131 replies to this topic

[Nathaniel]

Overstreet, on 13 April 2012 - 11:18 AM, said:

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.

I know your readership will appreciate it.

Edited by Nathaniel, 16 April 2012 - 03:14 PM.

[Thom Wade]

I had a blast and echo the sentiment to know as little as possible going in.

[Tyler]

Just got back. And yes to everyone's sentiments that it's awesome and that you should go in as blind as possible.

So, is this Whedon's version of The Last Temptation of Christ?

[Tyler]

I was curious, so I tracked down the Rex Reed review mentioned earlier in the thread. It's bizarre. He gets so many basic details about Cabin wrong what I would've assumed he hadn't actually watched the movie, except that he gives away a part of the ending; the way he interprets it is still completely off, but it's an inexcusable spoiler nonetheless.

Also, the strongest comparison I thought of is Haneke's Funny Games. They're both about implicating the audience as voyeurs for the violence that's happening onscreen; Cabin's twist, of course, is that God (or the gods, I guess) is/are the real audience.

[Thom Wade]

I was a little stunned by the EW B-, especially as she gave Shaun of the Dead (a film people keep bringing up as comparable for enjoyment level) a B+. I mean, this is easily a B+ in my mind.

One of te things that both surprised and pleased me how they really did not make the "gruesomeness of the kills" the focus. I mean, in something like Saw, it is about how brutally intense the suffering is...here, a lot of the moments that would be long, drawn out and painstakingly provided for the viewer instead happen offscreen. It is the implications of the plot, the characters, the humor and curiousity of what is really going on that give the film momentum. But, all that said...they did not skimp on splashing as much fake blood on the set as they could.

And um... that Rex Reed interview lost me at the first paragraph...but he considers it degrading to point out the Drew Goddard has written for Buffy and Lost. That pretty much tells me where he is coming from. But his review is a total trip to read, after yousee the movie.

Edited by Nezpop, 14 April 2012 - 12:48 AM.

[Scott Derrickson]

Got a 'C' Cinemascore, with a D+ from females. The general public definitely doesn't like it. What a shame.

[Thom Wade]

They probably hated the vampires circling the moon attacking the hot guy.

[Greg P]

I saw the film last night and thought it was gloriously campy, over-the-top and ballsy. Didn't really find it scary though, although i was unquestionably disturbed by the third act onslaught, which managed to conjure every horrible, childhood fever dream imaginable. But up to that point, I definitely had fun. I found that the audience reaction to this in my theater was overwhelmingly negative-- one of those films where the walk-out comments where generally loud and profane, including someone saying "that was 20 dollars flushed right down the @#% toilet!"

I will never hear the word merman again without thinking of this movie! Loved that.

Ignoring for any critical assesment of the unique twists in the story, it's probably wise to advise this is NOT a date movie especially if your SO is disturbed by general evisceration, exploding bodies, roomfuls of entrails and blood and monsters vomiting into their victims mouths...There is considerable restraint in the first two acts. So much so, that they may have gotten away with a PG13 and the film easily passes date movie muster up to that point. But that third act, in the bowels of the nightmare zoo. Yikes Shit! ...

Edited by Greg P, 14 April 2012 - 12:29 PM.

[Tyler]

Ok, one detail is bugging me: Where did Curt get the motorcycle that he tried to jump the gorge with? Was it in the RV somewhere? Already at the cabin?

[Thom Wade]

Greg P, on 14 April 2012 - 12:08 PM, said:

I found that the audience reaction to this in my theater was overwhelmingly negative-- one of those films where the walk-out comments where generally loud and profane, including someone saying "that was 20 dollars flushed right down the @#% toilet!"

The audience I saw it with was pretty positive..but then, it was a small matinee crowd. This is going to be one of those ones people "absolutely love" or "hate with a firey passion", isn't it?

Edited by Nezpop, 14 April 2012 - 03:56 PM.

[BethR]

Tyler, on 14 April 2012 - 02:24 PM, said:

Ok, one detail is bugging me: Where did Curt get the motorcycle that he tried to jump the gorge with? Was it in the RV somewhere? Already at the cabin?

It was strapped to the back of the RV when they left home & shown in a couple of shots along the way. Yes, I broke down and saw this. My gothic/horror-film fan colleagues/friends Sherry & her husband metaphorically held my hand. As Sherry quoted somone or other's dramatic principle, "If you reveal a gun in Act 1, someone has to use it before the end of the play." (Not a spoiler, because we're not talking about a gun.)

