Categories
Blood-n-Guts Box Office Bangs Bumps in the Night Creepy Critters Old vs. New

IT: Chapter Two and the problem with reviews (Mild Spoilers)

Yes, you read that correctly.

I want to talk both about the genius that was It: Chapter Two and the issue with movie reviews – and trust me, the irony is not lost on me. To be perfectly candid, I don’t necessarily consider what I do here to be “reviews”. This started out as a “horror review blog” for a class my freshman year of college, but honestly I view it more as a place for me to gush about the horror movies I love without annoying everyone in my life. It’s an outlet for me to ruminate on horror and the genre and all things surrounding it, and all three people who read any of these posts (hi Dad) get to choose whether they listen to my nonsense.

Film critics are a totally different animal to me. I have never listened to film critics…I don’t even read reviews unless I have already seen the movie and want to hear another perspective. Personally, I think that most people making their living on reviews are jaded and impossible to impress as it is let alone when it comes to a genre that is already extremely polarizing.

Which brings me to It: Chapter Two…

I thought it was brilliant. Do I love the Native American lore being use for a story written by a white man? No. But Stephen King also seemed to have an obsession with using Native American lore/legend/land in his stories. (Let’s not forget that Pet Semetary which also just got a remake is ALL ABOUT A NATIVE AMERICAN PIECE OF LAND). Granted, the 80’s in general had an obsession with using Native American land as a copout *coughcough* Poltergeist *cough*.

BUT aside from the obvious cultural appropriation, and some qualms with how Bev was written which I will get into later, I really have no complaints about the film.

Lets start with the casting:

The detail they put into casting the adult versions of the characters was absolutely mind boggling. I was impressed by the cast when they released the initial photos, but it was nothing compared to seeing them in character.

Bill Hader was definitely a stand out in this film, and it was only enhanced by the fact that Richie is very obviously a closeted gay man and Hader  Granted, I wish they could have given us an actual coming out scene (even if it was just  small moment of admitting it to the Losers) but when diversity in horror is so low when it comes to sexuality I am happy to take any and all we are given.

James McAvoy was also great as Bill, but I’ve never been as head-over-heels for him the way 80% of the female population seems to be so while he was great (because he’s just a great actor) I wasn’t overly excited about him the way a lot of fans were.

Honestly, I was surprised by how much I loved James Ransone as Eddie. I saw Ransone in the Sinister films where he played a deputy (and an ex-deputy in the second one), and I wasn’t sure how confident I was in his acting chops. Partially because I haven’t seen the Sinister films in a long time and partly because he wasn’t memorable enough for me to automatically be excited about his casting. However, the combination of Hader as Richie and Ransone as Eddie was a comedy duo that enhanced the film and didn’t override the horror. Personally, I’d pay to watch a film of just those two actors in those two roles sitting in a room and just bantering for 2 hours. I realize calling Ransone unmemorable is not the kindest, but honestly those movies in general weren’t the most memorable so it wasn’t Ransone’s acting, but the character he played.

The rest of the cast was great and definitely shined, but going person by person seems like a bit of overkill…but let’s talk about Bev.

Bev in the first movie is a firecracker who stands up for herself, is more than just the token girl of the friend group, and actually is her own person. Bev in the second movie is…well..a prop. Granted, years of abuse by both her father and her husband are probably enough to make anyone timid and boring, but the character was just very disappointing as a whole to me. I feel like she existed just to be the object of Bill and Ben’s affection rather than being written as an actual human being. If I recall, it was very much the same thing in the mini-series from the 90’s but worse because Bev had sexual tension with all of the men and not just the two.

BUT I DIGRESS

Aside from the aforementioned issues I had – I really loved it. I think that one of the things people disliked was the CGI (the giant statue chasing Richie, the leper that attacks Eddie, the old woman in Bev’s old apartment). It is the type of thing that we aren’t used to seeing in modern horror. There’s this idea that the less you see if a villain the scarier they are, and in a lot of cases that’s true, however the way that It: Chapter Two was crafted feels like a love letter to horror movies of the 80’s. The terror of Pennywise and all the evil that comes along with him is how along each person is with their fear. Nobody can see the giant statue come to life and chase Richie through the park, but that doesn’t make it any less dangerous to him.

I’m enjoying the shift we’re seeing in horror, and I think we’re entering a new era of horror films. This can also be seen, on a smaller scale, in films like Insidious and The Conjuring. Without spending too much time on films that aren’t It in this post, Insidious was one of the first modern horror movies I remember moving away from the idea that the monster should never be fully seen or in view (the demon at the end of the first film, or the ghost of the mother in the second one who confronts them flat out) and the The Conjuring 2 used the same type of CGi for the Crooked Man.

From someone who does not have a degree in horror or film (whatup English majors), but spends 80% of her time ingesting horror content I think we are on the brink of the newest era of horror. In the early 2000’s slasher films/teen horror had their moment (Saw, Hostel, remakes of House of Wax and Friday the 13th), the 2010’s brought back a lot of haunted house content (Insidious, The Conjuring, Annabel) and I think we are starting to see another shift to horror that confronts the viewer more directly.

Personally, I think that’s very exciting.

I had someone tell me once that classic horror movies didn’t scare them because they “Didn’t know what was scary back then”, and while there are many layers to pull apart and discuss in that sentiment the main thing to talk about is the phases horror has been through. To be fair, horror is a rather new genre compared to genres like drama, comedy, or even fantasy. Gothic literature is really the mother of the modern horror genre, and it is still a genre that doesn’t get the respect it deserves. Films like It and It: Chapter Two are pushing back on people’s understanding of how horror works and what makes a movie scary. Let’s all just be happy that we’re finally getting a break from first person camera and zombie films for now.

