Cabin In The Woods

The movie was filmed three years ago. It takes a long time to make a film, and even longer to release it due to MGM's bankruptcy. I mentioned that I thought the team behind it was somewhat out of touch but it's hardly their fault that the film was met by massive delays.

Also, I don't feel the ethnocentrism when literally everybody lost in the end.

edited 18th Apr '12 3:27:02 PM by Prowler

Someone's ragin.

Also, the time in which a genre has become stale IS the perfect time for Deconstruction. Since the genre has been worn out, it is now time to point out all the flaws, and say, "Dude, wake up. This isn't fun anymore."

Also, I found the whole Japanese scene to actually be sort of a commentary on how us Americans view horror differently. While Japan and other countries are more than willing to allow happy endings and let the heroes win, all U.S. moviegoers want to see is just blood, gore, violence, and sex in horror. Hence why the guy was cursing at the girls for being victorious. It is rather fascinating that the Ancient Ones in the movie could only be appeased by the same stuff happening over and over, much like how modern-day horror fans are.

To be more specific, the film is a cry. A plea to these horror-fans to stop asking the filmmakers for the same drivel over and over.

Again, look at it from a more meta-level.

edited 18th Apr '12 3:30:26 PM by LDragon2

Which just makes the "criticism" within about as relevant as a Seltzer/Freburg movie. I mean, nobody talks about Saw anymore, so no one except horror fans are gonna get it now.

And that's not even going into the absolutely idiotic plot twists.

If a movie requires meta-thinking to understand the basic plot, it has failed to tell a story properly. This is less a movie and more Joss Whedon showing how much smarter he is than horror fans.

edited 18th Apr '12 3:33:52 PM by maxwellelvis

In many ways, The Cabin in the Woods is actually the opposite of Scream or New Nightmare.

In those Wes Craven movies the characters are very familiar with horror movies, can recognize when they're being put into a horror movie style situation, and in some cases are actually motivated to imitate horror movies. Those films were an attempt to take the conventions of horror movies and bring them into the real world.

The Cabin in the Woods, however, has no explicit references to horror movies, even when the situation seems to beg for it. Instead the impression is that the movie's set in the same universe where a bunch of other horror movies occur, but is delving into why those horror movies are so similar and why so many improbable things happen in them. It's not bringing horror conventions into reality; it's taking reality's demands for an explanation and bringing them into the world of the horror movie.

Yeah, these movies are all commenting on the same horror movie tropes and cliches, but their method of commentary is completely different.

edited 18th Apr '12 6:18:51 PM by RavenWilder

Lemme see if I've got this straight...

Whedon's trying to deconstruct reality through cliches?

No, it's that there are two different kinds of deconstructions.

One takes the core concept of a genre and tries to see how it would actually play out if it occurred in reality. That's what Wes Craven did with horror movies in the 90's, having the killers in Scream and New Nightmare deliberately modeling their rampages on scary movies, and then seeing how people who are self-aware about horror cliches would react to the situation.

However, there's another kind of deconstruction, one that plays all the tropes and cliches of a genre completely straight, just like any conventional example of the genre would, but then it delves into what sort of extreme circumstances you'd need to make those tropes and cliches happen. That's what The Cabin in the Woods does, extrapolating that, if there's a universe where the events of horror movies actually happen, then it couldn't just be random chance that such similar groups of people stumble into such similar situations over and over again; there'd have to be someone or something orchestrating it.

Basically, in the world of Scream, horror movies are fake, and characters are able to break the rules of the genre. In the world of The Cabin in the Woods, horror movies are real, and there's an in-universe force preventing characters from breaking the rules of the genre. They're both commenting on cliched horror films, but their approaches to doing so are completely different.

edited 19th Apr '12 3:41:36 AM by RavenWilder

But the one notable horror movie that DOES take place in a cabin in the woods is Evil Dead, which is more like a zombie movie than anything else. If it were a camp or something, I could concede the point to Whedon.

That it's a cabin in particular isn't the important part; what's important is that it's a bunch of young people in a Closed Circle situation. There could be other installations like the cabin in the U.S., or it could be they occasionally rebuild it to make it a summer camp or remote house or abandoned farm or what-have-you.

It's still a remarkably stupid plot, any way you slice it.

I honestly have no idea what's keeping Saw alive. I think we're just hungry for another saga.

And yes. Joss has built his career around meta. But he has the right touch for it. You need only compare imitators (including some of his former co-writers) to see what I mean.

There IS such a thing as too much meta. You deconstruct everything around you, and suddenly, you're not gonna have anything to stand on. And then, your movie will just look like you saying how much smarter you are than horror fans.

I don't think this movie was saying "we're smarter than most horror fans". I think it was saying "we're less lazy than most horror filmmakers".

I don't see why if a filmmaker follows a working formula, they'r "lazy" all of a sudden.

Saw the movie. Liked it. A lot.

Especially the climax.

I saw it yesterday too. Gonna write a review at some point today. It's gonna be hard, since I sure as hell am not going to spoil anything about this film other than what one can guess from the title.

Why are people in this thread treating this film as if it didn't approach any of its own elements with a sense of fun?

As Joss said, it's a love letter, as well as a hate letter.

A loving hate letter, to be precise. Much like one of those bittersweet break up songs, or something.

Yeah it wasn't trying to be a groundbreaking revolution or anything, it was just meant to be a fun movie. And it was, easily the best horror movie I've ever seen (granted, I don't like many horror movies).

For me, it was a really good action movie. I love battle royale with cheese esque climaxes, and that certainly delivered. I only wish I recognized more of the references.

Same here. I've never been able to be scared by horror movies, so that's not really the draw for me. The sheer over-the-topness in the final act was the greatest part. The people in charge of the project were really the most entertaining characters to me.

Stoner man was best character. The audience cheered him on so hard when he came back.

Oh god yes, I absolutely loved the climax. It was like Resident Evil mixed with the SCP Foundation, what's not to love?

Also, who else realized what was going on with Curt's death?

I realized about 10-3 seconds right before it happened.

Count me as someone who completely forgot about the forcefield until it turned up again. Still hilarious, though.

And I'm honestly having a hard time deciding which movie had the wildest, craziest ending: The Cabin In The Woods or Blazing Saddles.

I felt that Blazing Saddles petered out by the end, personally, while this movie was much better about it.