Published on February 20th, 2016 | by gareth0
Cabin Fever 2016
Back in 2002, a fairly unknown filmmaker named Eli Roth brought a fresh and creepy horror film to theaters called “Cabin Fever”. It followed a time honored setup of a group of young people taking some time off in an isolated rural setting but instead of the worn to death psycho or monster on the loose setup, this film had something new in mind.
The film followed the outbreak of a flesh eating virus that was relentless, turned characters against one another, and had audiences wondering what would happen next. Filmed for a modest budget, the film became a hit and eventually spawned two direct to video follow ups, the most recent serving as a prequel to the original film.
There were plans to make a third follow up which was reportedly to be set on a cruise ship but they were scrapped in favor of a reboot of the main film with Roth serving as producer.
The 2016 version of the film is pretty much a scene for scene and in some cases; shot for shot remake of the original that duplicates the characters, situations, and outcomes from the first film with only a few changes along the way such as a deputy being female this time around, an addition to the ending, and some slightly better production values.
While it was entertaining to watch, I found that knowing what was to come stopped any tension in the film as has barely been 14 years since the first film came out, and without anything drastically different this time around, it made me wonder why the decision to reboot the film was made.
I do believe that there is still more to tell in this series, but that there is a better way to do it than the sequels we have had to date and a shot by shot remake. I think a story that ran parallel to the original or a more direct sequel might be very interesting as well as a look at the larger consequences of the outbreak.
That being said, if you are a fan of the series you will likely want to see the remake, but will likely wish that the series had continued forward with the story rather than going back to the beginning.
3 stars out of 5