hit and there was some relief – a chance for Katie and Micah to get their shit together and figure things out. And then before we know it’d, we’d be back to bedtime, and we’d have to go through the wringer again. It’s also a film that’s particularly potent when viewed home alone late at night. Because the wonderful thing about Paranormal Activity is that its methods are so wonderfully simple. Loud noises, doors banging, lights being turned on. You’d think that by 2007 these things wouldn’t have any real effect on hardened horror viewers but the tension is so palpable for most of the film that these things feel terrifying. So much of the movie is the same static shot of Katie and Micah’s bedroom and so besides those two moving around in there, nothing is happening. Until it is. And that dark doorway is just a place where our nightmares can unfold, imagining all sorts of unsettling shit. It’s real edge of your seat stuff when it really shouldn’t be. And then there’s the scene where Katie just watches Micah sleep for hours and hours during the night. Arrgghh (shudders). Katie Featherstone and Micah Sloat, who use their real names for this, are both believable enough to make everything feel untheatrical. If their relationship felt faux then the film falls down a bit but you believe they are a couple, even if they weren’t in real life. God Micah is an annoying twat sometimes though.

The very final image is a bit unnecessary truth be told but at least it provides a release and a reminder that what we’ve been watching isn’t actually real. Which should make it easier for you to sleep when you’re lying in bed later that night. In theory…

There are no immediate plans to make a new Paranormal Activity movie but as other long running franchises (Saw, Final Destination, Scream) prove, it’s only a matter of time.

Fun fact: Steven Spielberg had to stop watching the film halfway through on a home screener as he was genuinely spooked by the experience. He completed it in daylight hours the next day and loved it. 

REC

(Directed by Paco Plaza and Jaume Balaguero)

'We have to tape everything, Pablo. For fuck's sake.' Yep, that’s right. We were hit with a found footage double whammy in 2007. Well, those attending certain festivals were anyway. Again, although this didn’t get a UK release until 2008, it played at Venice and Sitges the year before and also received its Spanish release in November 2007 too, so there!

Rec was one of those movies that, like Paranormal Activity, created a fair bit of hype before its release due to those early screenings and even more so when the first trailers were released. Just like Ringu nearly a decade before it, the appeal was international and hungry horror fans gobbled it up when it was finally released here in April 2008 and the US a year later. It never got a theatrical release here, unlike the box office busting Paranormal Activity. These were also the days where streaming was in its infancy so most people watched REC on DVD back in 08. But like Ringu on VHS, there’s something that just makes watching a found footage horror at home on a TV that just feels right.

For those not in the know, Rec is about a feisty TV reporter called Angela Vidal and her cameraman Pablo, who are covering a night shift at a fire station in Barcelona – filming for a series called While You Were Sleeping (No, not a remake of the 1995 Sandra Bullock rom-com). Angela and Pablo accompany a couple of firefighters when they are called out to help a woman, Ms Izquirerdo who is trapped in her apartment. When they get there, they discover the situation isn’t quite what the expected. With the help of a couple of Police Officers, they manage to get into Ms Izquirerdo’s apartment but soon realise that there’s something off about her. They try and engage with her but she attacks one of the Police Officers, biting his neck in the process. The firemen try and get everyone out of the building for their own safety but find that the military have sealed off the building and are threatening to kill anyone that tries to leave…

Rec and Paranormal Activity are a pair of films that dispel the myth that ‘all found footage films are the same’. While they do share the same basic formal structure - namely, the use of diegetic cameras to frame the narrative - their differences in tone, execution, and overall cinematic experience are obvious. Paranormal Activity is a tightly contained, minimalist supernatural horror that relies heavily on static shots and a very small cast. In fact, you could count the number of characters on one hand. The film builds suspense incrementally, creating a creeping sense of dread through subtle shifts and barely perceptible supernatural events.

Rec, on the other hand, is a much more frenetic and expansive affair, despite being largely confined to a single apartment building. Its visual style is dynamic and kinetic, with the camera often moving frantically through cramped hallways, stairwells, and darkened rooms. The film features a broader ensemble cast and a narrative that escalates rapidly once the central "virus" begins to spread. Where Paranormal Activity thrives on eerie stillness and an atmosphere of quiet dread, Rec overwhelms the viewer with chaos, blood, and visceral body horror. If the slow-burn tension of Oren Peli’s supernatural chiller doesn’t quite land for you, the relentless momentum and energy of Rec might offer a more gripping experience.

The antagonists are also terrifying in a very different way. These are not the shambling zombies of George A. Romero’s oeuvre. Instead, they are fast, aggressive, and unpredictable - more akin to the infected from 28 Days Later. The fear in Rec is immediate and physical, with much of the film devoted to characters desperately trying to survive in a confined, increasingly hostile environment. The terror is heightened by the sense of disorientation as we follow the camera into tighter, darker spaces - often running, always panicked.

And then there's the final act. Oh, bloody hell. When the remaining survivors make it to the top-floor penthouse, the film takes a sharp and shocking turn into pure nightmare territory. It’s here that Rec shifts subgenre almost entirely, embracing a more supernatural and occult horror tone and it works. Yes, some of the exposition - delivered via an old tape recorder and a wall covered in newspaper clippings - might feel a touch clumsy, but the revelations are chilling enough that it hardly matters. By the time we’re plunged into complete darkness, relying solely on grainy night-vision imagery, the film has fully transformed into something truly terrifying. And just when you think it can’t get any worse… it does. Rec is a relentless rollercoaster, and by the time the credits roll, you're left feeling both exhilarated and emotionally drained.

