Cabin Fever (2016)

A different way of telling a story

The storyline feels a little thin and moth-eaten in parts but this sequel is plenty of fun.

A terrific literary drama and character piece that shows how the process of creating art can be seen differently by those doing it and those looking at it from the outside.

By the time the dramatic fireworks start popping off, each one feels earned.

Upon first viewing the Cabin Fever remake, I legitimately thought that I was playing Eli Roth's original when clicking play on Netflix. It's been so many years from first viewing the original that it took nearly 30 minutes for me to realize that the film I was watching was a recycled, useless remake. Who in the world would pretty much follows Roth's script to a tee when the story wasn't even groundbreaking to begin with? These are the type of projects that lack vision, emit no feeling or fright, and they waste a bunch of space for potential original horror content in this great genre. Unlike the original that had some scenes that were extremely whacky, this version didn't take a shot at one ballsy scene. The film felt like a total hack recreation but some super fans. Aside from hating the movie, there are a few positive aspects of the film being Gage Golightly and Nadine Crocker. Without those actresses' stunning screen presence and quality performances this would have been a total catastrophe to watch. I never felt so stupid watching a movie A.) not knowing the film was the remake and B.) the storyline rotted my brain.

If you've seen the original Cabin Fever from 2002 then there's really no reason to see this one because it's the same movie. Different actors but with just a few minor changes from the original it's literally shot for shot, line for line the same exact movie. There was no reason for this movie to be made. The original is no classic nor was there an audience clamoring for an updated version. It's only 14 years later. Had they changed the story in some way like the recent remake of the Evil Dead it might have at least been able to say that it was it's own story but no. This is exactly the same. Well actually not quite because compared to this one, the original is better and that's not something I'd ever thought I'd say about the 2002 version.The actors in this are bland and honestly don't act like normal people. In one scene one of the guys brings out an assault rifle, mirroring the BB gun scene in the original movie. But this time it goes off accidentally, almost hitting one of his friends. The reaction? An almost bored, "keep that thing away from me" instead of the adrenaline pumping scene that this would have been in reality.All in all, there is no reason to see this unless you just really need to see a bloodier version of the original.

I don't mind "typical" horror movies that are unoriginal and stick to a over used formula, but the acting and dialogue has to be decent or better. This movie seems to be more focused on referencing weed, sex, alcohol and video games than offering us even decent acting and dialogue. " I did that to, and I got drunk" awkward silence. I love bad horror movies bit this was just cringe. Not sure what's worse the script or the acting performances. It's only merits are the the cinematography looks good, it does a good job looking like a hollyHoll movie, but a 13 year olds weekend project underneath

Really, really, REALLY bad. I mean, horrible. I was really hoping for a thriller I could sit and get into, and what I got was this waste of time. James DeBello is the most obnoxious human ever, and the rest of the cast struggled to make this thing only slightly better than a bunch of middle schoolers with a go pro. Don't waste your time.