Speaking of spoilers, anyone with half a brain should figure out what's going on the minute the opening credits start rolling, so skip them if you want to be really, really surprised. I didn't absolutely love it, because...well, I'm never going to love this genre. Horror fans (like my friends & many of you) will appreciate much of what happens in it so much more that I ever could. However, I did kinda love what Joss Whedon and Drew Goddard did with it, and the casting (Fran Kranz is a delight), and Jeffrey Overstreet's review. People who thought it was a waste of money should just watch SAW XXLIV again.

Edited by BethR, 14 April 2012 - 06:12 PM.

[Tyler]

By the way, another recent movie that plays with the cabin in the woods setup, but in a rather different way, is Tucker and Dale Vs Evil.

[Thom Wade]

BethR, on 14 April 2012 - 06:12 PM, said:

Fran Kranz is a delight)

Yes. Some director who enjoyed this movie should be trying to get him for a future film. I am not naming names or anything. But his name rhymes with Merickson.

Tyler-I agree...Tucker & Dale Vs. Evil was also a delight in this exploration of the genre.

Okay...now to go watch Rare Exports.

Edited by Nezpop, 14 April 2012 - 09:35 PM.

[opus]

For the more squeamish among us, how does the gore/bloodiness in this film compare to, say, Tucker & Dale vs. Evil?

[Tyler]

opus, on 15 April 2012 - 09:30 AM, said:

For the more squeamish among us, how does the gore/bloodiness in this film compare to, say, Tucker & Dale vs. Evil?

There's a lot of violence in the film, but you don't end up seeing all that much of it directly. More often, it cuts away before the most gruesome shot or you see someone reacting to it. The goriest parts have a cartoonish feel to them, too.

I actually think the violence level is one reason Cabin isn't tracking that well with audiences. It's a movie about violence, but it's more interested in commenting on it than on showing or reveling in it.

[Greg P]

opus, on 15 April 2012 - 09:30 AM, said:

For the more squeamish among us, how does the gore/bloodiness in this film compare to, say, Tucker & Dale vs. Evil?

I havent seen that film, but Cabin definitely try to make-up for its early restraint in the final 20-30 mins. The ending features an assualt rifle barage of hellsih images, characters and scenarios-- in a rather suffocating manner-- which makes the gore probably seem more intense than it actually was. I am not squeamish about horror films and this one was no different, but the chaos and violence of the final minutes was definitely unsettling... in a good way, if that makes sense.

[Ryan H.]

I'll admit this one got a number of good laughs out of me (mostly from the fellas in the control room), but I can't say I walked away loving the film. It's too clever for its own good.

Edited by Ryan H., 16 April 2012 - 05:30 AM.

[Timothy Zila]

I really enjoyed the film, but I'm wondering just what critics are referring to when they talk about the "twist"?

I sort of saw that coming from the opening credits, and it was pretty clear by the beginning of the second act.

[Attica]

We'll, I share the love, and agree with the sentiment that an awful lot of people that see this film aren't going to be thinking about the movies deeper themes. I guess that's where essays about the movie come in, but then I suppose there is spoiler territory to think about. It's kind of a strange thing, as this is of course one of those films where such discussion could ruin the film, but also after people have seen it, greatly enhance it.

The crowd at the theatre were laughing a lot throughout and smiling and laughing when they left. Some seemed to like it. Yet I did hear a few quite negative comments from several viewers who were actually also laughing about it afterwords. It's almost as if they were laughing at a lot of the stuff in the film but thought it was awful overall. I'm not sure what to make of that response. Possible little spoiler - The reasons some people aren't liking this film actually makes for a good discussion, fitting in with one of the film's themes.

I thought that the filmmakers really pulled it all together compentally, and at the moment I can't think of any real misteps or plotholes, although maybe on a second view they might become noticeable.


I'll have to look into Tucker & Dale vs. Evil if its a similar film. For those who are interested, there's another recent film that plays on the genre in a pretty funny way with a fairly well done psyhcological theme. Jack Brooks - Monster slayer. It has some great stuff in it including this scene which I thought was hilarious within the setting of the film, although it might not be that funny on its own. Note - Language warning - for the F word.

Timothy Zila, on 16 April 2012 - 12:15 AM, said:

I really enjoyed the film, but I'm wondering just what critics are referring to when they talk about the "twist"?

I sort of saw that coming from the opening credits, and it was pretty clear by the beginning of the second act.

I think that one part was evident even from the trailer, and wasn't really a twist.

Edited by Attica, 16 April 2012 - 03:33 PM.

[Nick Alexander]

I'm gonna play ruthless contrarian. What an incredibly brainless, callous, awfully stupid movie. I avoided nearly all commercials and trailers, but still figured out the third act (at the moment the second time Bradley Whitford repeated that specific "M"-word... the rule of THREE binds even scripts like this.

Oh CGI , how many more movies must you ruin?