Thanksgiving (2023).

Review #2152: Thanksgiving.

Cast: 

Patrick Dempsey (Sheriff Eric Newlon), Nell Verlaque (Jessica), Addison Rae (Gabby), Jalen Thomas Brooks (Bobby), Milo Manheim (Ryan), Rick Hoffman (Thomas Wright), Gina Gershon (Amanda Collins), Tomaso Sanelli (Evan), Gabriel Davenport (Scuba), Jenna Warren (Yulia), Karen Cliche (Kathleen), and Jeff Teravainen (Deputy Bret Labelle) Directed by Eli Roth (#2117 - Cabin Fever)

Review: 

"We said, 'Let's pretend Thanksgiving was a movie from 1980 that was so offensive that every print was destroyed. All the scripts were burned. The director disappeared. The crew members changed their names. One person saved the trailer and uploaded it to the darkest corners of 4chan, and now it's made it out. So this is a 2023 reboot.' Once we said that, it freed us up."

Remember Grindhouse? That was the double feature extravaganza (Robert Rodriguez's Planet Terror and Quentin Tarantino's Death Proof) that had a handful of "fake trailers" that were shown before each film. These included the following: Machete (done by Rodriguez), Werewolf Women of the SS (done by Rob Zombie), Don't (done by Edgar Wright), Thanksgiving (done by Eli Roth), and for a good chunk of Canadians, Hobo with a Shotgun (as directed by Jason Eisener). The trailer for Roth's creation showed a setting of Plymouth, Massachusetts with a turkey mascot that gets his head cut off by a guy dressed up as a pilgrim to go with a stunt of a cheerleader being on a trampoline before being cut by a knife. Funny enough, this is now the third of those five "fake trailers" to lead to its own film adaptation, compete with Roth as director here for an R-rated film released in November. Roth and Jeff Rendell (who had played the Pilgrim in the trailer) were huge slasher fans and had wanted to do something involving Thanksgiving and Massachusetts. Of course, the 2007 trailer was the best avenue for shooting just the "best parts" when it came to nudity or gore, but the film is its own thing. Now you have a film where the killer wears the mask of John Carver, who actually was a pioneer involved with the Mayflower voyage in 1620 which resulted in the creation of Plymouth Colony in America. Never let me say I don't try to deliver some sort of interesting notes to look further into on Movie Night.

I enjoyed the film pretty well. It has over-the-top gore and an evident appreciation for the slasher films of the past that would be just fun to put on the holidays just in the same way one might watch New Year's Evil (1980). Sure, there are a handful of previous Thanksgiving slasher films in Home Sweet Home (1981), Blood Rage (1987), and even ThanksKilling (2009), but it is nice to have one that leans in with no hesitation in mayhem here. Some of the stuff for the trailer is done here for the film to go with a handful of other death sequences that might inspire a chuckle. You have a killer that sees a cat after committing the deed that decides the cat must be fed cat food before the scene ends. The film opens where else but a supermarket on Black Friday, because that is how you make an interesting setup: show people at their exaggerated weirdness. Technically, I can't say I've had a Black Friday shopping experience on any of those levels (waiting early to buy things is boring), but I appreciate the time taken to set up mayhem and motivation for whoever may decide revenge is necessary afterwards. Verlaque makes a solid lead to follow in the midst of a group of general one-type people that, well, are set up for you know what. At least they are amusing in the setup to get them in chaos, such as the livestreaming jock in Sanelli or the totally mysterious Brooks that makes for probably the most middle of triangles with Verlaque and Manheim. As long as you make the folks who you know are going to get it seem ripe enough for doom, you've got something neat on the hands. This includes a very large oven and a target practically set up for splatter. Dempsey and Hoffman make quality support among the adults at play in trying to figure out what makes the most sense in dealing with a man in a mask that only speaks near the end and likes public shaming. The eventual reveal at least doesn't stretch credibility when it comes to motivations or eventual outcomes, even with a bit of second -guessing thrown in there. I think I could have done with the final shot of the film, really. You could argue that hey, would-be bait/mess-with-the-audience ideas is fine if you like the film, but sometimes one really should let things lie. Regardless, I enjoyed the mayhem executed by Roth and company for a mostly interesting time spent with slasher tropes that doesn't test one's patience or leave one malnourished for what you would hope from a horror film in theatrical release. 

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Cabin Fever.

