![]() There even seems to be some attempt at social commentary or allegory regarding horror’s favourite couple sex and death. Much of the gore is handled quite straight, stewing in the very genuine horror of the situation. It sets up the expectations regarding the onscreen decay that will be thrust your way, but also sets up a grim tone. It is simplicity at its finest, as the image slowly rots before your eyes, and the audio gradually turns sicker and more intense. At times, it feels like an attempt at a straight-and-narrow horror flick. Tonally, Cabin Fever is as big a mess as what was left in that bathtub. So, the Seinfeld effect is in full… effect here, but Cabin Fever still manages to stand out, due to that very Eli Roth voice that the critics of yesteryear alluded to. 20 years on, a slew of other horror-comedies in this setting were released, that lovingly rib at horror films and make references to previous horror hallmarks Tucker and Dale, Cabin in the Woods, The Final Girls, et cetera et cetera. Yum.Įli Roth was hailed as an exciting new voice for the genre, with Cabin Fever heralded as a breath of fresh air. To cut a 90 minute story short, the hermit catches the infection and spreads it to the gang, after a violent encounter results in his carcass draining into the local water supply. Your horror movie bingo card is getting filled up at record speed campfire horror stories, horny teen romps, skinny dipping, hunting gone wrong. After getting into trouble with some roadside rednecks and their bitey-bitey son, they reach their destination a nice secluded cabin. On the other side of the woods, five friends are arriving for a nice getaway among the trees after finishing college. Sadly, the dog has been taken ill, seriously ill. But, which is the best?Ĭabin Fever begins with a crazy old hermit who’s been out catching rabbits for his dog. The other was an experiment of sorts a remake released less than 15 years after the original which uses the very same script but was brought to life by a different filmmaking team. The movie adds up to a few good ideas and a lot of bad ones, wandering around in search of an organizing principle.One of these films was an unexpected low-budget hit and introduced Eli Roth as one of the first rising figures in 21st century horror. There are truly horrible scenes (guy finds corpse in reservoir, falls onto it), over-the-top horrible scenes (dogs have eaten skin off good girl's face, but she is still alive), and just plain inexplicable scenes (Dennis, the little boy at the general store, bites people). ![]() But the director and co-author, Eli Roth, is too clever for his own good, and impatiently switches among genres, tones and intentions. ![]() ![]() If some of this material had been harnessed and channeled into a disciplined screenplay with a goal in mind, the movie might have worked. The nature of the disease is inexplicable it seems to involve enormous quantities of blood appearing on the surface of the skin without visible wounds, and then spreading in wholesale amounts to every nearby surface. The drama mostly involves the characters locking the door against dogs, the locals and one another running into the woods in search of escape or help trying to start the truck (which, like all vehicles in horror films, runs only when the plot requires it to) and having sex, lots of sex. There's a deputy sheriff named Winston ( Giuseppe Andrews) who is a seriously counterproductive character the movie grinds to an incredulous halt every time he's onscreen. Everyone at the corner general store seems seriously demented, and the bearded old coot behind the counter seems like a racist (when at the end we discover that he isn't, the payoff is more offensive than his original offense). The film could develop its plague story in a serious way, like a George Romero picture or " 28 Days Later," but it keeps breaking the mood with weird humor involving the locals. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |