The Cabin in the Woods *Spoilers from post 180*

Warper wrote: »

I thought this was absolute garbage. The first film in a while i contemplated walking out after about 60 mins. Who is this geared at - 12 year olds? The humour is so childish, you would want to be braindead to find it funny. Not funny, not scary, avoid.

Way too much of this type of post around these parts recently. There are better ways to critique and discuss a film than blindly insulting everyone you disagree with.

Warper wrote: »

Hey everyone is entitled to their opinion but for anyone out there that isnt into this childish type of humour, then trust me, this is bad.

Indeed everyone is entitled to an opinion. You are not entitled, however, to call everyone who liked the film 'teenagers' (what an odd insult) or 'idiots'. Enough of that nonsense.

Kinski wrote: »

Which are such hackneyed cliches that they'd been pastiched relentlessly in horror movies already. And then Joss Whedon does it and suddenly it's "cleverly subverting the genre."

I have to politely but vehemently disagree with you there. The difference between Cabin in the Woods and other satires are that Cabin actively critiques, acknowledges, dismantles and embraces its chosen subject. It's all well and good for something like Scary Movie to say "Look! Nerd character! LOL!" and then have nothing interesting to say about it. Cabin in the Woods points it out, and then digs into the nitty gritty of why horror cinema is this way in a playful, humorous manner. On the surface, it's an absurd, exaggerated farce that's thoroughly enjoyable with an endearingly offbeat lore. Underneath is where the real meat lies though.

Goddard and Whedon aren't content to just lightly mock convention - they dive deep, and ask the audience to reflect on what exactly it is that drives this lust for blood and predictability that is undeniably present in mainstream horror cinema. It reflects on how the filmmakers are restricted in their capability to subvert and break the rules due to a demanding viewership and ironically restrictive budget. It holds a mirror up to cinematic convention: it mocks, it critiques, it - yup - subverts. All this underneath a surface layer that's a fun, silly monster movie. Not bad.

Yes, horror movies have been satirised to good effect in the past: Scream (as opposed to its increasingly hypocritical sequels) most notably. But the Cabin in the Woods show such an enthusiasm for the genre, but also a keenness to strip it down and show it up for the dinosaur it is, that it's almost incomparable to any other parodies I can think off. Herzog's Bad Lieutenant - that surreal, giddy dismantling of the police procedural thriller - is possibly the only recent example that deserves equal acclaim. I'm sure there's more, but I am temporarily drawing a blank.

So yes: Cabin of the Woods treads familiar ground. But it does so with verve and a unique, clever perspective. It's not just because Joss Whedon was involved (and, for the record, while I consider myself a Fan of Joss I was very much disappointed by The Avengers). It's because it's a terrific satire in a cinematic environment when parody is rarely anything other than surface deep.

Kinski wrote: »

Mainstream movies which riff on horror conventions - such as Scream and Scary Movie - were not what I had in mind when I suggested that Cabin In the Woods was merely covering old ground. I was thinking of more "meat-and-potatoes" horror films, like, for example, the Living Dead franchise, which went from the sombre, eerie tone of the original through to much more playful, self-consciously "genre" movies like Return and Army of Darkness. Cabin In the Woods was "satirising" a genre which had already been satirising itself to death (if you'll excuse the pun) for thirty years or more.

But isn't it wonderful that someone was still able to find satirical life on a well-worn topic? To me there's few cinematic pleasures like the discovery of a selfconciously 'genre' pic that actually has a new twist on overfamiliar tropes. I'm as big an Evil Dead fan as the next guy, but Army of Darkness, despite being very amusing, doesn't really have any depth to it. It's funny, surreal and entertaining, yes, but CitW has that plus bite. Evil Dead 2 is a good comparison, as are the more ambitious 'dead' films (oh, Romero, what happened to thou? ). I'd have few hesitations putting CitW up there with that fine company - although admittedly I need another viewing to really, definitively state that. First time around was thrilling though.

Oh, and there was one other recent film that matches Cabin in the Woods for satirical force: Super. The comedy superhero film is even more overdone than the comedy horror film, and while Super is overall rougher around the edges than CitW (and equally divisive reaction), it has an equal boldness and provocative street. Both films question our role in the portrayal of screen violence and convention - and, in mainstream cinema, such provocations are distressingly rare and only to be encouraged. Michael Haneke they ain't, but it's still nice to see a mass market film with an edge.