The Cabin in the Woods *Spoilers from post 180*

johnny_ultimate

IRL_Sinister wrote: »

EDIT: Although they at least did leave the most likeable character alive at the end.

Emmm... God?

johnny_ultimate

Oh and a spoiler warning added for I'm sure obvious reasons. No need for tags, everyone else proceed with caution.

IRL_Sinister

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Emmm... God?

Well, almost right to the very end :>

razorblunt

Saw it tonight really enjoyed it, liked the whole "i'm coming back with cops and choppers" build up.
Thought the bike itself might have been a nod to 8 legged freaks

Pointless nitpicking plot holes in a film like this, but

wouldn't the heart rate monitors have indicated who was dead and who was in fact alive still?

Basq

Just saw this this and absolutely loved it!

Although myself and girlfriend were in a quiet screening with probably 5 other people. This is a film that thrives on a good audience, and that wasn't present in the screening I was at.

Three stars of the show were Whitford, Jenkins and Kranz. All 3 were excellent in their respective roles - I always liked Kranz in 'Dollhouse', and here's hoping we see more of him.

The horror movie (first 45 minutes) were the weaker part of the movie for me.. while fun, it did feel a little familiar. The film shone when we were in the facility.

Unlike others, I didn't have a problem with the big red Purge button.. if I was being very sensitive, I'd be wondering why it was in an unlocked room.

Shame to see a movie sit on a shelf for a few years before release... this movie did show it's not always a bad sign (a lá 'Take Me Home Tonight').

Goddard and Whedon just gave the US horror genre a well needed shot in the arm.

johnny_ultimate

IRL_Sinister wrote: »

Yes I know that was the point, but you'd never have gathered that from the trailer. I dislike silly movies, especially when I pay money for them. It's not my cup of tea, as suggested by me saying I did not find the movie good. I, according to the policies and rules of this forum, am entitled to say such opinions.

I know it's not a horror film. At no point did I say it was. I said it wasn't scary because one of the captions, alongside funny, was 'scary'. I did not find a single moment of it scary. It was very predictable. Guy and girl go to woods, get killed. Guy stands by window, gets pulled through. I KNOW that's the point. I just did not like it. I'm sure there are many people out there who do, probably many who saw this as fresh and new but I was not one of them nor did I enjoy this at all.

Not in anyway dismissing your opinion, as you frequently point out that you know it wasn't a horror film. But it seems you're criticising it down to the marketing (which was a very, very hard job for a film of this type, especially when they couldn't really give away any of the story's unique selling points) and what the film isn't. It has no more need to be scary as Scary Movie, albeit one is a genuinely clever genre deconstruction and the other is merely a series of lame pop culture references. CitW, IMO, is only predictable in the way the puppetmasters in the film are making it predictable. While the overall plot structure does follow traditional structural beats, there are enough surprises and twists along the way to make it worthwhile. As I've said before, one of my favourite aspects of the film was the drip feed of information concerning the 'grand scheme' in the first hour: the revelations in that regard were consistently unusual and unexpected.

It just seems a common criticism running through this thread and some of the more negative critical responses to it: that Cabin in the Woods is not scary, and that therefore is a flaw of the film. If so, does the same criticism apply to Evil Dead 2? It and CitW are to me comedies that happen to take place within a traditionally horror environment, and any light scares we get along the way are a welcome bonus. That Cabin in the Woods so actively goes out of its way to insist that it is not a horror - pretty much every generically creepy scene is followed up by a laugh out loud piss-take of it, such as the brilliant bit with the Harbringer - that I really don't think 'it's not scary' is in anyway a fair or accurate critique of what the film actually is, which is a satire first and foremost.

