The Cabin in the Woods (2012) Review

CLAYTON'S CREEPY CINEMA!

WEEK 5: REMAKES AND REHASHES

The Cabin in the Woods (2012)

Happy Halloween! We’ve made it through October, so to finish off this year’s Clayton’s Creepy Cinema, I’ve decided to review a very recent horror film, which is less a remake or rehash and more a feature length homage to the horror genre. A classic scary premise on the outside (reminiscent of Evil Dead or Cabin Fever) with a mysterious, ingenious concept on the inside, The Cabin in the Woods is one of the best horror films of the decade.

The plot starts out simple, but right away, it’s clear there’s something we’re not being told. A group of teens go out to a cabin in the woods for a fun weekend—a concept we’ve seen many times before. There’s the stoner, the athlete, the whore, the sort-of-virgin, and the smart guy. As they start to notice something sinister going on at the cabin, meanwhile, below ground in a hidden facility, workers are observing the teens from dozens of hidden cameras, monitoring them, and orchestrating an intricate horror scenario for them to fall into. Soon, the teens are under attack by zombies, but it’s not that simple. As they quickly find out, there’s more at stake than just this staged horror scenario, and an ominous secret is revealed, which could result in the death of more than just the ill-fated teens.

The Cabin in the Woods is a smart, hilarious, and scary movie. Though more funny than scary, it still has several genuinely terrifying moments throughout. The film is well shot and looks great, especially considering it is director and co-writer Drew Goddard’s directorial debut. The screenplay was co-written by Joss Whedon, creator of Buffy the Vampire Slayer, and it’s evident. The film has a great sense of humour, and nearly every horror cliché gets addressed. The characters are all likeable, and when they get killed off, it actually feels significant. At first the simple zombie subplot seems dull, but as the film progresses, it swerves into completely different territory and does so effortlessly. Even though I really liked this movie, I did have some small problems with it. I can’t discuss the ending without giving away massive spoilers, but I will say that when the big picture came into focus and it was revealed what was really going on, I was a little disappointed. There was also a particular cameo I was not fond of, but I will say, the final twenty minutes of this movie are phenomenal and guaranteed to make horror fans laugh and gasp and yell at the screen in the best way possible.

The Cabin in the Woods is a fun and surprising horror flick. There’s a lot of material packed into the hour

and a half run time, which makes it constantly entertaining and very re-watchable. It is a little depressing that the movie is really good only because it’s satirizing horror, and not because it’s a completely original, pure horror film, but with the genre in such a sad state these days, at least there can still exist an intelligent and truly good horror film.

To those of you who kept up with all my reviews over the past month, thank you for the support, and thanks to everyone for reading! Have a fun and safe Hallows Eve, see you next year for more...

Clayton’s Creepy Cinema!

I Spit on Your Grave (2010) Review

CLAYTON'S CREEPY CINEMA!

WEEK 5: REMAKES AND REHASHES

I Spit on Your Grave (2010)

Day of the Woman, more commonly known by the re-release title I Spit on Your Grave, is a highly controversial 1978 horror film that is both considered one of the worst films ever made, and one of the most disturbing horror films ever made (confusing, I know). This remake of the same name, which more or less tells the same revolting story as the original, is an interesting example of a remake that’s not as cut and dry as being good or bad. Much like how the original is both hated and not hated, the remake can be looked at as being better than the original, or worse.

The film follows a novelist who goes to a remote cabin in the woods to work on her latest novel. If you think this is going to be a supernatural cabin in the woods type horror flick, you’re dead wrong. A nasty group of guys, one of whom is mentally handicapped, sneak into her cabin at night and do some of the most unspeakably ghastly things you could think of. She escapes and reaches a local sheriff, but there’s no safety with him. He and the other guys are in cahoots, and now there is no one to save her. Their intent is to have the mental guy lose his virginity, and he does. Then they rape her, hold her head under water, make her suck on a loaded pistol, and then when she’s bleeding, dirty, and naked in the woods, she falls off a bridge into a river. Worst. Day. Ever. But things are about to get almost as bad for the gang of murdering rapists. The girl comes back with a vengeance, and one by one, defiles and kills the men who abused her.