Review #2117: Cabin Fever.

Cast:

Rider Strong (Paul), Jordan Ladd (Karen), James DeBello (Bert), Cerina Vincent (Marcy), Joey Kern (Jeff), Arie Verveen (Henry, The Hermit), Giuseppe Andrews (Deputy Winston), Eli Roth (Justin / Grimm), Adam Roth (The Happy Bald Guy), and Robert Harris (Old Man Cadwell) Directed by Eli Roth.

Review: 

"At the time, everything was PG-13, and people told me nobody wanted violent horror films anymore. I was also told by “experts” that an R-rated horror film couldn’t make more than $15 million at the box office, which I knew was nonsense. I always believed if you gave people a great scary time at the movies, they’d come out in droves to see it."

Okay, I admit, the curiosity was there to wonder about Eli Roth as a director in horror. The Massachusetts native was interested in film from a very young age (as influenced by Alien [1979]), to the point where he made hundreds of short films before attending the Tisch School of the Arts. He worked a variety of odd jobs such as office work or for Penthouse or producing content for David Lynch. He wrote what would become this film as a script with his roommate Randy Pearlstein, which was inspired by an experience Roth had as a nineteen-year-old, where he handled horses at a family friend's farm and got a ringworm skin infection from dealing with hay that saw him bleed along with skin peeling off before he went to the hospital. So yes, a totally healthy person getting sick when something gets into him is what got him eventually on the road to making this film. Made in less than a month in shooting, Roth struggled when it came to living in his studio apartment (requiring his parents to loan him money) and also in finishing the film to mix and make prints (apparently it involved a VHS tape). Roth cited a screening at the very end of the Toronto Film Festival (after just managing to get a print made for late September 2002) as being key to getting proper distribution, which came after a bidding war won by Lionsgate. The film, released in September 2003, was fairly successful for the budget it was made (roughly $1.5 million); this also included a couple of recommendations on the Internet, whether that was Quentin Tarantino or Peter Jackson. Two sequels followed that were done by different directors with smaller distribution with Cabin Fever 2: Spring Fever (2009) and Cabin Fever: Patient Zero (2014) before a remake (as executive produced by Roth) followed in 2016. Since the success of the film, Roth has directed, written. and produced a variety of features (mostly in horror), such as the first two Hostel films (2005, 2007) or The Green Inferno (2013).

Admittedly, the film is infectious to a certain type of viewer when it comes to its dwelling in horror and comedy, which led to a few critiques of being uneven in either. But if people can crow all they want about The Blair Witch Project (1999) and how it was so good when it came to found-footage horror despite being monumentally overrated with its particular type of characters (read: losers), why the hell would I not give slack to a film like this that is more offbeat and, dare I say it, one that actually gets to the point? Embracing the crude (there's a punchline in the ending that loops to the opening that somehow comes about from what is said and seen involving a store owner) when it comes to horror films is something I can't argue against when I actually care about what I am watching. It is a familiar movie at times (The Evil Dead, Deliverance, take your pick), whether that involves the usual suspects of folks causing a ruckus in the woods dovetailing with a possible plague. I actually kind of dig the idea of these imbeciles all getting taken down by going too far in their own human choices. Strong (one of the stars of Boy Meets World, really) might be the best in terms of light performances that inhabit the film, but there is something amusing at times when it comes to DeBello and his thick-headed performance. In a way, the film is about the pitfalls of where prejudice can befall any one of us, whether that involves how horrid a person looks or because they are outsiders. Granted, it isn't exactly the profound type of reaching point, but the film still manages to keep enough focus for a useful 94-minute feature. It takes the time to know these loonies and their proclivities for swears and sex that is, well, familiar to those who know people like that (I can't say I know people who would handle a sick man at the door like that, but being let down by folks you know isn't exactly an experience limited to folks like you or me). One highlight beyond just saying that scene involving "pancakes" (well, these folks are more than just in danger of getting sick from a flesh thing) is probably the one where the skin comes off when someone tries to shave their legs and they just keep going. Well, that, or an ending that sees one character show just a bit too much confidence in themselves or a gradually revealed place of one particular type of townies. As a whole, the film runs through the familiar grounds you might have traveled before in horror with tinges of comedy, but those that buy into what it is selling will be just fine with the film as a creation of the 2000s in all of its standing.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Next: Rosemary's Baby.