If one doesn't enjoy it even on those terms (most crucially, if they didn't find it funny or entertaining) that we cannot begrudge or argue against that: a lack of consensus, after all, is only to be encouraged. But Cabin in the Woods is a film I've frequently seen criticised for reasons I personally deem somewhat unfair and inaccurate.

jpm4

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Not in anyway dismissing your opinion, as you frequently point out that you know it wasn't a horror film. But it seems you're criticising it down to the marketing (which was a very, very hard job for a film of this type, especially when they couldn't really give away any of the story's unique selling points) and what the film isn't. It has no more need to be scary as Scary Movie, albeit one is a genuinely clever genre deconstruction and the other is merely a series of lame pop culture references. CitW, IMO, is only predictable in the way the puppetmasters in the film are making it predictable. While the overall plot structure does follow traditional structural beats, there are enough surprises and twists along the way to make it worthwhile. As I've said before, one of my favourite aspects of the film was the drip feed of information concerning the 'grand scheme' in the first hour: the revelations in that regard were consistently unusual and unexpected.

It just seems a common criticism running through this thread and some of the more negative critical responses to it: that Cabin in the Woods is not scary, and that therefore is a flaw of the film. If so, does the same criticism apply to Evil Dead 2? It and CitW are to me comedies that happen to take place within a traditionally horror environment, and any light scares we get along the way are a welcome bonus. That Cabin in the Woods so actively goes out of its way to insist that it is not a horror - pretty much every generically creepy scene is followed up by a laugh out loud piss-take of it, such as the brilliant bit with the Harbringer - that I really don't think 'it's not scary' is in anyway a fair or accurate critique of what the film actually is, which is a satire first and foremost.

If one doesn't enjoy it even on those terms (most crucially, if they didn't find it funny or entertaining) that we cannot begrudge or argue against that: a lack of consensus, after all, is only to be encouraged. But Cabin in the Woods is a film I've frequently seen criticised for reasons I personally deem somewhat unfair and inaccurate.

You can't blame people for ending up in the cinema watching this and expecting or hoping to see a horror - not everyone is a horror film, Evil Dead 2 loving nerd to be blunt about it, and into post modern ironic piss taking or whatever. As much as I liked it, I felt that it could have injected a few more scares without taking anything from the basic premise. Scream managed that pretty well if I remember right.

Nervous Wreck

jpm4 wrote: »

You can't blame people for ending up in the cinema watching this and expecting or hoping to see a horror - not everyone is a horror film, Evil Dead 2 loving nerd to be blunt about it, and into post modern ironic piss taking or whatever. As much as I liked it, I felt that it could have injected a few more scares without taking anything from the basic premise. Scream managed that pretty well if I remember right.

There's a number of things it 'could have injected' without taking anything from the basic premise.' Just because you were wanting/expecting a horror doesn't mean the film-makers have to adhere to that.

Fysh

Are we seriously fielding concerns about how it wasn't scary enough?

I mean, yes, fine, the marketing struggled with this one, but...honestly, I don't see how you could get past the conversation about driving with a giant bong and not realise this is a film that doesn't take itself seriously.

Certainly you can't get past the whole Mordecai "I'm on speakerphone" bit without realising that the film really, really doesn't have much interest in adhering to the rules of the genre it's satirising.

Yes, it could have offered up some more convincing conventional scares...but that would have worked directly against its very obvious intent, which was to rip the piss out of the by-now-stagnant conventions that all too many films in the genre seem to feel forced to follow.

If the complaint is "Cabin In The Woods wasn't enough like the new Friday 13th/Nightmare On Elm Street/etc" then, well, why not go and watch those films instead? What little of the advertising I saw made it clear this wasn't going to be a conventional slasher (as did the presence of Joss Whedon's name in the writing credits).

jpm4

Nervous Wreck wrote: »

There's a number of things it 'could have injected' without taking anything from the basic premise.' Just because you were wanting/expecting a horror doesn't mean the film-makers have to adhere to that.

I didn't expect anything - like I said I got where they were coming from and enjoyed it. But as far as I know this is a film on general release, not playing on some obscure cult film festival circuit. It was always likely to attract people "not in the know", who pay the same as anyone else and are entitled to an opinion. Of course that opinion can be picked apart like any other, but if it's implied that it's somehow an inferior opinion to others because they haven't spent their lifes watching films like Evil Dead 2, then I think that is just elitist.

jcsoulinger

jpm4 wrote: »

I didn't expect anything - like I said I got where they were coming from and enjoyed it. But as far as I know this is a film on general release, not playing on some obscure cult film festival circuit. It was always likely to attract people "not in the know", who pay the same as anyone else and are entitled to an opinion. Of course that opinion can be picked apart like any other, but if it's implied that it's somehow an inferior opinion to others because they haven't spent their lifes watching films like Evil Dead 2, then I think that is just elitist.

I would have to agree with this, the vibe I get from the people defending this film is, if you dont like this film your a moron.

IRL_Sinister

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Not in anyway dismissing your opinion, as you frequently point out that you know it wasn't a horror film. But it seems you're criticising it down to the marketing (which was a very, very hard job for a film of this type, especially when they couldn't really give away any of the story's unique selling points) and what the film isn't. It has no more need to be scary as Scary Movie, albeit one is a genuinely clever genre deconstruction and the other is merely a series of lame pop culture references. CitW, IMO, is only predictable in the way the puppetmasters in the film are making it predictable. While the overall plot structure does follow traditional structural beats, there are enough surprises and twists along the way to make it worthwhile. As I've said before, one of my favourite aspects of the film was the drip feed of information concerning the 'grand scheme' in the first hour: the revelations in that regard were consistently unusual and unexpected.

It just seems a common criticism running through this thread and some of the more negative critical responses to it: that Cabin in the Woods is not scary, and that therefore is a flaw of the film. If so, does the same criticism apply to Evil Dead 2? It and CitW are to me comedies that happen to take place within a traditionally horror environment, and any light scares we get along the way are a welcome bonus. That Cabin in the Woods so actively goes out of its way to insist that it is not a horror - pretty much every generically creepy scene is followed up by a laugh out loud piss-take of it, such as the brilliant bit with the Harbringer - that I really don't think 'it's not scary' is in anyway a fair or accurate critique of what the film actually is, which is a satire first and foremost.

If one doesn't enjoy it even on those terms (most crucially, if they didn't find it funny or entertaining) that we cannot begrudge or argue against that: a lack of consensus, after all, is only to be encouraged. But Cabin in the Woods is a film I've frequently seen criticised for reasons I personally deem somewhat unfair and inaccurate.

I don't get why you keep focusing on the horror part.

Anyway, as I stated I disliked this movie and thought it was awful.

Fysh

jcsoulinger wrote: »

I would have to agree with this, the vibe I get from the people defending this film is, if you dont like this film your a moron.

I don't think you're a moron, so much as I think that "Cabin In The Woods was alright, but it would've been better if it was more like every other slasher released in the last ten years" is a silly complaint, because you can just watch those slasher films instead.

johnny_ultimate

jpm4 wrote: »

You can't blame people for ending up in the cinema watching this and expecting or hoping to see a horror - not everyone is a horror film, Evil Dead 2 loving nerd to be blunt about it, and into post modern ironic piss taking or whatever. As much as I liked it, I felt that it could have injected a few more scares without taking anything from the basic premise. Scream managed that pretty well if I remember right.

jpm4 wrote: »

I didn't expect anything - like I said I got where they were coming from and enjoyed it. But as far as I know this is a film on general release, not playing on some obscure cult film festival circuit. It was always likely to attract people "not in the know", who pay the same as anyone else and are entitled to an opinion. Of course that opinion can be picked apart like any other, but if it's implied that it's somehow an inferior opinion to others because they haven't spent their lifes watching films like Evil Dead 2, then I think that is just elitist.

Now that's being unnecessarily defensive. Where was it ever suggested that a love of Evil Dead was in anyway a mandatory prerequisite to enjoying this film? Sure, it may mildly enhance one's enjoyment of it if they spot the references to Deadites and Raping Trees. But I used it merely as a comparison to counter another argument being made here: and if we can't use comparisons when discussing film for fear of being labelled elitist, well then we'll lose one of the great tools of film criticism. I'd imagine that even the most casual of viewers would be able to spot the ripping apart of genre conventions here.

As said, if all of you didn't enjoy Cabin in the Woods on its own terms, then who are we to argue with that? Many people didn't find it was funny enough, for example. What's wrong with having a healthy debate about it though: heck, I'm fairly sure that's the reason this here film board exists And we fans of the film are merely suggesting that on a purely objective level, some of the arguments being made are unfair. Is there anything wrong with disagreeing with accusations that it's silly (as, for an inherently ludicrous and OTT film, it's actually very smart), not scary enough or featured misleading marketing (which ultimately is a criteria one cannot really judge the finished work on)? No, nor is there anything agreeing with said accusations if you feel strongly enough about them. We'll sure as heck debate it with you though They're the only real arguments I've heard against this film, and I heartily disagree with all of them, so I'll certainly reply to them!

Healthy debate is always welcome, but to suggest that anyone who argues against someone else is calling the other person a moron for making a simple, throwaway comparison is unfair IMO.

jcsoulinger

All this heated debate is giving me a husbands bulge!

Goldstein

jcsoulinger wrote: »

I would have to agree with this, the vibe I get from the people defending this film is, if you dont like this film your a moron.

you're

Galvasean

If people don't like the film for not being scary enough when it is not meant to be scary that is hardly the film's fault. You can blame the marketing people for misleading, but discrediting a film for lacking merits it was not meant to have is a bit unfair.
By that logic somebody could have seen this trailer, expected The Shining to be a comedy and then criticized the film for not being funny enough. It's not the film's fault people were tricked into thinking it was something different.

jpm4

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Now that's being unnecessarily defensive. Where was it ever suggested that a love of Evil Dead was in anyway a mandatory prerequisite to enjoying this film? Sure, it may mildly enhance one's enjoyment of it if they spot the references to Deadites and Raping Trees. But I used it merely as a comparison to counter another argument being made here: and if we can't use comparisons when discussing film for fear of being labelled elitist, well then we'll lose one of the great tools of film criticism. I'd imagine that even the most casual of viewers would be able to spot the ripping apart of genre conventions here.

As said, if all of you didn't enjoy Cabin in the Woods on its own terms, then who are we to argue with that? Many people didn't find it was funny enough, for example. What's wrong with having a healthy debate about it though: heck, I'm fairly sure that's the reason this here film board exists And we fans of the film are merely suggesting that on a purely objective level, some of the arguments being made are unfair. Is there anything wrong with disagreeing with accusations that it's silly (as, for an inherently ludicrous and OTT film, it's actually very smart), not scary enough or featured misleading marketing (which ultimately is a criteria one cannot really judge the finished work on)? No, nor is there anything agreeing with said accusations if you feel strongly enough about them. We'll sure as heck debate it with you though They're the only real arguments I've heard against this film, and I heartily disagree with all of them, so I'll certainly reply to them!

Healthy debate is always welcome, but to suggest that anyone who argues against someone else is calling the other person a moron for making a simple, throwaway comparison is unfair IMO.

I'm not sure what you're on about re The Evil Dead 2 comment - I wasn't aware you had referenced it at all, I was using it to identify the type of film fan that is likely to lap up The Cabin in the Woods, that's all. I could have used another reference point, that was just a handy one.

As for the rest of your post....."Debating is good" basically right? I certainly agree with that. I think I've put a reasonable point into the mix, take it or leave it as you will.

I never said anyone was being called a moron BTW.

Fysh

jpm4 wrote: »

I'm not sure what you're on about re The Evil Dead 2 comment - I wasn't aware you had referenced it at all, I was using it to identify the type of film fan that is likely to lap up The Cabin in the Woods, that's all. I could have used another reference point, that was just a handy one.

As for the rest of your post....."Debating is good" basically right? I certainly agree with that. I think I've put a reasonable point into the mix, take it or leave it as you will.

I never said anyone was being called a moron BTW.

I question the assertion that "not everyone is some obscure-film-loving nerd" counts as an auspicious start for a reasonable and well-argued perspective in a debate. Especially not when you appear, from the beginning, to be on some anti-elitist fight the powah vibe. (Maybe that wasn't deliberate, but it's certainly how it has come across so far).

