The Cabin in the Woods *Spoilers from post 180*

Fysh

pixelburp wrote: »

Well a twist in the sense that we didn't initially know why the teens were being bumped off. And a twist also in the sense that there was a fairly-legitimate reason for all the bloodshed. As soon as I saw the first lever pulled and the blood pouring into the stonework I twigged it was part of some blood-sacrafice-for-gods dealy. Not trying to be 'that guy' who pretends to have guessed all the unknowns btw

They hint at the blood sacrifice element pretty strongly in the opening credits, which ended with stereotypical slasher scream-queen shriek.

The red button was a bit daft, but no more so than the entire elaborate setup with the dozens/hundreds of monsters all kept in reserve.

Greyjoy

pixelburp wrote: »

And I dunno why it annoys me so much, but if you're creating a complicated, hightech zoo, containing almost every nightmare imaginable & monster made flesh, why the fook would you have a big red button that purges the cages & releases them all into a staff hallway? To quote the stoner, that makes what kind off sense? Maybe I just wasn't thinking meta enough, but that just struck me as dumb.

I enjoyed the film but that button nonsense annoyed me too. By rights something that dangerous should have been in the control room with the two technicians. It felt like the writers needed an "escape hatch" to save Dana & Marty from the guards so they just skipped to the end and released the monsters. It would have made more sense to have the guards haul the two survivors to the control room where the techs give them some info on the true purpose of the bunker. During that scene either Dana or Marty spot the big red button on a control panel and hit it in order to provide a distraction for their escape.

S.M.B.

You could argue that the area by the elevators was more secure than anywhere else within the building apart from the one big oversight of the possibility of intruders accessing the area via the elevators themselves.

More low level personnel would have access to the control room than the basement levels of the compound.

stealinhorses

Saw this today, really good flick, wasn't expecting it to be quite as entertaining. I'm not big into the horror genre so I might not have caught some of the references, but it doesn't take a genius to appreciate the general idea and the execution. Absolutely loved the opening scene with the control room workers, it set the tone fantastically for the next hour and a half.
The film was scary when it needed to be, but luckily for me this was interwoven with humour/cutting back to the control room nearly all the time, so I wasn't panicking, as I get scared easily enough ;P.
The acting was on a reasonable level, especially liked the lead female character. The last act was insanely enjoyable and the whole film was paced perfectly.
Favourite moment:

Hemsworth's death - hilarious, wasn't expecting it at all

Taking a page out of Scream's book, sure, and perhaps not as slick, but still very fresh. Someone already mentioned this above in the thread, but it felt like I Saw the Devil at times, with the excessive blood and the tension created throughout. Definitely worth a watch.

spankmaster2000

I haven't read through any of the above thread, so I'm not sure what you guys thought of it; but I saw this on Saturday and really liked it!

Starting with the needlessly "shock" title card, to the fresh twist on overly cliche'd characters, to the unexpectedly humourous turns; I really enjoyed the winking nods to various horror tropes; while remaining one step above a parody. Almost like a critical view on existing conventions.

(Was it just me, or was the stoner character essentially just Shaggy from Scooby Doo? Heck, their campervan may as well have said "Mystery Machine" on the side!)

As with the above poster, I'm not a fan of horror films at all; and the last one I saw before this was "The Devil Inside" which was utter tripe! So this was a breath of fresh air. Maybe it was aimed more towards me, than die-hard horror fans, and that's the intention?

I mentioned in the Avengers thread that I wasn't the biggest fan of Joss Whedon, but after seeing this, I've had to eat my words.

Mickeroo

stealinhorses wrote: »

Favourite moment:

Hemsworth's death - hilarious, wasn't expecting it at all

Should have been pretty obvious what was about to happen to him if you were paying attention at the start :P

Skinfull

Mickeroo wrote: »

Should have been pretty obvious what was about to happen to him if you were paying attention at the start :P

I was paying attention but still when he hit the wall it totally shocked me! I had completely forgotten about the wall and was so wrapped up in the moment. I was willing him to make it!

stealinhorses

Mickeroo wrote: »

Should have been pretty obvious what was about to happen to him if you were paying attention at the start :P

I obviously saw

the bird flying into the barrier at the start

but I didn't realise it was right in that spot when he was making the jump.

