Cabin in the Woods - Grading, Discussion, Spoilers

[davejames]

Very clever.

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]

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]

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...

Spoiler: about the last half hour

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]

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!]

• 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]

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]

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.

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.

 

[ManOnTheWave]

Good, though I was leaning towards So So. It was funny, and I enjoyed the visual references to Friday the 13th, Evil Dead, and Hellraiser, etc. I was hoping it would be even funnier and more clever, but as it is, it's still more interesting than, oh, every horror film I've seen in years.

 

[chardman]

So, I feel we've finally seen the main branch of Wolfram and Hart, and damned if Josh Lyman wasn't the office manager. Who knew?

Loved the inevitable appearance of the mer-man and Whitford's reaction to it.

 

[Trekker4747]

Just got back from seeing this a little while ago and I really enjoyed it and was surprised about it as the "men behind the scenes" aspect I did not know about. Kristen Connolly is certainly a looker I'm going to keep my eyes on down the road. The movie was good fun, Hensworth did a good job as well and the movie is certainly filled with Joss Whedon-isms, tropes and sharp writing.

I really liked the slide-puzzle crypt of monsters, especially the Hellraiser-like monster, and I knew the aquaman monster would show up sooner or later.

Good movie, really enjoyed it and, hell, I'd like to see more-done. (And yeah, supposedly, the world ends at the end of this movie but I'm sure that can written-away. )


SPOILERS: I'm not coding it for ease of reading:

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.

I think the idea was that the subjects only needed to "fill the roles" not actually be those people which is why drugs and other mind-altering stuff was used to manipulate them into the roles. So long as while they're at the cabin and they satisfy the parts the god(s) would be pleased enough to allow the ritual to work.

The movie's meta-ness in that regard was clever especially the one with the virgin being allowed to survive or die so long as she was the last one in the process. What I found odd is that the movie suggested that the marijuana use of "the fool" negated the mind-altering/manipulative drugs they were using. Which... You'd think they would've have thought of that considering this ritual has been done for such a long time and not once they've encountered a pot-smoker?

 

[davejames]

Well today's pot IS considered to be a lot stronger than back in the day. Or so I've heard...

 

[Brikar99]

What I found odd is that the movie suggested that the marijuana use of "the fool" negated the mind-altering/manipulative drugs they were using. Which... You'd think they would've have thought of that considering this ritual has been done for such a long time and not once they've encountered a pot-smoker?

I saw it a second time tonight. Amy Acker's character has a line that I'd missed the first time. She says that her team was supposed to swap out the stoner's pot with their own, but they "missed a batch."

 

[Trekker4747]

Ah, okay, I missed that. I liked the guy's telescoping bong disguised as a coffee mug.

 

[IndyJones]

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?

You obviously never watched The Good Guys.

 

[od0_ital]

Seen it twice now, still awesome the second time, and I noticed more stuff, too.

Will probably see it again, if a friend of mine is free to get to it next week.

 

[Brikar99]

Ah, okay, I missed that. I liked the guy's telescoping bong disguised as a coffee mug.

That thing was incredible. I want it, and not even to use as a bong... just cuz it's so awesome.

The crowd in the theater was howling over it, too. This movie got great responses both times I went.

 

[Bob The Skutter]

I've now seen it three times. First time it seemed to go down well, second time it seemed my friend and I were the only ones enjoying it and I heard people complaining about how shit it was on leaving. Third time people seemed to love it again. So seems to be a bit of a marmite film.