This film was made to appeal in particular to film fans who've seen a lot of horror films, including a lot of very flawed films that are nonetheless still beloved (in some cases understandably, in others less so). Perhaps you're not one of them. Perhaps you're not a fan of the genre and thus don't see what people are making a fuss about. That's fair enough, but it's a bit rich for you to be on some anti-elitist crusade when you're using said crusade to dismiss the opinions of film fans just because you disagree with them.

Given that Scream is the obvious comparison for this film, and that both Scream 2 and 3 suffered badly from trying to follow the very conventions that the original film mocked, I don't agree with your suggestion that the film could have been more of a serious horror while thumbing its nose at the various silly contrivances that are now considered staples of American horror films. That would just take the teeth out of any bite the satirical elements might have had.

If you want to watch a truly nasty horror film, I suggest you check out the likes of Martyrs, Switchblade Romance, Frit Vilt, The Tunnel or Kill List. I'm sure Otis Driftwood can offer plenty more suggestions too.

mikhail

jcsoulinger wrote: »

I would have to agree with this, the vibe I get from the people defending this film is, if you dont like this film your a moron.

In fairness, that's about the level of 90% of film discussion. It's rare to find people with the vocabulary and patience to figure out what they actually mean and express it clearly. To be honest, I read this forum for the opinions of fewer than half a dozen contributors.

vangoz

IRL_Sinister wrote: »

I do grasp the basic concept. The concept of the 'virgin' was interesting. It was actually a very clever spin on the traditional 'cabin in the woods' (best term i can come up with) story/plot. I think you're thinking too much about it though when you compare the guys 'underneath' as the guys who wrote the movie. I think the Gods thing at the end was a piss-take.

EDIT: Although they at least did leave the most likeable character alive at the end.

I could be thinking to much into it about the gods being us the audience. But it does kinda make sense since the whole reason for the film is to appease the "Gods" by the characters taking certain actions, dying the specific ways we ask and suffering along the way. There is no difference between us or the gods and we also have the power to "destroy" by not watching the movie or panning it in reviews

The guys running the place are definitely representative of the fiction writers, they are hitting the same road blocks all writers do, they decide to break any common sense by directing the characters into situations that defies logic (ie the trap door opening, the feramones, the super pot, the "cousin who bought the cabin etc).
This is evident by the characters themselves becoming self aware of the deux ex machina devices they're being pushed into like Kurt all of sudden becoming an alpha male jock, the whole splitting up idea , going into the basement in the first place and then Marty literally being told to go outside.

jpm4

I question the assertion that "not everyone is some obscure-film-loving nerd" counts as an auspicious start for a reasonable and well-argued perspective in a debate. Especially not when you appear, from the beginning, to be on some anti-elitist fight the powah vibe. (Maybe that wasn't deliberate, but it's certainly how it has come across so far).

Guess I hit close to the bone there....by the way I am absolutely an obscure-film-loving-nerd, no doubt about it. And seriously "fight the powah vibe"?

This film was made to appeal in particular to film fans who've seen a lot of horror films, including a lot of very flawed films that are nonetheless still beloved (in some cases understandably, in others less so). Perhaps you're not one of them. Perhaps you're not a fan of the genre and thus don't see what people are making a fuss about. That's fair enough, but it's a bit rich for you to be on some anti-elitist crusade when you're using said crusade to dismiss the opinions of film fans just because you disagree with them.

My point is everyone is entitled to an opinion on a film, genre specialists or not.

Given that Scream is the obvious comparison for this film, and that both Scream 2 and 3 suffered badly from trying to follow the very conventions that the original film mocked, I don't agree with your suggestion that the film could have been more of a serious horror while thumbing its nose at the various silly contrivances that are now considered staples of American horror films. That would just take the teeth out of any bite the satirical elements might have had.

I don't agree with the last sentence. Never seen Scream 2 or 3, my point about Scream was that it could be enjoyed as a fairly straight up slasher or ironic statement on the genre. A lot of people thought that was a good film.

If you want to watch a truly nasty horror film, I suggest you check out the likes of Martyrs, Switchblade Romance, Frit Vilt, The Tunnel or Kill List. I'm sure Otis Driftwood can offer plenty more suggestions too.

Eh....thanks? Can I suggest you watch Inside, The Children, Audition and the Guinea Pig series?

johnny_ultimate

vangoz wrote: »

I could be thinking to much into it about the gods being us the audience.

