The Cabin in the Woods - Post Release - Page 12

Quote:

Originally Posted by EvilTwin 

 

I think the argument that "it's better this way" is bullshit justification on the part of the characters. Yeah, being party to the wiping out of billions of babies, children, and people with no clue or part in satiating the ancient gods is "better". That's a self serving justification that's not backed by anything in the movie. The agency may be jaded, but it's doing what is pretty arguable as necessary. Trying to equate the Hollywood studio system with the totality of humanity is a half baked metaphor at best. Especially since we know that the Hollywood studio system isn't the totality of horror filmmaking.

Here's the thing. All horror movies are based on our fear of death. Not just death by maniac slasher, or death by zombification, or death by hydraulic press, but DEATH death. That's why the Unstoppable Killer is such an enduring cliché. Death always wins. That's why the victims are young. Everything that lives, WILL die.

But that doesn't mean life has to be a downer. On the contrary: the knowledge that this is all the life you get is a gift, an admonishment to live it well. The 'Organization' in the film represents denial, an elaborate attempt to artificially maintain the status quo-- it must eventually fail, no matter how child-proof the cabinets are. If I were so inclined, I might even read significance into the fact that the Harbinger operates a gas station-- an enterprise founded upon a limited resource...

Quote:

Originally Posted by EvilTwin 

 

 

I think the argument that "it's better this way" is bullshit justification on the part of the characters. Yeah, being party to the wiping out of billions of babies, children, and people with no clue or part in satiating the ancient gods is "better". That's a self serving justification that's not backed by anything in the movie. The agency may be jaded, but it's doing what is pretty arguable as necessary. Trying to equate the Hollywood studio system with the totality of humanity is a half baked metaphor at best. Especially since we know that the Hollywood studio system isn't the totality of horror filmmaking.

 

There's a horrific scenario at the heart of the movie, which I don't think the film ever really decides to explore more than surficially.  

 

I'm not buying that "course correction" analogy. That's basically saying because the movie is meta, whenever it falls back on cliches it's merely being clever not lazy. Now I'll grant you that the options I put forth for alternative endings aren't the best, but I'll argue "virgin girl" making a decision is better than a non-decision dramatically. I won't call the werewolf and zombie girl deus ex machinas, but clearly they take the decision out of a character's hands and I don't see how that furthers the film's agenda.

 

I agree quality isn't the metric for "game-changing" cinema. But that's the only real argument going for Cabin in the Woods as it very well may make less than Vampires Suck. And less than half of any of the Scary Movie series. PA4 is probably going to make more in its opening weekend than Cabin in the Woods will make in its whole run.

First, I'm not sure why you're referring to Hollywood exclusively; I don't think that Cabin necessarily points at Hollywood, because-- as you point out-- so much of horror comes outside of Hollywood, and "outside of Hollywood" doesn't necessarily mean "free of the cliches that Cabin is skewering".

Why does Marty's justification need to be backed by something from the rest of the movie? I think it's easy and very reasonable to look at his statement as self-serving, except that he doesn't benefit from his ultimate decision. He still dies. Now, yes, he dies no matter what, but it's far more accurate to look at him as nihilistic instead of self-serving. The agency's jaded, but they're not nihilistic; Marty, coming from a perspective outside of the daily activities of the agency, sees the big picture and goes in another direction entirely. In that sense he's being basically a defiant anti-authoritarian brat, but his choice echoes his words from earlier in the film during the ride to the cabin; it's not like they come out of nowhere. Should we let someone else have a chance at life if our existence comes down to sacrificing young people to a bunch of angry gods living in a hole in the ground?

For the course correction analogy-- I'm not saying that the movie is clever by falling back on cliches. I'm saying that it's sticking to one of its central goals and ideas. In a movie that's all about exploring those cliches, I'd expect them to pop up in the narrative pretty frequently, so when a deus-ex-werewolf appears and chews on Dana, or when several SWAT teams go up against hordes of monsters with an idiotic tactical approach and arms that are clearly incapable of putting down anything the resides in the pods, it reads as being part of the commentary-- or, more specifically, part of the fun. We need that werewolf to sample some Dana flesh. We need those guards to put themselves in the most ill-advised position possible once the Big Red Button has been pushed. It's just like the agency needs Curt to do a 180 after ordering his friends to stick together. So when that werewolf pops out, it's not "clever to be lazy", it's consistency in action.

