The Cabin in the Woods *Spoilers from post 180*

Benzino

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

Just out of it.

I'm leaning on the thumbs up for fun side but not amazed.

practically i only had one problem with the film

the purge button. PURGE DOES NOT MEAN THAT! Ok I am annoyed at firstly a button that releases all the monsters into the main base. I do not see the need for it. Secondly and more importantly...the button is called the emergency purge control. PURGE MEANS TO REMOVE! When I purge my septic tank I dont pour it over my sitting room carpet.

That just annoyed me and I guess its because I was thinking the same way as the film. *RELEASE ALL THE MONSTERS* I just hoped there would have been something more to it then *beep button* I thought they'd go back to the cabin and just started putting on all the necklaces and music boxes etc etc to release all the monsters. But I guess that would have killed the pace?

But yeah I enjoyed the film, good humour kept it flowing. But it's not a *game changer* as its advertising tries to sell it as. it's pretty much scream with monsters.

Personally I might have found it more interesting if it stayed on those in the facility and not on the *sacrifices*

Hmm,

The way I see it, the movie is essentially taking the piss out of the horror genre, and the button was part of it. How many movies have we seen a similar red button? I think that is what they were getting at.

candy-gal1

Going to see this this evening, going by the posts here it sounds good, im hoping! :pac:
havent watched the trailer or anything for it, made sure i didnt as that sometimes ruins horrors and the like for me, Scream with monsters you say? sounds fun!

Fysh

allanb49 wrote: »

Whiteboard

Hell Lord aka Fornicus, Lord of Bondage and Pain (Summoned by Puzzle Orb) - Specific reference to Cenobites from Hellraiser. [Bet on by Sitterson]

I thought this was specifically

a Pinhead reference, not just the Cenobites.

allanb49 wrote: »

Kevin - Unknown reference seen on betting board. (Possible reference to Sin City or Friday the 13th)

I would've thought this was more likely a reference to

the Identifiable-By-First-Name Slasher Film villains like Jason (Voorhees), Michael (Myers), or Freddy (Krueger).

allanb49 wrote: »

The Reanimated - Unknown reference seen on betting board. [Bet on by Administration]

I would assume this is a reference to

the zombies in the Re-animator franchise

.

allanb49 wrote: »

Zombie Redneck Torture Family aka the Buckners (Summoned by Diary) - Mash-Up of zombie, torture, & killer backwood family films. [Bet on by Maintainence & Ronald the Intern]

I thought this was a reference to

the Texas Chainsaw Massacre franchise, as well as more recent excursions in that vein like House of 1000 Corpses, Devil's Rejects or Wrong Turn

Nervous Wreck

Benzino wrote: »

Hmm,

The way I see it, the movie is essentially taking the piss out of the horror genre, and the button was part of it. How many movies have we seen a similar red button? I think that is what they were getting at.

I would tend to agree with this. It's a

deux ex machina button

!

Fysh

Nervous Wreck wrote: »

I would tend to agree with this. It's a

deux ex machina button

!

Yeah, it could only have been better if

that was what the label said

Nervous Wreck

Haha, that would actually have been awesome!

Da Shins Kelly

Saw it tonight, thought it was class. Brilliant satire altogether.

Tusky

Saw this tonight and loved it. I avoided reviews and trailers beforehand and very glad I did, as it would be easily ruined. My only complaint:

It was great to see all of the monsters released during the third act, but I just wish they had gone a little easier on the CGI. Some of the monsters, the giant snake for example, just didn't work for me.

Da Shins Kelly

Tusky wrote: »

Saw this tonight and loved it. I avoided reviews and trailers beforehand and very glad I did, as it would be easily ruined. My only complaint:

It was great to see all of the monsters released during the third act, but I just wish they had gone a little easier on the CGI. Some of the monsters, the giant snake for example, just didn't work for me.

Yeah, I actually thought the

"people" monsters were brilliant. The Hellraiser guy was so good. Really liked that we finally got to see the Merman after all that! The appearance of a Pennywise type character was cool too. The giant snake and the sort bat-type thing didn't do it for me either, but I still think it was good to include them, rather than just have zombies and creepy Asian chicks and all that.

One of my favourite bits in the whole movie was

actually seeing the cameras in the surveillance room, and seeing what was happening to all the people around the building, all the different horrific ways to die - the people being set on fire, the person being suffocated with a bag, the insane doctors and all that.

Also, just wondering, cos I didn't notice it when I was watching:

When they're all down in the cellar and they're all looking at different objects that will release the monsters, Marty is looking at a roll of film. Is it specified which monster that would have released? I feel like it was probably specified and I just missed it, what with all the other stuff happening!

Diairist

Also, just wondering, cos I didn't notice it when I was watching:

When they're all down in the cellar and they're all looking at different objects that will release the monsters, Marty is looking at a roll of film. Is it specified which monster that would have released? I feel like it was probably specified and I just missed it, what with all the other stuff happening!

[/QUOTE]

too true;

'purge' was a wrong name for that button, by the way. Also - supposng he HAD blown the conch like the pencil neck expected, that was a whole other chain of events like the film bit in the cellar

Diairist

Does anyone else think the "revealing the voice to be Sigourney Weaver a little overdone. It wasn't that long ago since they did it in Paul.

too bloody true - she's the new Brendan Gleeson - popping up in every other movie.

and that's the same character & voice as in 'the cold light of day', which she ALSO weakened...

johnny_ultimate

A fantastically fun film. This is what I like to see: a clever central concept, a confident execution, plenty of unusual twists and turns, a consistent wit and a convincing knowledge of the genre it giddily dismantles. It's refreshingly like what Scream did so many years ago before it was ruined by redundant sequels, but has a tonne of tricks it plays around with throughout. I honestly could have lived with it just being a straight-up deconstruction of the 'teens in the woods' film, but it had an enjoyable and often thrilling horror lore of its own: thought the pacing and revelations were very thoughtfully considered, and I thoroughly enjoyed the way the film slowly put the puzzle pieces together in the opening half. Proof that an amusing and entertaining night at the cinema does not necessarily warrant a complete switching off of the brain. Also loved some of the creature design - loving homages to classic monsters, but with their own identity too.

I think some of the nitpicking in here is unwarranted, because frankly the film is ridiculous at its heart, and it's wholly aware of this. The only negative, IMO, is that the budget sometimes can't quite keep up with the imaginative situations being hurled at the screen. It's a small concern, and given the insanity of the things being rendered it's a flaw that's easily forgiven.

It's a film fully aware of the rules it breaks, satirises and homages. However, the film ends on perhaps the strongest punchline of all (even if the very last shot was a little iffy). Unlike most horror films that are just dying to hint at an inevitably inferior sequel, this concludes on a punctuation mark rather than an ellipsis, meaning a sequel is nigh on impossible. And that, more than anything, summed up the mission statement and tone of this film to a tee.

Although I'd love to see the full Japanese scenario.

candy-gal1

Most fun movie ive seen in a long time, seriously! and what a real surprise of a movie!
First 15mins, not great, a tad forced acting and a meh feeling about it, but after that it just got better and better
Absolutly adored the

creepy zombie feel to it, their entrance into it, all the horror movie characters come into it in a brilliants scene of blood and goreish, and loved the stoner guy in it, made me laugh hard out loud more than once

All in all, awesome movie, which i would see again most definitly, 10/10 imho

Millicent

candy-gal1 wrote: »

Most fun movie ive seen in a long time, seriously! and what a real surprise of a movie!
First 15mins, not great, a tad forced acting and a meh feeling about it, but after that it just got better and better
Absolutly adored the

creepy zombie feel to it, their entrance into it, all the horror movie characters come into it in a brilliants scene of blood and goreish, and loved the stoner guy in it, made me laugh hard out loud more than once

All in all, awesome movie, which i would see again most definitly, 10/10 imho

The

stoner was funny but the Japanese schoolgirls singing and holding hands round the frog is worth paying in for alone, IMO. I cried laughing.

I totally agree with your assessment of it. Very clever and great craic.

alanzo27

Saw this on Friday, and in my opinion it was pretty average. I liked the innovation and creativity of the characters. The first 30 minutes or so were fine for me, a bit dragged out, but after that I was like WTF a lot of the time. Storyline was ok, but it wasn't a horror film that I was expecting.

The ending was abrupt. It didn't do it for me when the God's hand raised up from the ground and 'ended humanity' (At least that's what I think happened.)

Maybe I just need to see it again to get the a full understanding and enjoy it better.

For me a solid 6/10.

CastorTroy

Watched last night and really enjoyed it.

I was getting a lot of Cube trilogy vibes from it. And it is one I want to get when it's released just so I can pause and check out the different creatures.
Sorry if answered before, as I've only read a few pages, but do you think it's appreciated more by fans of the Whedonverse? Just with guys like Tom Lenk and Amy Acker popping up, who I didn't know were in it.
And could you say Bradley Whitford was killed by irony?

Also since I wasn't clock watching there were multiple times I thought it was over. Like when Dana was about to get killed on the pier and when they were stuck in the box and the camera pulled out.

And at the end I expected Marty to live having revealed himself as a virgin. But that would mean Dana would have to be a fool

mikhail

alanzo27 wrote: »

The ending was abrupt. It didn't do it for me when the God's hand raised up from the ground and 'ended humanity' (At least that's what I think happened.)

For what it's worth, the kinds of mythologies it's referencing

(primarily Lovecraft's Old Ones/Dead Gods)

, that closing shot

isn't the end in itself, but just the beginning of a horrifyingly painful end of humanity.

norrie rugger

alanzo27 wrote: »

Saw this on Friday, and in my opinion it was pretty average. I liked the innovation and creativity of the characters. The first 30 minutes or so were fine for me, a bit dragged out, but after that I was like WTF a lot of the time. Storyline was ok, but it wasn't a horror film that I was expecting.

The ending was abrupt. It didn't do it for me when the God's hand raised up from the ground and 'ended humanity' (At least that's what I think happened.)

Maybe I just need to see it again to get the a full understanding and enjoy it better.

For me a solid 6/10.

What were you expecting?

gazzer

Saw it last night. It was FANTASTIC. Loved every minute of it and I actually sat forward in my seat for the last 20 minutes I was that excited.

I dont know if any of you used to watch Angel but

If it had have gotten a 6th season I think the Wolfram and Hart office that was in Hell and was always referred to but never seen would have been the building in this movie complete with all the demons etc

I was actually half expecting

a cameo from Buffy and Angel at the end

Skinfull

CastorTroy wrote: »

Watched last night and really enjoyed it.

And it is one I want to get when it's released just so I can pause and check out the different creatures.

You can see it was posted only a couple of pages back.

Galvasean

Goldstein wrote: »

And what was the 1998 near failure reference about?
[/spoiler]

Tenner says that was a set up for a straight to DVD prequel (which I will buy in a heart beat).

Tusky wrote: »

but I just wish they had gone a little easier on the CGI. Some of the monsters, the giant snake for example, just didn't work for me.[/spoiler]

Maybe it's just me being a b-movie fan but

I kind of liked the bad CGI cobra. It was adirect reference to those straight to TV CG super snake films that show up in gas station bargain bins for $4

Skinfull

I'm pretty sure there wont be any prequel or sequel. I mean the

ending really killed off the idea of anything what with it being the end of the world and all

And Goddard and Whedon wont partake in any prequel ideas. I'm pretty sure Whedon has never partaken in any sequel (Aliens 4 doesn't count as he wasn't involved in the previous instalments) and hopefully it will stay like that! I think Goddard is the same.

Galvasean

Skinfull wrote: »

I'm pretty sure there wont be any prequel or sequel. I mean the

ending really killed off the idea of anything what with it being the end of the world and all

The ending (of any film?) does not discount a prequel.

Skinfull wrote: »

And Goddard and Whedon wont partake in any prequel ideas. I'm pretty sure Whedon has never partaken in any sequel (Aliens 4 doesn't count as he wasn't involved in the previous instalments) and hopefully it will stay like that! I think Goddard is the same.

That doesn't mean anything these days. Look at American Psycho 2: didn't use the original director, writers, actors. If the studios want to cash in they will cash in.
Plus where is the notion that Whedon wont partake in sequel/prequel ideas coming from when he's not adverse to spinoffs (Angel) or remakes (Serenity)?

johnny_ultimate

Galvasean wrote: »

The ending (of any film?) does not discount a prequel.

