Jump to content
🔒 The Earwolf Forums are closed Read more... ×

Recommended Posts

Worst. Movie. Ever.

 

If you want to waste a few hours of your life, watch this movie! It's so bad that it's so good.

 

*Note to Rider Strong - Now I know why you didn't get any work after Boy Meets World...

 

The ending is so unbelievably stupid and nonsensical that you'll probably end up drinking your face off afterwards to try and make sense of it.

 

Cheers!

Share this post


Link to post

It was disappointingly poor in execution and plot.. but Eli Roth made a career out of it.. I think its the 80's mentality that gives it some watchability but i recall buying a copy for a quid and still being disappointed that i paid for it.

Share this post


Link to post

This was definitely one of those "Wtf did I just watch?" movies for me. This movie is so weird, I could not get what this movie was going for at all, it felt like it was just trying to be a shitty movie on purpose. It was more surreal than actually scary or funny.

Share this post


Link to post

Eli Roth is garbage. Everything he touches is, by extension, garbage. He is Literally™* the worst.

 

The only thing I remember about this movie is a terrible sex scene where the characters' skin began to burn or slough off. It was nasty.

 

 

*Literally™ is a registered trademark of HDTGM Enterprises, all rights reserved.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

I don't recall this one well, but I think I enjoyed it for what it was -- a silly horror film with low ambition. At least it had a somewhat original premise (or at least wasn't relying on whatever genre cliches were present at the time), it kind of kicked off the whole "torture porn" thing, right? Or was that Hostel? That movie was garbage.

 

That scene where a lady was shaving her legs and skin coming off? AAAGH. That was a legit ewwwww I can't look. Plus the dudebro who figured out that he just had to drink beer and he would survive? Funny? Not funny? Either way I think the movie is probably too gross for a lot of people, and not in a Nothing But Trouble kinda way.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

I also thought this movie was ok for what it was, although I agree there were some really nasty parts. I can't stand anything else involving Eli Roth though. Even in Inglorious Bastards, which I thought was really just a few great scenes and performances, as soon as he came on screen I got really bummed out.

Share this post


Link to post

At the time that this came out, I'd watch just about anything (I was going to school and working at the theater), and this was one in a series of several "worst movies I've ever seen in a theater" that came out over a very short period. I specifically remember "House of the Dead" being out around this time, as well as the first "Underworld". A quick check of what Box Office Mojo shows as being out that fall stirs up repressed memories of having also seen "Dickie Roberts: Former Child Star". Thanks a lot, Box Office Mojo. You asshole...

Share this post


Link to post

Bumping this one to commemorate the 2016 remake which boasts 0% on Rotten Tomatoes and a box office haul of about $40k. The original logged in at 62% and $33.6M. I think doing a two-part with the 2002 original and this year's remake would make for a good live episode.

 

Here's the AV Club's take on it, which might be an argument to just review the remake, considering the original was pretty successful...and the fact that they're so similar.

 

"Remake culture quietly hit rock bottom with this “new” Cabin Fever, whose supreme pointlessness at least poses a radical question: What if they shot a movie for absolutely no one? Faced with the imminent threat that his gross-out debut was going to be remade with or without him, splatter maverick Eli Roth opted to “protect” his vision by dusting off a 14-year-old screenplay and commissioning some slick hack to film it all over again. Scene for scene, line for line, it’s basically the same goopy horror-comedy, only with Roth’s borderline camp swapped out for a straight-faced grimness. Fans didn’t ask for it. Detractors could detect no improvements. And the uninitiated could just rent the original. In other words, we all needed this creatively bankrupt copy job about as much as a flesh-eating virus."

 

Out of curiosity, anyone have thoughts on what the shortest time is between an original and remake? Excluding foreign films remade in the US, of course. This one comes in at 14 years, which is really short.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

I know they were trying to do a remake of American Psycho with Scott Disick in mind for Patrick Bateman a couple years back which would have been a shorter time than this was.

Share this post


Link to post

Funny Games also had a pretty short turnaround from original to remake with ten years between films.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
I know they were trying to do a remake of American Psycho with Scott Disick in mind for Patrick Bateman a couple years back which would have been a shorter time than this was.

 

That film is already perfect. Why fix what isn't broken?

Share this post


Link to post

It was being talked about because Brett Easton Ellis was infatuated with the Kardashian family and wanted to do a modern remake featuring one of their husbands, nothing ever came of it and it basically got ripped apart by everyone.

Share this post


Link to post

Out of curiosity, anyone have thoughts on what the shortest time is between an original and remake? Excluding foreign films remade in the US, of course. This one comes in at 14 years, which is really short.

Do the Spider-Mans count? There was only 10 years between the first Tobey Maguire film and the first Andrew Garfield film. 5 if we go from Spider-Man 3 to The Amazing Spider-Man.

 

Also +1 on Eli Roth being the Literal Worst.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

Bumping this one to commemorate the 2016 remake which boasts 0% on Rotten Tomatoes and a box office haul of about $40k. The original logged in at 62% and $33.6M. I think doing a two-part with the 2002 original and this year's remake would make for a good live episode.

 

Here's the AV Club's take on it, which might be an argument to just review the remake, considering the original was pretty successful...and the fact that they're so similar.

 

"Remake culture quietly hit rock bottom with this “new” Cabin Fever, whose supreme pointlessness at least poses a radical question: What if they shot a movie for absolutely no one? Faced with the imminent threat that his gross-out debut was going to be remade with or without him, splatter maverick Eli Roth opted to “protect” his vision by dusting off a 14-year-old screenplay and commissioning some slick hack to film it all over again. Scene for scene, line for line, it’s basically the same goopy horror-comedy, only with Roth’s borderline camp swapped out for a straight-faced grimness. Fans didn’t ask for it. Detractors could detect no improvements. And the uninitiated could just rent the original. In other words, we all needed this creatively bankrupt copy job about as much as a flesh-eating virus."

 

Out of curiosity, anyone have thoughts on what the shortest time is between an original and remake? Excluding foreign films remade in the US, of course. This one comes in at 14 years, which is really short.

 

Such lunacy, especially when you consider that Roth, like you said, changed nothing but take out the goofiness of it. Which was about it's only saving grace.

 

I can't think of a person that I dislike in the genre more than Roth, and that includes Herr Doktor Uwe Boll.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

×