Don't you mean, by the way, that they take the decision out of Dana's hands? Marty still has plenty of choices available to him, and he picks "mix it up with a 60 year old lady" instead of "get the werewolf's attention and let it eat me instead" or "throw myself off the ledge into the writhing pit of fiery evil below". And so on. Maybe Dana gets her choice taken away, but I think Marty still has control.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spike Marshall 

 

 

I wouldn't call myself a hardcore horror fan, but if you're seriously saying there's been no decent horror movies since the mid 00s I don't know what to say to you. Even as a fairly casual horror fan I've seen a fucking ton of good to great horror movies over the past few years. I mean unless you're limiting yourself strictly to big budget American blockbusters I don't get how you could view the last few years as a drought, especially in comparison to the shit that happened in the 1990s.

 

I didn't mean to say there's been no DECENT horror in that timeframe. Just nothing that genuinely blew my mind and left a lasting impression on me to anywhere near a particularly great extent.

And even at that, admittedly I DID rather stupidly, absentmindedly leave out two VERY notable examples from just a few short years ago: one being Black Swan. Yes I'm one of those assholes who considers that film to be horror predominantly before anything else (its got WAY too much of an emphasis on both body and psychological/surrealist horror as well as the overpowering feel and atmosphere of an out-and-out giallo for me to think of it in any other terms). But regardless, yeah Black Swan fucking floored me and blew my mind to about the same extent as this one, so I was still off in that estimation either way (and regardless on whether or not you wanna argue its classification as "horror": for my personal purposes, that was a fucking horror film, albeit an incredibly artfully crafted and mega high class one). The other of course being Antichrist, which I likewise adored the shit out of and forgot about like a total Alzheimer's afflicted goon.

Oh shit, for that matter I ALSO neglected A Serbian Film as a third. Fuck, THAT was crazy great and pants crappingly awesome as well. Yeah, I'm losing my marbles in my old age here, sorry.

There's also been stuff on the far fringes that I've been WANTING DESPERATELY to see, but have yet to be able to, like Amer, Sennentuntschi: Curse of the Alps, and Theatre Bizarre, which all look fucking sublime from what bits I've seen of them. I also just very recently blind bought The Woman, but haven't sat down with it yet. I've got good hopes and expectations for that one. And I know that Detention is getting a LOT of heaps of praise from all the exact right places and people whose opinions I trust most on these matters, but I'm still hesitant on that one: it looks WAY too "meta" in a bad/overly eager/obnoxious way for my liking (in stark contrast to Cabin, where all the meta stuff very clearly served a legitimate purpose far beyond just being meta for the sake of itself because its the current "in" thing to do with the kids today). I could well EASILY be wrong there I know, and I'll still more than gladly give it a fair chance when the opportunity to see it presents itself; but for the time being, right or wrong, I've lingering doubts and trepidation in the back of my head on that one.

And I wouldn't at all be surprised if there's still a few more yet that I'm not bringing to mind cause I'm an airhead.

Either way, yeah, I'll relent on my previous statement and say that there's still been some REALLY good stuff here and there and that I'm just getting old and confused. But I REALLY gotta disagree strongly on the 90's being in ANY REMOTE way a bad decade for horror. They were a bad decade for SLASHERS yes (outside of the first Candyman and the original Scream and a tiny, microscopic other handful of gems), but horror-horror in general? No fucking way sir. I can literally name about a gazillion titles from that decade from various other subgenres outside of slashers that are among my most cherished favorites of all time. You need to have EXTREMELY narrow, tunnel-vision goggles on to see that decade as being bad for ALL horror outside of the ream of slasher films (much like I for a moment there had narrow, tunnel-vision goggles on regarding horror in the latter aughts).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hammerhead 

 

 

Here's the thing. All horror movies are based on our fear of death. Not just death by maniac slasher, or death by zombification, or death by hydraulic press, but DEATH death. That's why the Unstoppable Killer is such an enduring cliché. Death always wins. That's why the victims are young. Everything that lives, WILL die.