Plaza and Balaguero had no real intentions to make any follow up films, but the financial success of Rec (took $30m off a $1.5m budget) changed their minds. Rec 2, released a year later and written and directed by Plaza and Balaguero expanded on the mythology and is pretty solid. Rec 3: Genesis (2012) and Rec 4: Apocalypse (2014) aren’t terrible but don’t stand up to the original unfortunately. We also got an American remake in 2008 called Quarantine which was a rather pointless shot-for-shot remake, which spawned its own sequel in 2011 (Quarantine 2: Terminal). I don’t think we’re gonna get any new ones at this point but hey, we’ll always have the original.

Fun fact: While filming the famous jump scene where the young fireman falls from the stairs, not a single actor knew it was going to happen, so the reactions of the characters were the real reactions of the actors themselves.

THE ORPHANAGE

(Directed by J.A. Bayona)

'Seeing is not believing. It's the other way around. Believe, and you will see.'

Another superb Spanish horror released in 2007 was J.A. Bayona’s The Orphanage, a film that successfully manages to merge gothic haunted house fare with the feel of 70’s (post Franco) Spanish cinema. Produced by Guillermo del Toro - riding high on the critical success of Pan’s Labyrinth the previous year - the film premiered at the Cannes Film Festival in May 2007, where it received a ten-minute standing ovation (and no, we don’t think it was simply applause of relief). The film was released theatrically in Spain that September, where it became a box office sensation. It was the second highest-grossing debut for a Spanish film at the time and boasted the biggest opening weekend of the year. It also earned an impressive 14 Goya Award nominations, further cementing its status as a modern classic. It’s even more incredible when you realise that the screenwriter, Sergio G. Sanchez wrote the film back in 1996 – when he was 23 years old! Nuts! It only had a limited release in the US right at the end 2007 and like Rec before it, really found its international audience via home media the next year.

So, what’s it all about? For those who haven’t yet seen it - something we strongly suggest you rectify - it’s best to go in knowing as little as possible. Still, we’ll do our best to fill you in without spoiling too much. The story follows Laura (Belen Rueda) and her husband Carlos (Fernando Cayo), who purchase a long-abandoned orphanage on the windswept Asturian coast - an institution where Laura herself had spent part of her childhood. Their aim is to reopen it as a care facility for disabled children, a mission especially close to Laura’s heart as their adopted son, Simón, has congenital HIV (even though the poor kid is blissfully unaware of how perilous his condition is)

The orphanage itself is a sprawling, decaying, and unmistakably gothic structure. A perfect backdrop for unsettling events. Simón, though endearing, doesn’t help with the creepyness. He begins communicating with a group of imaginary friends who seem to know things they shouldn't. Matters take a darker turn when a mysterious woman claiming to be a social worker arrives unannounced. She is not who she says she is, and before long, Laura finds her lurking in an outbuilding in the dead of night - an encounter that sets off a chain of increasingly disturbing events.

Carlos dismisses Simón’s imaginary companions as harmless childhood fantasy, but Laura is less convinced. During a celebration for the orphanage’s reopening, a heated disagreement between Laura and Simón occurs, and shortly after, the boy vanishes without a trace. His disappearance becomes the emotional and narrative heart of the film.

Sánchez has cited Henry James’s The Turn of the Screw as a key influence, and that inspiration is apparent. The film exudes an oppressive, melancholic atmosphere and its moody, muted visuals and imposing architecture feel soaked with history and sorrow. Bayona masterfully builds tension through suggestion rather than spectacle. There’s little reliance on gore - aside from one blink-and-you’ll-miss-it moment - and even less on digital effec ts. Instead, the film uses sound, stillness, and eerie imagery to burrow under your skin. Who needs CGI phantoms when you’ve got a child in a burlap mask snorting like a piglet at the end of a hallway? Or a wonderfully spooky sequence where Laura awakens in the middle of the night and thinks there is an intruder in the bathroom. There are hardly any ‘jump moments’ either, with the film happy to gradually draw you in and let the scares wash over you gradually.

Crucially, beyond the scares, The Orphanage has a resonant emotional core. It’s a film about love, grief, motherhood, and memory and, on a deeper level, it can be read as a metaphor for a nation coming to terms with its buried traumas. (If you're curious, look up Spain’s Law of Historical Memory.) Belen Rueda delivers a deeply affecting performance as Laura, a mother caught between rationality and desperation, echoing Nicole Kidman’s role in The Others - another strong, emotionally layered horror led by a mother unravelling a haunting mystery.

By the time the emotionally charged conclusion arrives, you may well find yourself in tears and that’s no bad thing. Horror at its best offers more than just fear; it offers introspection, catharsis, and, occasionally, profound sorrow. The Orphanage delivers all of that, and more.

New Line bought the rights to a remake in 2007 but despite having various directors attached, it got shelved. Which let’s face it, is probably for the best.

Fun fact: Although uncredited, Guillermo del Toro plays the doctor at the Emergency Ward who tends to Laura after she injures her leg.