Ok, first of all two things no here seems to have asked:
1 - Did anyone else catch Marty's last line? It seemed strangely appropriate for the voyeuristic theme. - "Giant evil gods ... I would have liked to have seen
2 - Is it a coincidence that Stockholm is mentioned as having failed during the beginning? The first thing I thought of remembering the word afterwards was Stockholm Syndrome, which, according to wikipedia "is an apparently paradoxical psychological phenomenon in which hostages express empathy and have positive feelings towards their captors, sometimes to the point of defending them. These feelings are generally considered irrational in light of the danger or risk endured by the victims, who essentially mistake lack of abuse from their captors for an act of kindness."
3 - Not much discussion of how the film handles the concept of free will on this thread. It seemed to be a fairly major theme in the film. Richard Jenkins character insists that the five have free will. Marty insists that he's the boss of his own brain, is not a puppet and then still succumbs to the outside forces around him.
And now, catching up on a few things ...
Side note: Why include a one-way mirror in the plot if you're not going to actually, like, do anything with it?
To play with the expectations of the theater audience and, as mentioned earlier, to contrast the choice Holden makes with the attitudes of the white lab-coats and theater audience. Audience expectations are what make
this film into what it is. Our expectations are granted and denied, at different points in the film, and there always seems to be a reason why.
And one of the deaths was completely nonsensical--so an RV is driven how many miles before any of them know that there's a stranger aboard? Jump scares aren't scary if the kills are random, without any semblence of logic.
Thus the reason why a vast majority of Hollywood horror films are incredibly and relentlessly dull. Semblences of logic in the plot are not frequent occurances in your average horror film. So I have a hard time understanding all the critiques of the bad logic in this film. Bad logic is one of the primary problems with the majority of horror films today. It's one of the reasons they suck so bad. So, in order to satirize this, The Cabin in the Woods
has illogical cliched events happen, on purpose, precisely because the main characters are trapped in a predetermined version of these stupid cliches. Speaking of audience expectations again, it's the expectations of the horror film audience that kills the characters.
I viewed them as demi-gods. Demi-gods in ancient mythology have all sorts of rules and limitations.
Did it call them gods? I got the impression they were more like demons or figures from mythology and nightmares.
So... the Egyptian gods are bound by imaginary lines in the sand demarking the separation of countries? How could they be "gods", then?
Marty actually calls them "giant evil gods."
... it's basically a movie about a horror-movie cabin built on top of a science lab which offers sacrifices to ancient gods. But does that make any sense? How does one of these things relate to the other?
Marilynne Robinson would object to this question. The divisions and contradictions between science and religion are more apparent than actual, particularly so in a "horror movie" film. I seem to remember science used to serve spiritual purposes in both The Exorcism of Emily Rose
and in C.S. Lewis's That Hideous Strength
. The one relates to the other even more when you think in terms of the free will/determinism debate. One of the questions in this film is how much free will the five main characters really possess. There are both religious and scientific arguments for how the choices of man are not really choices at all, but are really just pre-determined. In this film, both the scientists and the "giant evil gods" seem to be violating free will.
How many A&F Top  horror films did they reference? I'm willing to wager less than 10%, if any.
Well, given that the film is lambasting bad
horror films, it's referencing of 0 of our 25 films would be just fine by me. It's not a problem if you think of the film as a satire rather than as a homage. It is critiquing and making fun of the more stupid and abhorrent aspects of modern day horror movies. No good reason to parody Vampyr
or Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde
or Let Me In
for such purposes.
Edited by Persiflage, 22 April 2012 - 01:57 AM.