Cabin in the Woods - Grading, Discussion, Spoilers

[Ethros]

I did love it, but one minor criticism I had of it was...

So the five archetypes are needed for the "ritual", the jock, whore, scholar, fool, and the virgin. But actually most of them weren't really like that, and thus were manipulated into being so. For example Chris Hemsworth's character was actually a pretty smart guy who started acting jockish, and the same for his girlfriend who wasn't normally that slutty.
My criticism would be that aside from about a 30 seconds scene at the start we don't really see any of them NOT in those roles anyway. The first time we see the Whore she's already gone blonde, the Jock is already throwing a football around in his first scene... so I just thought that aspect could have worked better.


Also I wonder what other peoples theories were as the movie was winding down to the end. I thought at the end when the Virgin turned on the Fool (I just want to call him Topher Brink), but then got attacked by the werewolf, I was thinking Toper was gonna let her die, something like "that was a pretty foolish thing to do... and by the way, I've never had sex either."
Just thought that would have been a fun twist role reversal. Then the world could have been saved



Loved the part near the end too with the office guys celebrating, that one random guy trying to ask a hot girl out and totally failing was so random and brilliant.

[Gep Malakai]

Just got out of the theater from seeing this one. My first impression: that was stupid. As an exercise in two filmmakers pulling out horror movie clichés and then pointing out how they're totally clichés, it's quite successful. As a satisfying film in its own right...not so much.

The biggest problem with it is, for a film that spends all its time asking the audience to think about the illogic of most horror films, it sure had a ton of holes itself. For example:

• How the heck did the Jock, the Fool and the Nerd survive their respective initial encounters? They each got stabbed/attacked with a bear trap and spewed blood everywhere! Yet instead of dying from shock and blood loss, they shake it off and continue to function just fine. What? How? Mr. Jock even used his upper body strength to pull wood apart mere minutes after being stabbed through the right shoulder.
• Ditto the Virgin, who not only survived drowning, being clamped with the bear trap, and tossed around and beaten bloody for five or so minutes, but makes it to the end of the film where she's torn into by a werewolf...and is conscious and functional literally one minute later within the same scene so she can casually smoke a joint while the world ends. Bull. Shit. There's suspension of disbelief and then there's not giving a fuck.
• So. Why are these elaborate sacrifice scenarios necessary? Oh, old Gods, eh? They demand it, or something. Okay. Well, I guess that means that if the victims ever found out it was all a setup that the whole thing would be null and void, huh, 'cause they have to choose to die. Wait, no? Really? Two of them do do find out? And you guys can just shoot them in the head in a elevator and it still counts? That...doesn't make any sense. Oh, and the Jock died outside the parameters of the cabin scenario, in a way that revealed the ruse to the survivors, and it still counted, too. So why not gather the five, take them underground and shoot them there in the bloody first place? The fool even asks basically this question at the end, and the Director doesn't really have an answer.
• And speaking of the Fool, whose blood was that that filled his receptacle after he got "killed?" Because he survived. Sure, he got stabled in the back and the tech guy threw a lever that drained his blood, but it must have been a flesh wound, I guess. Because he was fine. After being impaled by a zombie.
• No, seriously. Where did that blood come from?
• How did all the monsters held inside the facility get there? Once they escape, they're completely unmanageable and all our modern technology is helpless to stop them. Who captured them and how? Why weren't there any countermeasures in place that could actually work? (This isn't a problem with the film per se, but it is an interesting question, and I couldn't help but ask it while the movie was still playing.)

Dark Gilligan wrote:

---

Now see, I didn't find it clever at all. It was one Whedon trope after another, beginning to end, as if he was winking at us every time another one popped up. No spoilers, but anyone even remotely familiar with Whedon's body of work will know what I mean. After the closing credits my wife turned to me and said "I feel like we just watched a bad mash-up of Buffy and Dollhouse".

Indeed. It reminded me of why I hate most of Whedon's work (outside of Dr. Horrible, for whatever reason): it thinks it's far more clever than it actually is. Plus the Nerd's death was a straight-up copy of Wash's from Serenity, down to the shape of the sickle that punched through his head.

So, yeah. I thought it kinda sucked.

[Admiral2]

I'm going with "Good". More funny than scary, too clever, too philosophical for the final reveal to justify, and frankly, too damn many visual signatures from other horror movies for someone who's seen a lot of horror movies to take. Maybe that was part of the point, but "the point" could have been made without half of them.

[Mr Light]

I really liked it! Really turned the horror movie cliche on its ear, and it was quite funny!