Inglourious Basterds.

Review #1551: Inglourious Basterds.

Cast: 
Brad Pitt (Lt. Aldo "The Apache" Rain), Mélanie Laurent (Shosanna Dreyfus/Emmanuelle Mimieux), Christoph Waltz (Hans Landa), Eli Roth (Sgt. Donny "The Bear Jew" Donowitz), Michael Fassbender (Lt. Archie Hicox), Diane Kruger (Bridget von Hammersmark), Daniel Brühl (Pfc. Fredrick Zoller), Til Schweiger (Sgt. Hugo Stiglitz), Gedeon Burkhard (Corporal Wilhelm Wicki), Jacky Ido (Marcel), B. J. Novak (Pfc. Smithson "The Little Man" Utivich), Omar Doom (Pfc. Omar Ulmer), Samm Levine (Pfc. Gerold Hirschberg), and August Diehl (Dieter Hellstrom) Written and Directed by Quentin Tarantino (#638 - Kill Bill: Volume 1, #639 - Kill Bill: Volume 2, #1180 - Reservoir Dogs, #1218 - Pulp Fiction, #1251 - Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, and #1307 - Jackie Brown)

Review: 
"Some people will like Inglourious Basterds. Some people won't. But it was made with all the passion I've made everything with - except maybe my first film, which was probably made with more passion than I'll ever have again."

Doing a Quentin Tarantino film can be quite an experience, depending on one's moods for his particular style towards filmmaking that have made him an interesting auteur with ten released features in the span of over two decades, which are generally known for their handling of violence, ensemble casting and drawing upon films and other media. Tarantino spent ten years writing the film, but he apparently could not come up with an ending at first. He has stated his desire to make a spaghetti western but as a World War II film, one that could forward the war-mission subgenre with more artistic movement. Of course he also believes that the opening chapter of the film was the best thing he had written since True Romance (1993), so cut it however you like it.

It's rather amazing with all the spectacle and time built into making a 153 minute film that goes where it wants with dual stories (alongside a significant amount of dialogue spoken in Italian, French, and German) and many actors making an appearance (such as a brief nod for Rod Taylor and Mike Myers, believe it or not) that it all comes down to being remarkably average. I don't really know what I was expecting, but while I found some of it fairly enjoyable when it comes to exploitation material, other parts seem to go on for quite a bit longer than they really should and it really seems like a case of too much boldness where it needs to be less. His films are definitely ones that could desire multiple viewings, but I really didn't latch onto this one that much to really think I'll go back and just look on it again anytime soon (which is strange, since I re-watched his subsequent film Once Upon a Time in Hollywood (2019) and actually liked it better than I already did, and that also is a sprawling film involving alternate history). For something that aspires for sprawling story, it really feels like two hollow ends of the same instrument. Pitt leads the film with reasoned edge, confident in exactly what is needed for someone needing to deal in blunt vengeance. Somehow, Laurent didn't really seemed to connect well here, as if somehow one desires more interest in the other structure of revenge than passiveness that really didn't make as much an impression as I might've liked, which is probably important with the whole "let's burn it all down" time spent - she might be shown as bigger-than-life, but it sure doesn't translate to a big factor of focus. Of course this could also apply to Fassbender or Kruger as well, since they both feature in a whole sequence involving accents, a guessing game, and exactly what you might expect in tedium. Waltz is the best part of the whole film, honestly. It seems strange that of a diverse grab-bag of international actors that it is the one involved in television and film since the late 1970s (in either German or English language) as a native of Austria that outranks the rest, capturing a great adversary of courteous and sardonic skill. Roth (occasional actor and director of films such as Cabin Fever) makes the most impression of the title characters, mostly because of a bravado to go with a big swing.

I have given a bit of slack to films that resonate in entertainment despite perhaps lacking in depth. For this, I just can't really give this that much to grab on because I feel that it is just okay at actually executing itself in boldness beyond a few tricks of war films past and an attempt at making revenge and action seem more than it really is. It brandishes itself in camp and fervor that does do fine with some of its sequences in generating shock or a bit of smile, and the opening sequence is at the very least a useful to set itself up on the right track. Pitt and Waltz do enough to carry a film in casual interest of sidestepping history that mostly make up for a film with flickering energy to actually land its convictions and passion it yearns to have, but it certainly could provide a curiosity for those interested in its presentation and its vision to get there.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.