 

But that doesn't mean life has to be a downer. On the contrary: the knowledge that this is all the life you get is a gift, an admonishment to live it well. The 'Organization' in the film represents denial, an elaborate attempt to artificially maintain the status quo-- it must eventually fail. If I were so inclined, I might even read significance into the fact that the Harbinger operates a gas station-- an enterprise founded upon a limited resource...

That's fine, but I find nihilism a bullshit philosophy. Yeah, we're all going to die eventually, that doesn't mean that life has no value and that it's justification to wipe out the lives of all who are alive and will be born. You might as well argue that because there's a lot of injustice in the world and the species will go extinct eventually, the President should just let loose the nukes and end it all now.

Of course life isn't perfect, that doesn't mean that it isn't precious. Sometimes the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. I don't think the movie really makes the case for the opposite, other than it would make a neat ending. Now, if the movie wants me to think of the characters as selfish, nihilistic pricks whose deaths are necessary, great, but I don't think that's really what they were shooting for.

I think it's a testament to the film that we can have this type of conversation, but I also think that the film only surficially brings up these ideas instead of really thinking them through.

Quote:

Originally Posted by EvilTwin 

 

 

That's fine, but I find nihilism a bullshit philosophy.

I certainly don't entirely buy into myself personally in real life, but that in no way negates the fact that (for me at least) its a pretty goddamned fun and fascinating concept to play around with in genre fiction. ESPECIALLY in horror in particular, where it fits right at home like a glove for my money. No greater testament to this than in some of the darkest works of H.P. Lovecraft (where the whole point is the insignificance of man in the face of far older, vastly more powerful and primal evils that are way far beyond the scope of our meager understandings).

Its the same way that I'm the FARTHEST from a psychotic, violent serial killer in real life, but that doesn't in any way negate the fact that when it comes to my horror viewing habits, I'm a notoriously sadistic little spitball of venom that eagerly wants a lot of (not all of, but a LOT of ) my genre films to push the envelope of taste and taboos to their utmost breaking point and well beyond.

There's certainly sometimes (and to some extent) a clear divide between who we are and what we ultimately believe in as people when push comes to shove, and what it is that we consume and look for in our art and forms of creative expression.

Quote:

Originally Posted by agracru 

 

 

First, I'm not sure why you're referring to Hollywood exclusively; I don't think that Cabin necessarily points at Hollywood, because-- as you point out-- so much of horror comes outside of Hollywood, and "outside of Hollywood" doesn't necessarily mean "free of the cliches that Cabin is skewering".

 

Why does Marty's justification need to be backed by something from the rest of the movie? I think it's easy and very reasonable to look at his statement as self-serving, except that he doesn't benefit from his ultimate decision. He still dies. Now, yes, he dies no matter what, but it's far more accurate to look at him as nihilistic instead of self-serving. The agency's jaded, but they're not nihilistic; Marty, coming from a perspective outside of the daily activities of the agency, sees the big picture and goes in another direction entirely. In that sense he's being basically a defiant anti-authoritarian brat, but his choice echoes his words from earlier in the film during the ride to the cabin; it's not like they come out of nowhere. Should we let someone else have a chance at life if our existence comes down to sacrificing young people to a bunch of angry gods living in a hole in the ground?

 

For the course correction analogy-- I'm not saying that the movie is clever by falling back on cliches. I'm saying that it's sticking to one of its central goals and ideas. In a movie that's all about exploring those cliches, I'd expect them to pop up in the narrative pretty frequently, so when a deus-ex-werewolf appears and chews on Dana, or when several SWAT teams go up against hordes of monsters with an idiotic tactical approach and arms that are clearly incapable of putting down anything the resides in the pods, it reads as being part of the commentary-- or, more specifically, part of the fun. We need that werewolf to sample some Dana flesh. We need those guards to put themselves in the most ill-advised position possible once the Big Red Button has been pushed. It's just like the agency needs Curt to do a 180 after ordering his friends to stick together. So when that werewolf pops out, it's not "clever to be lazy", it's consistency in action.