I Spit on Your Grave is one of the most uncomfortable movie viewing experiences I’ve ever had. On a purely visceral level, it’s definitely a disturbing movie, but the scares don’t feel earned. You can’t help but feel sick at the graphic portrayal of murder and rape on screen, but beyond these shocking and appalling scenes, there’s little else to be scared of. No character is relatable; you obviously can’t be on the side of the rapists, but you can’t really be on the side of the victim either as she gets revenge in brutal, completely over the top ways. I’m not sure what’s harder to watch, the rape scene, which goes on way too long and shows a surprising amount of uncensored footage, or the murders, which become increasingly unsettling, including a guy getting his penis hacked off and shoved in his mouth and a guy getting a shotgun shoved up his ass. The special effects are convincing and the acting is quite strong, especially given the difficult nature of the roles.

I Spit on Your Grave is not a film I can recommend, even to horror fans. I don’t know how it shapes up against the original, but from what I understand, it’s a less campy version of the same brutal tale. To save you any curiosity you might have about it—hopefully just because you’re a horror fan like me and want to get scared, not because you actually want to see someone get brutally raped on film—just don’t watch it. It’s not scary, it’s a waste of time, and it’s a piece of poor filmmaking.

The Wolfman (2010) Review

CLAYTON'S CREEPY CINEMA!

WEEK 5: REMAKES AND REHASHES

The Wolfman (2010)

Back in the day, Universal had all the best horror movies (including The Invisible Man and Creature From the Black Lagoon, both of which I reviewed earlier this month), but nowadays, the studio is content with releasing disappointment after disappointment, whether in the form of uninspired original films or uninspired remakes (Dracula Untold being most recent). The Wolfman remake is, in my most controversial opinion, not one such example.

The story is pretty similar to the 1941 original. Lawrence Talbot (Benicio Del Toro) returns to England when his brother is mysteriously killed, reuniting with his estranged father (Anthony Hopkins) and getting to know his brother’s widowed fiancée (Emily Blunt). He discovers his brother was killed by a werewolf, and after being viciously attacked, becomes one himself. He runs rampant across London, slaughtering countless innocent people before eventually being caught and confined to a mental institution. Here he is assessed mentally, as the doctors believe he simply thinks he turns into a werewolf on every full moon, but his father knows the truth, for he too is a cursed man. Lawrence escapes confinement and hunts down his father to put a stop to the family curse.

The Wolfman is by no means a fantastic horror movie remake, but it’s one that I actually enjoyed. It’s easy to pick it apart as being completely inferior to the original, but looking at it as its own film, it’s a pretty exciting ride, especially given the troubled production and multiple delays the filmmakers faced. The story is nothing special, but it excels as being visually haunting and packing a visceral punch. It has a gothic feel to it, and the set pieces are well crafted, right down to having just enough mist and shadows when needed. Many of the scares are jump scares, mind you, but the Wolf Man himself is an effective villain and just knowing he’s lurking in the woods works to frightening effect. My favourite scene in the whole film is when Lawrence is shackled and bound in a chair in a locked room with men observing, to prove he won’t really turn into a wolf, but then he does, and the men freak out because they are now locked in with a monster. It’s funny and scary at the same time, and the transformation is pretty cool (though nowhere near as good as An American Werewolf in London’s transformation sequence). Rick Baker, makeup artist behind American Werewolf, did the makeup effects, and just like that film, won the Oscar for best makeup. Unfortunately, most of the Wolf Man’s screen time is in cgi, but it’s nice they tried to do some of it using in-camera effects. One of the main problems this movie has is a balance between hardcore R-rated violence with blood gushing and guts being ripped out of people, and old-school terror. The intense violence is sporadic and often jarring compared to the atmospheric scenes of suspense. The third act is shaky, some of the acting is questionable, and not all of the scares are effective, but in terms of entertainment value, it works.

The Wolfman is a fun horror remake—superior to Universal’s Mummy reboot and Van Helsing mash up. If you don’t mind the familiar story and want to see a proper werewolf film with modern special effects, then this should fit the bill.

My Bloody Valentine 3D (2009) Review

CLAYTON'S CREEPY CINEMA!

WEEK 5: REMAKES AND REHASHES

My Bloody Valentine 3D (2009)

Amid the slew of twenty-first century slasher remakes, a somewhat obscure Canadian flick from the eighties received the remake treatment. I haven’t seen the original, so I don’t know how My Bloody Valentine 3D compares to the original, but I can say this gimmicky rehash demonstrates why slasher movies have gone the way of the VHS tape.

