Cabin Fever full movie review - Why?
I don't even want to waste my time on this horrendous collection of digital pixelation, but yet here I am on this site writing a stupid review on it. Whatever.
I'm a fan of the original movie; I love the dark sense of humor it has, the high amounts of raised palms and "wtf?"'s thrown about while watching the movie. I love the low budget feel of it, as it gives aspiring filmmakers like myself a sense of hope, as if saying "hey, I can do this!" It's undeniably stupid and I completely understand why many despise it, but for morons like me, entertaining isn't a good enough word to describe it.
Sorry if this review is poorly written. I just simply don't care when it comes to this movie. Hey, kinda like the makers of this movie! Maybe I should be hired to write the next Cabin Fever remake.
So just 13 years after its release and not even one full year after the release of its latest sequel, some producers thought it'd be a timely idea to remake Cabin Fever. Now even though I enjoy the original, there certainly are a plethora of flaws abound, and a remake could freshen things up. Raise the budget, do some things the original couldn't, hire better actors, better filming equipment, raise the atmosphere, etc. Sadly, and actually quite shockingly, none of that is done here in even the slightest. The actors are bland and forgettable with little to zero distinguishable personalities, whereas the actors in the original looked and acted different. You had the jock, the fat one, the shy nerd, the girl next door, and the slut. Here, you have basic person 1, 2, 3, 4, and gamer nerd. The side characters also work poorly here. The original had basically every variation of redneck and it worked perfectly, while this one has some 30-year-old who looks like the director's cousin, and a fat guy. The budget here is $20 million, whereas the budget in the original was just over $500,000. Don't you think the $20 million version would have the better actors and effects? Sadly, this is incorrect, as the only thing to show the 20 mil is the gloomy forest cinematography. Even the vehicle in this movie, some generic Jeep Grand Cherokee, feels like one of the cast members decided to use their moms car, instead of the original which used a rare 1970's Chevy Blazer Silverado. Don't you think the new, more expensive version would have the vintage vehicle and not the SUV that you could buy from an independent dealer for a few grand?
Other changes are beyond confusing, especially ridiculous changes that aren't even necessary. In the original, Burt accidentally shoots a hermit because he is hunting and mistakes him for an animal; perhaps a bit far fetched, but plausible. Here, Burt is fantasizing in playing a real life Call Of Duty mission, gets a bit too carried away, and accidentally shoots a hermit. Perhaps this could work if he were either eight years old or schizophrenic, but for a normally functioning human to do this is mind boggling on the writers part. The director also thought a random fully automatic Carbine machine gun would be more realistic than a normal hunting rifle from the original, a change that makes absolutely zero sense. The opening scene where a hermit discovers that his dog companion is dead was suspenseful and creepy in the original, where the man slowly realizes his dog is not only dead, but completely mutilated. Here, the hermit walks into the frame with a boring pan shot, his dog literally falls apart like it's made of Lego's, and the hermit falls to his knees like a character from an awful Mexican soap opera and cries "NOOOOOO!" to the heavens, all within 15 seconds, giving us no time to feel the suspense. Speaking of the dog, we learn here that its name was Pancakes, meaning the deranged karate kid had mistaken Burt for the hermits dog...? Was that the intention?
One of the big selling points of the films advertising was that the characters all had different rewritten deaths, so that'll automatically make us want to see it, right? Well, even that is wrong. All of the characters die in literally the exact same ways, with maybe one or two things changed. For example: one person dies by getting bludgeoned to death in the original, while here, they pour gasoline on her, and THEN she gets bludgeoned. Big difference, as you can see. Another character dies by getting ripped apart by a rabid dog in the original, while here, she shouts at the dog and THEN gets ripped apart by the rabid dog. What the point of even trying to exploit these "different death scenes" when there is nothing even remotely differently about them? The one thing you could've changed from this film for an actual reason and purpose, and you didn't? Whatever, who cares.
This is the worst film of 2016 I've seen thus far, and is also probably the worst remake I've ever viewed. Why was this even made? Seriously, why? Cabin Fever 4 is still in pre- production as I'm writing this, so obviously the franchise isn't dead. Maybe Eli Roth is planning to remake all of his movies but with bigger budgets, worse/more bland characters, and only the stupid and unimportant stuff changed. Who knows, who cares. I get that people hate the original, but there is no way people could like this more, even the most dedicated of Cabin Fever haters will like the original more than this rubbish. This thing only played for a week in all Houston cinemas, and it's no surprise why. There are hundreds of more things wrong with this movie, so much more that I could probably kill an entire forest from printing it onto paper, but who cares. Obviously, the creators of this film didn't.