My point in telling you what this person said is not to say they’re dumb or make fun of them, but simply to say that we are living in a generation that doesn’t understand or appreciate the classics. Yes Friday the 13th can be cheesy, but watching that arrow go through Kevin Bacon’s throat still gives me nervous tummy! In 20 years (assuming the world hasn’t burned by then) our kids will be telling us that directors working now “didn’t know what was scary”. People disliking it didn’t seem to come from anything more than misunderstanding the genre, and when people don’t like something their automatic response is that it’s bad…but just because you don’t like something doesn’t make it “bad”, it just means it’s not for you!

If you haven’t seen It: Chapter Two yet I highly recommend it. I was extremely excited, and not  disappointed (other than maybe Bev). It is worth the outrageous cost of movie tickets, and I’m honestly just curious what people’s thoughts are on the shift we’re starting to see in modern horror films. If you have any thoughts my email will be down below and you’re welcome to send them to me!

I realize that most of my rambling in this post wasn’t about the movie itself, but honestly I feel like it’s one you just have to see for yourself.

It IMDB

It Wiki

It Trailer

It: Chapter Two IMDB

It: Chapter Two Wiki

It: Chapter Two Trailer 

It (1990) Wiki

Send me your thoughts to wickedlittleblog@gmail.com

Categories
B Calm Blood-n-Guts Old vs. New

Cabin Fever Needs a Vaccination (spoilers, kind of)

Let me start this off by saying I am NOT an Eli Roth hater: on the contrary, he has been my favorite director for several years now. If Eli Roth is attached to a project, I WILL watch it. So it truly pains me to say that the remake of Cabin Fever was one of the worst movies I’ve seen in a long time. If you’ve seen the original film, then there isn’t much to spoil, but if you haven’t and don’t want key plot points ruined come back after you’ve watched the 2002 original.

The new filmmakers used the exact script from the original, 2002 Roth film and it was more or less a shot for shot remake. We all know we are living in a time of remakes: Evil Dead, Pet Sematary, Child’s Play. Reboots and remakes are everywhere you turn, but Cabin Fever – in my opinion – did not need a remake. For starters, the film was not even 15 years old at the time that it was redone by director Travis Z. Second of all, it was 95% a shot-for-shot remake of Roth’s original teen horror film.

I’m well aware that shot-for-shot remakes can, and have, worked. However, the brilliance (and absurdity) of the original Cabin Fever was the way in which Roth constantly shocked the audience with the frantic pace and bold body horror. The film worked because of its originality, and a exact remake is anything but original. Remakes like Evil Dead or The Thing took brilliant pieces of original cinema and made enough changes that they felt fresh and inventive to both new fans and fans of the originals.

Obviously I can’t speak for people coming to this movie without having seen Roth’s original movie, but I’m not even sure a new viewer would enjoy this movie. The pacing seems off from the very beginning, the actors don’t deliver the dialogue in a convincing way, and the beloved comic relief sheriff was changed to a blonde sex pot whose laugh lines feel forced and uncomfortable.

The thing that I have always admired about Roth is that he doesn’t hold back in his film making. The point in his movies is often how much can you watch before turning off the TV? With an exact remake the fans have already experienced everything there is to experience from that story. The shock and the rush viewers got that first time watching Cabin Fever is gone.

The few things they did try and do different did not add anything better to the plot, just made things more unrealistic and corny. The main character Paul, played by Samuel Davis, finally gets a shot with his childhood crush only to find out she has gotten the flesh eating disease ravaging the small community. By the end of the movie Karen, played by Gage Golightly, has barely any skin and has been attacked by an infected dog. She is laying in the boat house where they quarantined her begging for Paul to kill her. Paul stands there for far too long dealing with his inner struggle. When he finally decides to put Karen out of her intense agony the gun won’t fire, so Nick takes a shovel and shoves it into Karen’s mouth and severs her jaw which, shockingly (that’s sarcasm), doesn’t kill her. He then SETS THE SHED ON FIRE AND BURNS HER ALIVE.

The original Paul, played by Ryder Strong, also chooses a shovel to help end Karen’s misery. However, rather than stab her in the face with the shovel he bludgeons her with it. Bludgeoning is still a pretty nasty way to end someone’s life, but at least Paul 1 didn’t set her on fire. The remake of Karen’s death scene is frankly one of the strangest scenes in a movie I have ever seen. The pacing is awkward and weird and you just wind up feeling sick in the worst way for this poor girl who keeps begging for him to kill her.

Roth endorsed this remake, and for that reason alone I wish I was able to say I enjoyed it. I think everyone who is a hardcore Eli Roth fan can admit that Cabin Fever (2002) has its own problems. It is a clear debut film, but it was a debut film that set him on a trajectory within the horror community that everyone was dying to see. He followed it up with films Hostel, Green Inferno, and Knock Knock all of which kept on the same path of “how long can you watch” as Cabin Fever.

I don’t really like to write negative reviews like this because in most situations I want to credit artists for their creation rather I like it or not. In this situation, however, with it being a shot-for-shot remake I don’t feel nearly as bad saying this: Do NOT waste your time on this remake. If you want to watch a remake of a classic go with Evil Dead instead: even more blood and a fantastic amount of originality. If you’re in the mood for Roth-like body horror just watch the original Cabin Fever (and the original has added bonus of Ryder Strong and his face). But I’d strongly recommend giving the new Cabin Fever the pass the next time you’re ready for some gore.

*Also, Eli Roth’s History of Horror is absolutely incredible. If you don’t have a Shudder subscription it is worth the 4.99 a month alone.

Cabin Fever (2002)

Wiki

IMDB

Trailer

Cabin Fever (2016)

Wiki

IMDB

Trailer

Eli Roth

Wiki

IMDB