Good on the filmmakers to distract me and for that to happen :P

Mike Litoris

Cabin in the woods. 1st half - wow, someones actually made a decent hollywood horror. 2nd half - knew it wouldn't last.

Kinski

Border-Rat wrote: »

I watched this and The Avengers pretty close together. I noticed a few things. Firstly, this movie gets torn apart for being too gratuitous, having no plot, bad acting and no character development. Then you have The Avengers - and its just an example. There's a movie with no story, wooden acting, no character development and a complete overkill of chaotic CGI. I'm not sure how anyone can argue otherwise. In the first ten minutes of The Avengers, a reference is made to Loki invading Earth - who by the way, you know nothing about if you haven't seen 'Thor'. For the next 110 minutes, there is no plot - only a chain-reaction of CGI-ridden battles. They finally pick up on the 'story' again in the last 15 minutes - with an eye-melting barrage of CGI crap.

I wondered how such a vacuous film could be so well received.

Haven't seen Avengers, but the involvement of Joss Whedon probably helped skew its critical reception. I know this will undoubtedly irritate some people, but I've not seen anything by him that was better than mediocre (Serenity), plenty that was rubbish (Cabin In the Woods), and some stuff that was just so embarrassingly bad I practically had to watch through my fingers (Buffy...yes, the TV show, not the all-but-forgotten feature film). Yet every single one of those things can be called "critically-acclaimed."

On the other hand, everyone just expects a film like The Expendables to be crap.

Gee Bag

Mike Litoris wrote: »

Cabin in the woods. 1st half - wow, someones actually made a decent hollywood horror. 2nd half - knew it wouldn't last.

I watched it last night, I thought it was great.

However, I did have quite a few beers before and during so my judgement may be suspect.

Border-Rat

Kinski wrote: »

Haven't seen Avengers, but the involvement of Joss Whedon probably helped skew its critical reception. I know this will undoubtedly irritate some people, but I've not seen anything by him that was better than mediocre (Serenity), plenty that was rubbish (Cabin In the Woods), and some stuff that was just so embarrassingly bad I practically had to watch through my fingers (Buffy...yes, the TV show, not the all-but-forgotten feature film). Yet every single one of those things can be called "critically-acclaimed."

On the other hand, everyone just expects a film like The Expendables to be crap.

The Cabin in the Woods and The Avengers were pretty badly written. Stoner character? In 2012? If didn't like those noisy, vacuous transformer movies then I'd advise you to avoid The Avengers at all costs.

mrmorgan

I finally watched cabin in the woods after people talking about it here.

Started off actually really well then it lost all credibility towards the end.

Overall dissappointing

Raoul

mrmorgan wrote: »

I finally watched cabin in the woods after people talking about it here.

Started off actually really well then it lost all credibility towards the end.

Overall dissappointing

I saw the first 1 hour and 20 of this. Then the fire alarm went off. I got my money back thanks Christ, thought it was awful. The stoner guy was about the only redeeming character. Haven't even bothered to attempt to watch the ending though I have read what happens.

krudler

Border-Rat wrote: »

The Cabin in the Woods and The Avengers were pretty badly written. Stoner character? In 2012? If didn't like those noisy, vacuous transformer movies then I'd advise you to avoid The Avengers at all costs.

you didnt really get what The Cabin In The Woods was trying to do did you? I also had a jock, a slut, a virgin and a token black guy. That was the point.

mrmorgan

Raoul wrote: »

mrmorgan wrote: »

I finally watched cabin in the woods after people talking about it here.

Started off actually really well then it lost all credibility towards the end.