 

Don't you mean, by the way, that they take the decision out of Dana's hands? Marty still has plenty of choices available to him, and he picks "mix it up with a 60 year old lady" instead of "get the werewolf's attention and let it eat me instead" or "throw myself off the ledge into the writhing pit of fiery evil below". And so on. Maybe Dana gets her choice taken away, but I think Marty still has control.

I'm concentrating on Hollywood, because I think Cabin in the Woods concentrates on Hollywood. Specifically Friday the 13th and all the knockoffs. Now, Evil Dead isn't truly Hollywood, which makes it a somewhat funny inclusion because there's more genuine inventiveness and love of filmmaking in that series than in most genre filmmaking regardless of genre, but it has very little to say about horror outside of the American prism. Sure, there's a little J-horror in it, but it hardly skewers the cliches like it does the American cliches. Heck, I consider the WTF ending to the J-horror segment a compliment to J-horror. Nobody does WTF like the Japanese.

Sure, Marty gets a little bit of free will towards the end, but I don't think they really grapple with what that means. And, ultimately, I think Dana is meant to be the main character and the audience identification character which makes it somewhat dissatisfying when she ultimately doesn't make a decision.

Quote:

Originally Posted by EvilTwin 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hammerhead 

 

But that doesn't mean life has to be a downer. On the contrary: the knowledge that this is all the life you get is a gift, an admonishment to live it well. The 'Organization' in the film represents denial, an elaborate attempt to artificially maintain the status quo-- it must eventually fail.

 

That's fine, but I find nihilism a bullshit philosophy. Yeah, we're all going to die eventually, that doesn't mean that life has no value and that it's justification to wipe out the lives of all who are alive and will be born. You might as well argue that because there's a lot of injustice in the world and the species will go extinct eventually, the President should just let loose the nukes and end it all now.

That is so completely not what I wrote. There's a difference between nihilism and healthy acceptance. Cabin signifies that point of no return-- that in the endgame no moral compromise is acceptable.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ambler 

I don't think I'd call Cabin a "game changer" because those tend to be much more successful either financially or culturally or both, radically changing the industry in which it's part.  Easy Rider did that.  Star Wars did that.  Jurassic Park did that.  Scream did that.  Blair Witch did that.  Avatar did that.  Cabin is a blip on the radar in comparison.  I think it's a matter of people wanting it to be game changer more than it actually is.  Hollywood looks at Cabin as a great film that failed to catch on and wont be altering their plans much.

 

I do think it's possible for it to raise the game of other horror filmmakers, but it wont make their ability to get their similarly ambitious films made...meaning Cabin wouldn't have changed much of anything.

This same line of thinking desperately needs to be applied to the term "cult classic" being thrown around before it's even had time to simmer (or debut for the masses, for God's sake).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hammerhead 

If I were so inclined, I might even read significance into the fact that the Harbinger operates a gas station-- an enterprise founded upon a limited resource...

Jesus, you guys dig deep.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hammerhead 

 

 

That is so completely not what I wrote. There's a difference between nihilism and healthy acceptance. Cabin signifies that point of no return-- that in the endgame no moral compromise is acceptable.

And I don't buy that argument either. Life is built on compromise and accomodating the needs of others. Unless you're Ayn Rand.

Now I accept that characters are allowed to make wrongheaded decisions. But I don't think the film thinks that the decision is wrongheaded or treats the decision with any real gravitas. Maybe that's asking too much of the film, but ultimately I believe that the system (whether the Hollywood studio system or humanity in general) can be made better without blowing it all up. To me the film never really made a convincing argument otherwise. It wants to be both anti-horror movie while reveling in the cliches and Easter Eggs at the same time. Ultimately I don't think it pulls it off seamlessly.

A movie doesn't have to be massively successful to be a game changer. In fact, movies that are huge hits and make an instant impact often have less lasting effect when the next fad comes along. Cult movies that simmer among an appreciative audience usually end up having a bigger impact. Citizen Kane was a bomb at the time, but it's probably one of the most influential movies ever made over the long haul.

That said, maybe I'm using "Game Changer" incorrectly. Maybe a Game Changer refers to something that instantly makes Hollywood change course, which, no, this movie won't do. But I think it'll have a profound impact on the horror genre in the long term.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Prankster 

A movie doesn't have to be massively successful to be a game changer. In fact, movies that are huge hits and make an instant impact often have less lasting effect when the next fad comes along. Cult movies that simmer among an appreciative audience usually end up having a bigger impact. Citizen Kane was a bomb at the time, but it's probably one of the most influential movies ever made over the long haul.