Nope, wouldn't say you're overthinking it all. It's IMO quite a clear attempt to try and negotiate what we, the audience, expect and demand from horror cinema.

Formula (not in itself a negative) exists because both audiences and filmmakers find great pleasure in it. There's all manner of ways one could interpret the presence of the Old Gods, but one constant IMO is they represent the audience, baying for blood and gratuitous nudity in the same way any modern horror film audience would.

Nervous Wreck

IRL_Sinister wrote: »

I think you're thinking too much about it though when you compare the guys 'underneath' as the guys who wrote the movie. I think the Gods thing at the end was a piss-take.

Actually, I completely agree with the OP about that. Taking specific examples used in the movie, how many times, in other horror movies, have you seen the following happen:

• A door opening without any outside force
• Someone suggesting 'we split up'
• The rest of the group going along with that
• A natural escape route being someone blocked (bridge collapsing)

etc. etc.


None of those things make sense in the natural world, yet they happen in fuckloads of horrors. TCITW cleverly addresses that by having the engineers (horror-writers) just 'make it happen' anyway.

Hemsworth: We need to stick together! (rational)
Engineers(Writers): Gas him! *gases him with some unknown toxin that's never explained*
Hemsworth: We have to split up! (classic horror film)


Slut: I don't want to have sex, the woods are too creepy! (rational)
Engineers(Writers): Pheromones and more lighting!
Slut: Actually, let's do it! (classic horror titty-shot)

etc.

Mickeroo

Just back from this, everything I could say has more or less already been said. Went in pretty blind. Was laughing from the (awesomely done)titles all the way to the end. Though it was genius. That is all.

Mickeroo

Oh one thing, I'm convinced there was a sub-plot about a saboteur in the control room pulled or something, I know Marty's tampering with the circuits was supposed to have prevented the tunnel collapse but that doesn't explain the weed not affecting him the way it was supposed to?

krudler

Nervous Wreck wrote: »

Actually, I completely agree with the OP about that. Taking specific examples used in the movie, how many times, in other horror movies, have you seen the following happen:

• A door opening without any outside force
• Someone suggesting 'we split up'
• The rest of the group going along with that
• A natural escape route being someone blocked (bridge collapsing)

etc. etc.


None of those things make sense in the natural world, yet they happen in fuckloads of horrors. TCITW cleverly addresses that by having the engineers (horror-writers) just 'make it happen' anyway.

Hemsworth: We need to stick together! (rational)
Engineers(Writers): Gas him! *gases him with some unknown toxin that's never explained*
Hemsworth: We have to split up! (classic horror film)


Slut: I don't want to have sex, the woods are too creepy! (rational)
Engineers(Writers): Pheromones and more lighting!
Slut: Actually, let's do it! (classic horror titty-shot)

etc.

I thought the best one was the basement door just flying open on its own and the lead girl (whos a fox btw) suggesting they do down there, and Marty just going "....really?!"

Necronomicon

Nervous Wreck wrote: »

Hemsworth: We need to stick together! (rational)
Engineers(Writers): Gas him! *gases him with some unknown toxin that's never explained*
Hemsworth: We have to split up! (classic horror film)


Slut: I don't want to have sex, the woods are too creepy! (rational)
Engineers(Writers): Pheromones and more lighting!
Slut: Actually, let's do it! (classic horror titty-shot)

etc.

Another one of my favourites was the very subtle moment when
Sitterson made the virgin drop her weapon in the cellar by emitting a small electric shock from it

Galvasean

krudler wrote: »

I thought the best one was the basement door just flying open on its own and the lead girl (whos a fox btw) suggesting they do down there, and Marty just going "....really?!"

"It must have got blown open by the wind."
"That makes what kind off sense?!!?"

krudler

Galvasean wrote: »

"It must have got blown open by the wind."
"That makes what kind off sense?!!?"

the more I think about it the more I want to see it again, its brilliant how it rips the piss out of all those tired cliches. I can't take American horror films seriously anymore they're just churning out the same old stuff over and over again.