Overall dissappointing

I saw the first 1 hour and 20 of this. Then the fire alarm went off. I got my money back thanks Christ, thought it was awful. The stoner guy was about the only redeeming character. Haven't even bothered to attempt to watch the ending though I have read what happens.

You're lucky as the ending is truely awful!

Ape X

You're all wrong! :pac:

Basq

I thought it was good in cinemas..

.. but re-watched it last weekend, and thought it was even better.

Kinski

krudler wrote: »

you didnt really get what The Cabin In The Woods was trying to do did you? I also had a jock, a slut, a virgin and a token black guy. That was the point.

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."

norrie rugger

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."

It is subverting it, as it actually gives a reason as to WHY they have to be there

johnny_ultimate

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

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

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.

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.

Watched Cabin in the Woods last night and found it absolutely wonderful. There are some strong comparisons with the wonderful and criminally underlooked Tucker and Dale vs Evil, where they give you a common horror cliche and have fun with it. I thought it was absolutely brilliant with some excellent ideas - would be interested to see Whedon do a proper horror!

Basq

Deleted User wrote: »

would be interested to see Whedon do a proper horror!

Let's all forget 'Alien: Resurrection'!

johnny_ultimate

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.

Tipsy McSwagger

I thought the last half hour was the best third of the movie. The only bit I had an issue with was the stoner dude somehow surviving being dragged away to his death.

Mickeroo

Tipsy McSwagger wrote: »

I thought the last half hour was the best third of the movie. The only bit I had an issue with was the stoner dude somehow surviving being dragged away to his death.

I thought they showed exactly how he managed to survive through a flashback? Been a while since I watched but nearly sure they did.

pixelburp

Mickeroo wrote: »

I thought they showed exactly how he managed to survive through a flashback? Been a while since I watched but nearly sure they did.

I think he hacked the zombie with a trowel, but the bigger problem I had with that whole 'twist' was how his survival wasn't noticed by the Control Room; it was established quite clearly that they had heart-rate & vital-signs monitors on the victims - everything was being watched - so how did they not notice the Stoner wasn't actually killed off? Or that he was freely wandering around the gameworld at that.

Maybe I missed something obvious myself, but that sort of glaring mistake in the writing made me think that perhaps the movie wasn't as clever or deep as people thought it was - that any perceived depth was merely accidental

Mickeroo

pixelburp wrote: »

I think he hacked the zombie with a trowel, but the bigger problem I had with that whole 'twist' was how his survival wasn't noticed by the Control Room; it was established quite clearly that they had heart-rate & vital-signs monitors on the victims - everything was being watched - so how did they not notice the Stoner wasn't actually killed off? Or that he was freely wandering around the gameworld at that.

Maybe I missed something obvious myself, but that sort of glaring mistake in the writing made me think that perhaps the movie wasn't as clever or deep as people thought it was - that any perceived depth was merely accidental

I need to watch it again but I don't remember having a problem with it at the time. I thought he got around the monitoring system somehow. Saying the cleverness/depth was accidental is a bit much though imo.

I do remember there being something suspicious about the pot they gave him, it seemed like there was someone on the inside trying to help the victims, seemed like that was never fully resolved.

pixelburp

Mickeroo wrote: »

I need to watch it again but I don't remember having a problem with it at the time. I thought he got around the monitoring system somehow. Saying the cleverness/depth was accidental is a bit much though imo.

I do remember there being something suspicious about the pot they gave him, it seemed like there was someone on the inside trying to help the victims, seemed like that was never fully resolved.

Like yourself I'm working from memory, but I don't think he did have a system. He disappeared off, having apparently been killed, then popped up to rescue Hotty mcRedhead when she was being attacked by the lakeside (after the RV crash). The stoner had discovered a computer panel in the zombie's grave in the interim, but other than that I recall no mention of how he avoided detection; or how the Control Room managed to not see his pulse still going strong.