 

That said, maybe I'm using "Game Changer" incorrectly. Maybe a Game Changer refers to something that instantly makes Hollywood change course, which, no, this movie won't do. But I think it'll have a profound impact on the horror genre in the long term.

Yeah game changer is definitely not the correct term to be using for this movie.  

I don't think meta-horror is the future of horror. Maybe Cabin in the Woods will inspire some screenwriter down the line to not settle for an easy cliche, but I tend to think that the ambition not to settle for the cliche doesn't need a comedy to point out.

Ultimately I think Cabin in the Woods is going to be sui generis. A fondly remembered one-shot entry by horror fans, but not something that really leads anywhere. Neither Shaun of the Dead nor Zombieland had any effect on The Walking Dead's success, and I think that's going to be the case of Cabin in the Woods as well. Doesn't mean it isn't an entertaining film, but it's way premature to declare it any more than a critical success and a moderate financial success.

Now that you mention it, almost all of the monsters wrangled in the facility correspond to American films and American tropes (some of them, of course, cross cultural boundaries; zombies and werewolves, for example, show up in horror cinema across the world over). Which is appropriate, because why would the J-Horror Ghost Girl wind up in an American site? (Though maybe there's a comment to be made about the American film industry pilfering ideas from foreign industries for easy revenue, a'la The Grudge). But ultimately I think that means Cabin is more honed in on American horror cinema rather than Hollywood at large, though I admit that this is maybe a nitpicky conversation.

But as far as grappling with the ramifications of Marty's free will...well, like you say, Cabin doesn't have the time to do so, because the ramifications burst out of the chamber below and smash the entire facility into smithereens. Nor do I think Cabin really cares about ruminating on the impact of Marty's decision to fight rather than selflessly offer his life for the sake of the entire planet; it's not that film, and it doesn't really need to be, either. I think we're left to wrestle with what Marty's ultimate decision means, and I think that's what we've been discoursing on this entire time, but the film-- to me-- pretty clearly wants its audience to mull over his final choice.

As far as whether Cabin thinks Marty's decision is wrong-headed, well, I'll disagree here. Nothing in that final scene pipes up to label Marty's and Dana's course of action as "wrong", but I think Goddard and Whedon probably identify on some level with Sitterson and Hadley; we certainly spend enough time with them that we get to know them better, I'd say, than the teens at the cabin. And it's clear to us, filtered through Sitterson and Hadley, that Marty and Dana are playing with fire, brimstone, and apocalypse here. If you follow the interpretation that the hand at the end represents the audience, enraged at being cheated out of the bloodshed they demand, then Marty's way in the wrong and the entire climax is about his wrongheadedness; if you take that hand as Goddard and Whedon taking a big shot at the morass of unimaginative, arid, stale horror, then yeah, Marty's the hero. Ultimately I tend to sympathize more with Sitterson and Hadley than I do with the teens, and so I'm inclined to see Marty as wrong via their point of view, but I think seeing Cabin's climax in terms of right and wrong may be incorrect.

And yeah, I don't think you have to buy into the nihilist philosophy for the ending of the film to work-- I do acknowledge that Hammerhead isn't really talking about nihilism, but there's something nihilistic about Marty's actions regardless-- but maybe we've touched on exactly why it repulses you so much. And honestly, truly, I can see that-- even if I disagree, overall, with your perception and your take here. But this to me is why Cabin is so great-- we can keep talking about it for pages and pages, and even if we never come to consensus I think we're both learning and growing as the conversation goes on, which for me is a hallmark of successful cinema, if not strictly great. (Though I clearly think Cabin is pretty great.)

What's also interesting is in the camper ride to the cabin, Marty mentions that society could use a reset or a cleansing or whatever. He certainly gets his wish at the end of the flick. I think it's an interesting ending to the movie, and certainly fun on a few different levels. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kevin Matchstick 

What's also interesting is in the camper ride to the cabin, Marty mentions that society could use a reset or a cleansing or whatever. He certainly gets his wish at the end of the flick. I think it's an interesting ending to the movie, and certainly fun on a few different levels. 

