La isla del infierno

The third entry in the Cabin Fever franchise was undoubtedly a disgusting mistake.

With the attempt to elaborate the origins of the bacterial plague that was previously unanswered in past entires, it offers an overly bloated and convoluted story with nothing special aside being absolutely disgusting. Although not as grotesque as the franchise's second entry, it continues retaining the exhausting nastiness its predecessors began.

The biggest unforgivable dilemma with this film, aside from everything else, was its merged storytelling with two separate situations. These events are intended to conjoin answers but merely create further questions and flaws. Its introduction becomes the film's main subplot and had more interesting scenery than the film's main focus. Despite that, almost none of the characters are likable or tolerable, the elongated and senseless disposable scenes are immediately annoying, and the film dares to become an exciting thriller during its final act.

It's absolutely revolting, stupid, and a waste of contaminated water.

I watched this gore-fest with little expectations after the second Cabin Fever. Even with low expectations, I was disappointed.

The plot is thin, the pace is slow, the horror is limited, the characters are not interesting and most of what happens makes little to no sense once you have accepted that the disease is real. The virus reacts so differently from a person to another that it's just ridiculous how one victim gets Deadly sick within a few minutes while others take hours before having serious symptoms. The security issues around a facility of that nature are laughable at best and the people working there seem to be hired on a good-looks basis only.

Sean Astin is good, but his part is small and his lines are cliché.

I also had an issue with the most gruesome action scenes where I had a hard time understanding what was happening. As it's often the case in many movies, the quick cut from an angle to another to prevent us from noticing how low budget some FX are makes it difficult to comprehend what they are really doing. Lighting in some scenes is horrible too.

It's still enjoyable for some horrific scenes, but overall, this is not a good movie.

Cabin fever 2 was equally bad. Cabin Fever (the original movie) was campy and kind of good, even though it was by no standards great.

Cabin Fever 3? Where did it come from? Why is it here? Who made it? All these questions you'll probably never really figure out by watching the film. The first in the series was released over a decade ago. It was a nice (or rather horrible!) little film about a flesh-eating virus which didn't need any more done on the subject matter. However, they made a second instalment anyway. This was met with pretty much universal hatred. Therefore, the fact they went as far as to make number three remains a mystery.

Personally, I didn't mind the second one. Yes, it wasn't as good as the first, but it was just about watchable. Number three is about five times worse than number two. It's about four American youngsters (who's good looks just about make up for any social niceties) who go to a remote island for some reason (are you bothered? You're only interested in the gore!) and end up falling foul to that good ol' fashioned killer virus we all know so well.

Cabin Fever 3 is low budget. I have nothing against low budget films. However, if you can't afford A-list actors or special effects, at least try to make up for it by entertaining characters we can root for and relate to. No such luck here. When it comes to the battle between flesh-eating virus verses man, you too will probably root for the virus.

The only famous face you might recognise is Sean Astin. Mordor and fun with Frodo seems a long way off now and he's reduced to some sort of extended sub-plot/cameo in this film. At least he's tried to disguise his appearance with a beard, but you can tell beneath the facial hair he's ashamed to be here and would rather have flung himself into Mount Doom instead of the One Ring. While the annoyingly good-looking teens are being eaten alive by the bug, Sean's been captured by a scientist who is so evil he speaks with a kind of randomly-changing accent which can be anything from British, through Canadian to American. Plus he seems to have employed two Victoria Secrets models for his lab assistants.

However, it's not all bad (well, mostly it is). There is some nice gore and make-up. However, that makes up about ten of the ninety minutes. For the rest you'll probably be asking yourself why these infected people suddenly start behaving like zombies half way through the film (when you're not dwelling on why this film was ever made in the first place). If you like dark and gory horror (with a helping of tongue in cheek) then watch the first Cabin Fever – ignore anything that shares its name made after the original.

Let me start by saying that I really, really liked, Cabin Fever. Nice in the woods movie, with a interesting disease, OK plot, OK movie! Then I saw CF2: Spring Fever, and I knew, it all went down the drain. Perfect example of what happens when the apple falls too far from the tree. Needless to say, I had kinda no expectations from part 3, thinking they will rely on gore even more, and won't see anything but guts and blood.

Was I wrong? Sort of. Sure, you do see more blood than on the first, but this one, actually has a back bone. It has a story behind it, has characters, will intrigue just a little, and amuse you a few times. Aw, and it has one of the greatest chick fights I've ever seen. So, there are some reasons to watch it, especially that it jumps from "Spring Fever" and acts more like a sequel to the first part.

Just don't expect a masterpiece, but an OK horror movie, that can stand as a movie all by itself, you don't have to watch the other parts to understand it. I gave it a 4. 4 is a good enough grade for this one.

Will I recommend it? Only if you are a fan of the first too, well, the original at least. Cheers!

After the debacle that was 'CABIN FEVER 2', I was hoping that this movie going to be better. Well it was only marginally better in my opinion. If only Eli Roth had more of an "on hands" role with this film, could have been a much better movie. I liked the plot, but it wasn't executed in the way it could have been in my opinion. I find this a commonly occurring theme with sequels, the new director has the potential to make the series better, but then they change things too much and try too hard which usually ends in failure. Some of the effects were OK, and although it was quite bloody in some parts, the film didn't really deliver as I was hoping it would. For me the first one was the best, and it will stay that way. All I can give this movie is a 4 out of 10.