131 replies to this topic

[Tyler]

Poster:


Trailer:
[url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Itzujv4JwU&feature=player_embedded"]http://www.youtube.c...player_embedded[/url]

Spoiler warning on the trailer. It gives away what I'm assuming are the first two acts of the story, and maybe part of the third.

Edited by Tyler, 05 December 2011 - 07:21 PM.

[Jason Panella]

Tyler, on 05 December 2011 - 07:21 PM, said:

Spoiler warning on the trailer. It gives away what I'm assuming are the first two acts of the story, and maybe part of the third.

Well, I'm wondering if this is the case...there's a whole gaggle of Whedon's stock company in this movie who aren't in the trailer (plus some others, like Richard Jenkins). Maybe the trailer is intentionally misleading?

[Tyler]

Jason Panella, on 05 December 2011 - 08:44 PM, said:

Well, I'm wondering if this is the case...there's a whole gaggle of Whedon's stock company in this movie who aren't in the trailer (plus some others, like Richard Jenkins). Maybe the trailer is intentionally misleading?

Yeah, the AV Club wondered the same thing.

[Overstreet]

Patton Dodd reviews it, sort of, at Reeligion.

Quote

The philosopher Noel Carroll said that horror stories want to produce in us a combination of fear and disgust. Carroll calls this “art-horror” in order to distinguish it from the “natural horror” of, say, fear of a coming tornado. Art-horror describes our relationship to a story—we’re not just frightened by Frankenstein or Freddy Krueger; we’re repulsed by them, in part because they are deformed versions of ourselves. Horror can be very cheap, of course (which is part of Whedon and Goddard’s concern), but when it’s rich, it forces us to look at those deformities. Horror promises that it’s fun to be frightened, and then, once the fun is over, keeps us staring until we’re ready to ask what we’ve done to become this way.

The Cabin in the Woods, it seems to me after one viewing, is this rich kind of horror. Its use of religion is not the most pronounced aspect of the film, but it’s necessary to the film’s most basic question: Why would we go to The Cabin in the Woods in the first place?

Edited by Overstreet, 12 March 2012 - 03:22 PM.

[Jason Panella]

Beth Rambo tweeted an article over the weekend that has some great buzz (and also underlining the whole "NO SPOILERS!" bit). I'm pretty excited.

[Attica]

Jason Panella, on 12 March 2012 - 03:01 PM, said:

Beth Rambo tweeted an article over the weekend that has some great buzz (and also underlining the whole "NO SPOILERS!" bit). I'm pretty excited.

I've officially moved from mildly interested to really wanting to see this.

[Scott Derrickson]

I've been told by several friends that the less you know about the film going in, the better. I'm going to avoid all reviews and all ads before I see this one.

[Jason Panella]

Scott Derrickson, on 13 March 2012 - 10:44 AM, said:

I've been told by several friends that the less you know about the film going in, the better. I'm going to avoid all reviews and all ads before I see this one.

I hear ya, Scott. I actually usually handle spoilers well, but I'm avoiding as much as I can about the movie from this point on.

[BethR]

Jason Panella, on 12 March 2012 - 03:01 PM, said:

Beth Rambo tweeted an article over the weekend that has some great buzz (and also underlining the whole "NO SPOILERS!" bit). I'm pretty excited.

Thanks for the virtual retweet, Jason.

Y'all know that I'm too much of a 'fraidy cat to actually see this movie, as much as I'd like to support the Joss-man. It may be the best horror movie ever. I hope it makes a bazillion dollars. It's still not for me. This is why I'm not a professional film critic.

[Overstreet]

Get ready.

Oh, and...

Avoid. All. Reviews.

[Nick Olson]

I've been excited for this, Jeffrey! So glad to see your brief comments!

[Overstreet]

Note: It's currently 95% positive at Rotten Tomatoes. And so far, the blurbs are safer to read than I would have expected. (I wouldn't open any of the reviews linked there, though. These reviews have unprecedented potential for spoilers.)

[Jason Panella]

Keith Phipps at the AV Club gives it an A-. I'm trying to avoid spoilers on this movie, and it seems like Phipps does an OK job of avoiding them (I only skimmed it).

I won't link it here, but Rex Reed also phoned in an incredibly negative review over at the New York Observer. I didn't read it, but judging from some of the comments, people are suspecting he fell asleep at some point — I guess he "spoils" a lot of things that don't actually happen in the movie.

[opus]

Jason Panella, on 12 April 2012 - 10:40 AM, said:

I won't link it here, but Rex Reed also phoned in an incredibly negative review over at the New York Observer. I didn't read it, but judging from some of the comments, people are suspecting he fell asleep at some point — I guess he "spoils" a lot of things that don't actually happen in the movie.

That doesn't surprise me in the slightest.

[Scott Derrickson]

This was the most fun I've had watching a movie in a long time. What an amazingly original and thoroughly entertaining riff on the genre. Might be the best film I've seen this year.

[Overstreet]

My review. (Spoilers, but only mild, first-act spoilers that have already been widely spoiled.)

[Scott Derrickson]

Overstreet, on 13 April 2012 - 08:58 AM, said:

My review. (Spoilers, but only mild, first-act spoilers that have already been widely spoiled.)

Great, great review Jeffrey. Boy, did we have the same reaction - while the credits rolled at the premiere, I tweeted "Most fun I've had watching a horror film since Shaun of the Dead".

This isn't expected to open huge - the question is, will it build on word of mouth the way SCREAM did? I sure hope so.

[Nathaniel]

Overstreet, on 13 April 2012 - 08:58 AM, said:

My review. (Spoilers, but only mild, first-act spoilers that have already been widely spoiled.)

I appreciate the restraint of this review, Jeffrey, but you use a word that rather gives the game away. (Here's a hint: it begins with "A.") Knowing your excellent track record for withholding "wonderful surprises," I thought you might like to reconsider.

Also, isn't it called The Cabin in the Woods?

Edited by Nathaniel, 13 April 2012 - 07:34 PM.

[Jason Panella]

Scott Derrickson, on 13 April 2012 - 10:41 AM, said:

This isn't expected to open huge - the question is, will it build on word of mouth the way SCREAM did? I sure hope so.

I'm wondering if the film will draw in people looking for something more traditional. How will they react?

[Overstreet]

Nathaniel, good catch on the title. And I guess I thought the "A" word was flexible enough to represent literal events or storytelling implications... but based on your response I've changed that line.