Which I think is interesting also. But ultimately I don't think the choice is between status quo and a reset but between status quo and annihilation. Considering the movie wants us to revel in all the things we love about horror as much as it is about tweaking the cliches, I get a mixed message from the film itself.

When I say I think this film will be influential, it doesn't mean that I think it's going to be wall-to-wall meta from here on out. I just think this movie represents a potential break from a lot of horror tropes. (And for those of you saying the "spam in a cabin" genre is already dead, "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre 3D" comes out next year.)
 

Quote:

Originally Posted by EvilTwin 

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hammerhead 

 

 

That is so completely not what I wrote. There's a difference between nihilism and healthy acceptance. Cabin signifies that point of no return-- that in the endgame no moral compromise is acceptable.

 

And I don't buy that argument either. Life is built on compromise and accomodating the needs of others. Unless you're Ayn Rand.

You're talking about compromises of personal principle there, not morality. At the end of Cabin the kids have the option to save the world, but only by murdering each other. As Admiral Kirk once said, "The price would have been my soul".

This may have been mentioned earlier, but isn't the whole movie just a riff/expansion on Waxwork? No Patrick Macnee, though...

People are throwing around "game changer" as if the movie is perpetuating that claim. Obviously, it doesn't. If anything, it celebrates the game itself. 

It's tough to get through all the great posts in this thread in one read, so I'm sorry if this has been brought up before, but...

... one thing I'm kinda wishing they would have explored -- and which would have added some more sci-fi elements into the mix -- would be the origin of all of the monsters.  It seems like they were different based on the cultures.  Were they the result of scientific experiments?  Maybe they were created following instructions left by the ancient gods?  Extracted from the nightmares of children and teenagers?

Would have been neat with at least a mention.

Quote:

Originally Posted by pervis42 

It's tough to get through all the great posts in this thread in one read, so I'm sorry if this has been brought up before, but...

 

... one thing I'm kinda wishing they would have explored -- and which would have added some more sci-fi elements into the mix -- would be the origin of all of the monsters.  It seems like they were different based on the cultures.  Were they the result of scientific experiments?  Maybe they were created following instructions left by the ancient gods?  Extracted from the nightmares of children and teenagers?

 

Would have been neat with at least a mention.

I personally assumed them all to be a bit of both: some supplied by the Lovecraftian "Ancient Ones", and others perhaps artificially engineered by the scientists in charge of running the experiments. Could've been cool if the film came out and said it either way, but I also figured that both answers seem so easily enough presumable that it might've been beside the point for the movie to go out of its way to explain it.

According to Acker's character, they're all genuine monsters, supplied by the Ancient Ones. And presumably each complex worldwide has its own culturally-relevant stable.

Hey, Brian White is from Boston. I knew there was a reason I dug that guy.

As was mentioned earlier in the thread, I would love to see the movie where the facility's wranglers travel across the country ensnaring the monsters that end up in the pods we see in the climax. Could echo the best parts of Jurassic Park 2 (or, the parts of that movie that I like the most) but with a smorgasbord of creatures and such, apart from those supplied by the Ancient Ones. I presume Fornicus would be included among their number, while things like the werewolf and giant animals and insects were found in various corners around America. Probably the Angry Molesting Tree, too.

Oh god - I've been laughing at "Fornicus" all week.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ambler 

 

 

Don't take this the wrong way, but this feels like calling the movie immune to criticism. 

This comment was several years ago now; just playing catch-up.

Saying the film was built to be like that isn't the same as saying it is like that. Sorry for the confusion, I sure don't think any film is above or immune to criticism. Just saying, Whedon/Goddard could plausibly claim as much. Doesn't mean we have to agree with 'em. Its supposed critical impenetrability — you say you have a problem with the flick, they can come back with "Yeah, we wanted you to feel that way" — may be why some folks are getting pissed off at the flick. It's like they've anticipated any criticism and incorporated it into the movie; basically, it criticizes itself before you even get a chance to. It comes from the head, not the heart; it's more thought out than felt, which is why so many people are saying it's not that scary, unlike Scream, which did manage to be scary (at least in the opening bit, anyway). It's as if Scream opened with Drew answering the phone and then you cut to the guys whispering to each other "Okay, now get her to look outside to see her mutilated boyfriend," etc. There isn't really a time in Cabin when you don't know what the hell's going on; you may not know right away why it's going on, but you know pretty much from jump street what's happening. Most horror works by the invasion of chaos into order; here there's a great deal of order creating the chaos.