[Agenda]

I thought it was a fun romp. I'm not typically a fan of Whedon, but I really loved this one. I don't think it should be taken too seriously as some kind of "commentary" on horror films and horror audiences. The movie stands on its own two feet as an engaging thrill ride with great dialogue and awesome/disturbing visuals.

[davejames]

Dark Gilligan wrote:

---

Now see, I didn't find it clever at all. It was one Whedon trope after another, beginnig to end, as if he was winking at us everytime another one popped up. No spoilers, but anyone even remotely familiar with Whedon's body of work will know what I mean. After the closing credits my wife turned to me and said "I feel like we just watched a bad mash-up of Buffy and Dollhouse".

Yeah I'm a huge Whedon fan, but I just didn't find this nearly as clever or original as others apparently did. There were certainly a lot of laughs, but the Truman Show already did the manipulated reality thing, and the "demonic beast that has to be placated" thing was already done several times on Buffy and Angel.

From the hype I would have sworn there would be a LOT more twists and turns, but that's pretty much all there is-- there's a control center down below that is orchestrating everything, some kids find their way in and create a bunch of havoc, and... that's about it.

It was a decent, fun little lark, but I don't see anything terribly brilliant or game-changing about it.

[Mr Light]

I'll admit, the movie was basically a recycle job of Buffy and Angel, but hey the shows hadn't been on in awhile it was a nice refresher on the big screen

[Dark Gilligan]

Mr Light wrote:

---

I'll admit, the movie was basically a recycle job of Buffy and Angel

I wonder if they wanted some distance between Buffy/Angel and the release of Cabin for that very reason, over and above the much-publicized problems with distribution. Cabin was completed four years ago. It's been sitting on a shelf since then. You can certainly see the time gap in the actors' faces, they're four years younger than they are today. Many in the industry believed the film would never be released at all.

[Agenda]

A lot of people haven't seen Buffy or Angel and wouldn't care in the least.

[DarthTom]

Argus Skyhawk wrote:

---

So what do you think of Cabin in the Woods?

I liked it myself. And there a lot of unexpected surprises. My ownly criticism is does Bradley Whitford know how to play any other character except for Josh Lyman form the West Wing?

For me his acting style comes off as some hybrid of that character and unoriginal.

[Stone_Cold_Sisko]

I saw it this weekend and I *loved* it. It was so much fun. Great funny dialogue, very creative way of doing a horror film.

I do agree that it is derivitive of Buffy/Angel, but I consider that a good thing. The juxtaposition of funny dialogue, clever situations, and not-quite-scary "horror" is very Buffy-esque. I consider that a good thing and I'll take that over generic slasher horror any day of the week. Someone pointed out to me that...

the last half hour was basically 'Primevil', and in fact the entire organization feels like Joss' re-do of The Initiative, since it came off looking kind of lame in Buffy S4

I also agree with the comment above that it doesn't matter so much since most of the moviegoing public isn't THAT familiar with Buffy/Angel except in a casual manner.

I also feel tonally the movie compares favorably with movies like Men in Black, Zombieland, and Scream.

[Admiral2]

DarthTom wrote:

---

My ownly criticism is does Bradley Whitford know how to play any other character except for Josh Lyman form the West Wing?

For me his acting style comes off as some hybrid of that character and unoriginal.

Actually, that was one of the reasons I liked it. I was like, "Cool. Josh Lyman in a horror movie." I was happier to see him than the obvious Whedonverse cameos.

[Shazam!]

Gep Malakai wrote:

---

• And speaking of the Fool, whose blood was that that filled his receptacle after he got "killed?" Because he survived. Sure, he got stabled in the back and the tech guy threw a lever that drained his blood, but it must have been a flesh wound, I guess. Because he was fine. After being impaled by a zombie.
• No, seriously. Where did that blood come from?

It was in vials. It wasn't meant to be the blood of the victims.

[DarthTom]

Admiral2 wrote:

---

Actually, that was one of the reasons I liked it. I was like, "Cool. Josh Lyman in a horror movie." I was happier to see him than the obvious Whedonverse cameos.

Meh, Whitford needs a new shtick IMO. When compare the acting range of Sigourney Weaver in the film versus Whitford's rehash of Lyman - she has him for lunch.

[Admiral2]

DarthTom wrote:

---

Meh, Whitford needs a new shtick IMO. When compare the acting range of Sigourney Weaver in the film versus Whitford's rehash of Lyman - she has him for lunch.

Well, yeah, no doubt. Not saying he's better than Sigourney, just that I missed Josh Lyman. I'd have been really stoked if they could have finagled Toby Zeigler, and when the shit hit the fan Toby could scream a lot in that monotone of his.