That doesn't mean anything these days. Look at American Psycho 2: didn't use the original director, writers, actors. If the studios want to cash in they will cash in.
Plus where is the notion that Whedon wont partake in sequel/prequel ideas coming from when he's not adverse to spinoffs (Angel) or remakes (Serenity)?

I really, really, really hope not, as I emphasised in my post above. Great horror ideas do not always invite sequels / prequels, and in fact many have been tarnished through the overexposure of inferior follow-ups.

Cabin in the Woods says what it wants to say perfectly, and the ending for me was a definitive and admirable mission statement. Unless they decide to make a feature length version of '

Happy Frog

', then I hope to hell they stay away from the temptation of franchising unless they have a truly great reason for doing so.

Skinfull

Drew Goddard was already asked in a Q&A if there will be a sequel and he just answered "Have you seen my movie?!" as quoted from IMDB trivia... therefore must be true!

Well okay, maybe I should have clarified and said, Neither Whedon nor Goddard will partake in any sequel or prequel and studio be dammed if they try to cash in on one!

Galvasean

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

I really, really, really hope not, as I emphasised in my post above. Great horror ideas do not always invite sequels / prequels, and in fact many have been tarnished through the overexposure of inferior follow-ups.

I don't buy the idea that cash ins tarnish source material. I still love the Empire Strikes Back, Jurassic Park, American Psycho etc. despite their endlessly inferior spinoffs.
If they made another CitW film so be it. There's a chance it could be cool (ala Cube Zero). If they mess it up they mess it up and we can still enjoy the original.

johnny_ultimate

Galvasean wrote: »

I don't buy the idea that cash ins tarnish source material. I still love the Empire Strikes Back, Jurassic Park, American Psycho etc. despite their endlessly inferior spinoffs.
If they made another CitW film so be it. There's a chance it could be cool (ala Cube Zero). If they mess it up they mess it up and we can still enjoy the original.

But CitW pretty boldly states at the end its resistance to sequels. It'd actually somewhat undermine the artistic statements of the film if Whedon and Godard were to suddenly decide to craft a follow-up. A studio initiated DTV sequel / prequel at least could be safely ignored.

I could cite a tonne of horror franchises (from Scream to Ringu) where overexposure actively damages the reputation of the initial films. This is in most cases unjustified given the impossible to ignore quality of the earlier films, but how many once iconic characters and moments have been distorted by misguided sequels?

CastorTroy

Skinfull wrote: »

You can see it was posted only a couple of pages back.

Thanks, but I meant to see the actual creatures and see how they're realised. For example

When it shows the different killings on the monitors. And I liked the cenobite type ones. So just being able to pause, rewind and rewatch to see the killings or appearances would be nice, so to speak....


... Ok, I just wanna see if the sexy witches actually show up.

Theboinkmaster

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

But CitW pretty boldly states at the end its resistance to sequels. It'd actually somewhat undermine the artistic statements of the film if Whedon and Godard were to suddenly decide to craft a follow-up. A studio initiated DTV sequel / prequel at least could be safely ignored.

I could cite a tonne of horror franchises (from Scream to Ringu) where overexposure actively damages the reputation of the initial films. This is in most cases unjustified given the impossible to ignore quality of the earlier films, but how many once iconic characters and moments have been distorted by misguided sequels?

To be honest i just don't care about an original's reputation being distorted by inferior sequels. It has never ever damaged by enjoyment of the original and has happened alot.

Cabin in the woods was awesome I'm going to get the blu ray. As to what happens with sequels i really couldn't care less.

Galvasean

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

I could cite a tonne of horror franchises (from Scream to Ringu) where overexposure actively damages the reputation of the initial films. This is in most cases unjustified given the impossible to ignore quality of the earlier films, but how many once iconic characters and moments have been distorted by misguided sequels?

Doesn't really matter to me if an iconic idea/character etc. get's distorted in a sequel/prequel/spinoff as I can still enjoy the original. Granted you get a lot of slosh, but when you consider 3 of this years most anticipated movies are The Avengers (multi sequel/spinoff), The Dark Knight Rises (threequel) and Prometheus (prequel/spinoff) I wouldn't be too quick to tow the 'damn all sequels etc.!' line towed on the internet all too readily.