Cabin Fever (2002)

I always appreciate it when a director attempts to do something new in any horror film. Innovative thought and ideas help to shape the horror genre into something cutting-edge and unconventional. Innovators such as Tobe Hooper, Sam Raimi, and Wes Craven formed, along with others, the new movement in conventional horror films. New ideas are great, but a good movie needs to have more than one interesting idea. Cabin Fever has half of an interesting idea surrounded by 90 minutes of excess fat and bad filmmaking.

The half an interesting idea is as follows: in place of a standard maniac killer such as Jason or Leatherface, a virulent flesh-eating disease is one-by-one infecting and killing a group of young, attractive campers. That, in theory, is the plot of Cabin Fever. In practise, the killer disease takes a backseat to a cast of unnecessarily-colourful secondary characters and their wacky adventures.

This film is stuck halfway between horror and comedy. Unlike previous successful horror-comedies (such as Evil Dead 2 or Scream), the humour in Cabin Fever is smug as opposed to smart and obvious as opposed to subtle. The movie even ends with a bad Shaggy Dog joke, which is both out of place and baffling.

The gore is sub-par, with underwhelming makeup from KNB EFX. Check out From Dusk Till Dawn for one of many much superior makeup outings from this group.

I believe that the main reason for the failure of this film as a good horror movie lies with director Roth. He throws in sloppy references to much more interesting films (a pseudo-homage to the ending of Night of the Living Dead, for instance, and the inclusion of “fake shemps,” a nod to the films of Sam Raimi); acknowledging other directors does not put you in the same league as them.

In summation, Cabin Fever is a bad movie and an especially bad horror movie. I can think of half a dozen other recent horror films I’d rather watch than this smarmy, often boring effort from a director who greatly overestimates his abilities and position in the horror genre.

Casino Royale (2006)

As someone who grew up watching James Bond (Roger Moore was my favourite, don’t ask me why), I found myself less and less satisfied with the recent Bond films. Goldeneye was excellent, don’t get me wrong, but after that things just sort of fell apart. Plots got sillier and sillier, gadgets and special effects spun out of control, and Bond himself started becoming a live-action cartoon. Thankfully, everything changes with Casino Royale, starting with the man himself, Daniel Craig.

I know there were a lot of people opposed to Craig as Bond (seemingly simply because he has blonde hair), but I knew going into it that he had what it takes to bring Bond back to basics. The Bond from Fleming’s novels is not a nice guy: he’s a ruthless trained killer. Craig brings a quiet intensity and razor-sharp determination to the role, giving Bond an edge not seen since Timothy Dalton. This version of Bond is also the toughest to date, with Craig showing amazing physical charisma. For instance, I can actually see Craig’s Bond as a former SAS man, unlike Moore’s gentleman charmer.

Along with Daniel Craig’s excellent performance, the supporting cast delivers as well. Eva Green parries back and forth with Craig, never falling into the typical Bond girl trap of all style no substance. Mads Mikkelsen plays his role perfectly, a sinister gambler with a waxy poker face. Jeffrey Wright as Felix Leiter, a supporting Bond character left idle too long, is also quite good; I just wish we could’ve seen more of him.

The action in Casino Royale is exciting and believable, with standouts being the incredible free-running chase through a construction site and tense embassy confrontation. None of the stunts seem forced or unrealistic, as in Die Another Day. Director Campbell keeps the film grounded at all times and this pays off in credibility.

I think that’s the keyword of Casino Royale: credibility. The previous Bond films had lost it but Campbell and Daniel Craig have managed to return the Bond franchise (or a reboot as some people are calling it) to former glory. If the forthcoming films can maintain this quality and credibility, I see a long and interesting future for 007.

Cinderella (2006)

I must confess at the beginning of this review that I’m not totally sure why this film is called Cinderella. I can certainly make an argument for one or two possible explanations, but there’s nothing that stands out as a clear explanation. I was expecting a modern interpretation of the classic fairy tale but instead this Cinderella turned out to be another entry in the spectral avenger sub-genre of asian horror, albeit with some added depth and social commentary.

Cinderella starts well, with a strong modern gothic tone and lots of style but it falters somewhat through the middle. The film becomes too contemporary, too modern. I like a good mix of modern and gothic style, but in this case the bright, modern sequences water down the dark, creepy gothic atmosphere.

There’s a decent amount of depth to Cinderella, both in the performances and in the narrative. Plastic surgery plays a large part in the narrative and the film has strong opinions on the cost and nature of beauty. Along with this commentary, Cinderella also creates tension and horror through graphic scenes and descriptions of surgery.

In the end, however, Cinderella is an average entry into the rapidly-growing spectral avenger sub-genre. Will this film become the next Ringu or Ju-on? Probably not, but the interesting style and darkly unique subject matter helps separate Cinderella from the rest of the bunch.

Clerks II (2006)

After Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back, everyone thought that Kevin Smith was done with his View Askew series (begun with Clerks in 1994), that he’d moved on to more mature work, born out of his new role as father. That more mature work was Jersey Girl; though an entertaining film, it wasn’t very successful at the box office. Thankfully, Smith returns to his origins and delivers a sharp and entertaining treatise on relationships and growing older.

Unsurprisingly, this film is more similar to Clerks than any of the other Askew films. Less slapstick than Mallrats or Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back, less serious than Chasing Amy or Dogma, Clerks II is a good balance of funny dialogue and “dick and fart” jokes. The film feels like a sequel to Clerks, both in tone and content; this is impressive considering it was made 12 years later.

The acting is very good, with almost everyone putting in strong performances. Particularly notable are Rosario Dawson and Trevor Fehrman. Fehrman, relatively new to films, holds his own with veteran Dawson and the other cast. The only acting blip is Smith’s wife Jennifer Schwalbach who struggles a bit in a smaller role. There are also a number of funny cameos, both from Askew alumni and familiar TV faces.

Along with the cameos, there are several clever nods to the original Clerks. Smith plays it smart and limits the in-jokes, careful not to alienate anyone unfamiliar with his earlier work. This isn’t Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back, after all. The production design is also very clever, with many funny products and signs in the background. This film will improve on multiple viewings.

I do have a few minor quibbles with the film, but they in no way diminished my viewing enjoyment. The working environment is fairly unrealistic, for one: since when do fast food restaurants only have four employees and customers who always have something smart or funny to say? Also, I would’ve liked to see more retail venting, as shown in the first Clerks. Some of the funniest moments came from Randall ripping into the occasional customer and this doesn’t happen as often in Clerks II.

All in all, Clerks II proves that Kevin Smith can still make funny, mature films, even if they’re filled with dick and fart jokes.