The movie takes place in a small mining town, where on Valentine’s Day in 1997, a cave-in traps six miners and only one comes out alive, because he kills the others, and his son Tom is partly blamed for the disaster. The unconscious miner wakes up a year later and goes on a killing spree, then heads for the mine, where a bunch of teens (including his son) are having a party. The miner massacres a good number of them, and three escape the mine—Tom’s girlfriend, their friend Axel, and his girlfriend—but the miner pursues them. Tom returns, gets injured, and they leave him for dead, but the sheriff arrives and shoots the miner at the last second. The movie then skips ahead ten years. Tom returns to town, having been deeply disturbed by the events of that night and unable to forgive his friends for leaving him behind. Returning at the same time as Tom is the killer in the miner outfit, but it can’t be the same killer as before...can it? The mystery and murders return to the town, and the answer to the question of the killer’s identity is soon answered.

My Bloody Valentine is arguably the best slasher remake in recent years, but it still has a lot of issues and isn’t very scary. It was filmed and screened in 3D, and I can only imagine how awesome it must have looked in theaters. Unfortunately, I watched it at home, and with the crappy cardboard 3D glasses the effect was nonexistent, so I viewed it in 2D. Some of the kills would have been great in 3D, but in 2D they are less remarkable, and it seems the 3D kills were this film’s highlight. That isn’t to say there’s a lack of good gore. Though some of it is lame cgi blood and guts, the practical effects are juicier and look a lot better. Besides gore, many other slasher movie hallmarks are present. There’s lots of nudity, coarse language, and tools being used as weapons. As for the story, it attempts to get creative and has a few big twists, but the biggest problem I had was with the main final twist at the end which revealed the identity of the killer. I can’t talk about it without spoiling it, but it’s the deciding factor that made me not like this movie. If it hadn’t been for that lame twist, I would have enjoyed it more overall. It also ends in a typically over-the-top cliff hanger ending that I’m sure will never be resolved in a sequel.

In terms of modern horror flicks, you could do a lot worse than My Bloody Valentine. It’s really nothing special, but if you want to see a miner going around impaling teenagers with a pickaxe, it should suffice. Anyone seeking a more sophisticated slasher like the original Nightmare on Elm Street or Scream need not apply.

 

Quarantine (2008) Review

CLAYTON'S CREEPY CINEMA!

WEEK 5: REMAKES AND REHASHES

Quarantine (2008)

Hollywood has had mixed success remaking foreign horror movies. Some turn out to be pretty good in their own right, like The Ring (which I reviewed last week), while others turn out the total opposite. Maybe the concept doesn’t translate as well to American audiences, or maybe it doesn’t respect the original vision, or maybe, it’s a plain and simple cash grab. Quarantine is a remake of the Spanish horror film REC, and Hollywood jumped on the remake so fast they got it out to American audiences within a year of REC’s release. Sometimes remakes feel quite similar to the original, but in this case, it’s like watching the exact same movie again.

The plot and events of Quarantine are nearly identical to REC’s. A reporter and her cameraman tag along with some firefighters to a 911 call from an apartment block. They go in and find an old lady who goes crazy and attacks them. They try to get medical backup and get out of the apartment block, but find it has been quarantined because of a virus outbreak that turns everyone into ferocious zombies. The reporter and her cameraman document the efforts of everyone trying to survive, as more and more zombies start popping up. They discover the cause of the virus, which is one of the only differences from REC. In REC, the zombies were made by a demonic possession contained in a virus, but here, it’s a mutated strain of rabies. Finding this out doesn’t improve their chances, however, because they are trapped with no way out.

Quarantine is a clone of REC, so if you’ve seen REC, you’ve already seen Quarantine. Not only is it the same, it’s inferior. REC had genuinely terrifying scenes and was disorienting in the best possible way. Quarantine feels like just another found footage horror flick with all the found footage clichés. One cliché that can’t seem to be avoided in any found footage is the need to film everything, even if the need to do so seems completely lame. The beginning of the film is full of bullshit about the firefighters that does nothing to make us like them more as characters and just makes the first fifteen minutes of the movie dull. Once the action gets underway, the movie does improve. For found footage, it’s not as nausea inducing as most. The zombies are ferocious but not particularly interesting or original. With REC, there was a sense of dread throughout the whole movie, but Quarantine’s horror moments are sporadic, and the sense of dread doesn’t take hold until about half way through. It’s nice that it isn’t just full of jump scares, but one thing that really bothered me was the ending being given away by the poster and DVD cover, showing the reporter being dragged away into the darkness (again, nearly the exact same as REC’s ending).

Quarantine is good for a one time viewing if you’ve never seen REC, but I would recommend watching the far superior REC instead and skip this remake. Unless you can’t stand the subtitles, there’s no point in picking this remake over the original.