On a related tip, what the Scream series did more than anything else was to show how very close slasher films are to old-school murder-mysteries. It's And Then There Were None with guts on the floor. As the series went on and got worse, there was very little difference between it and Murder She Wrote other than tone and emphasis. I strongly suspect, in fact, that after Halloween and Friday the 13th hit big back in the day, a lot of standard murder-mystery scripts previously collecting dust were rewritten to add gore. Prom Night (Jamie Lee Curtis original) is a good example; I don't know for sure that it was retooled as such, but it sure feels like it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Teitr Styrr 

The only way this a game changer for me, is that I am always going to think of Jenkins, Whitford and Acker running the show from underground whenever I watch a horror movie now.  Someone else mentioned this upthread.

 

Holy shit - i would love to see some fanedits/youtube recuts along these lines aimed at some of the more egregious examples of genre cheating/poor sequelling. Be a great excercise for some young film students. All they'd need was a basic "Control Room" set with some obvious levers they can pull backward and forward and swithces they can twiddle with before cutting back into the movie proper. Might actually make some true shitpiles worth watching.

For Zombies' Halloween flicks just cut back to a chimp randomly freaking out at the controls while the puppeteers slap at it with brooms.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kevin Matchstick 

What's also interesting is in the camper ride to the cabin, Marty mentions that society could use a reset or a cleansing or whatever. He certainly gets his wish at the end of the flick. I think it's an interesting ending to the movie, and certainly fun on a few different levels. 

Exactly! He calls for an end to the human race in his second scene, and the puppeteers put that decision in his hands at the end. Oops.

There was a cut line that the weed he was rolling in the RV was his "secret secret stash, the stash his normal secret stash would get jealous of if it knew about it", indicating that the puppeteers dosed the wrong weed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by agracru 

 

 

I dislike Avatar, but like Prankster said, quality isn't the metric for measuring "game-changing" cinema. So yeah. Avatar is a game-changer for the reason you outline, whether we like it or not.

 

But even with my issues with CABIN (and I have some with AVATAR,) there was nothing about it that would lead me to believe that it will change the course of horror.

Time will tell if I'm wrong.

Cabin In The Woods is not the death knell for the "horror in the forest" subgenre.  Even Whedon & Goddard have said as much.  No horror movie will ever turn out to be the "be all, end all" for its sub-genre.  Someone always comes up with another compelling take on down the road.

Quote:

Originally Posted by fuzzy dunlop 

The redneck zombie torture family part of the movie by itself is better than most slasher flicks.

I got a strong Fulci/Carpenter vibe from the way they were shot, at least initially...with a dab of Raimi.  As cliched as the concept of evil rednecks (and zombies at that!) are, Goddard pulled them off expertly.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dan Benenson 

This is getting way I to fanwank that doesn't really matter, but it could be that it's a bonus for the Buckners or it could be there's an optional bonus location nearby that is specific to each monster. i.e. if they'd chosn the Merman they might have later stumbled upon his secret lair near the lake, and so on.

That's what I take away from it as well.  Had they blown the conch, that room never would have been revealed and we might have seen Hemsworth venturing into a grotto to save his girl or something like that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JPL 

Something that I thought about that hasn't been addressed: I kept waiting to see if someone from within the organization was sabotaging the ritual.  Marty's weed, which Amy Acker's character said was suppose to turn him more into his "Fool" stereotype, wasn't doing its job and the tunnel never got blown at the right time. I assumed someone wanted the ritual to fail, but that theory never panned out. Did anyone else think the plot might go that way?

So did I.  It felt like someone upstairs wanted things to fail.  In a way it was true, with that person being Marty.  Like most horrifying events in life, a string of bad luck/coincidences brought the whole thing down.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richard Dickson 

And whose existence cements the fact that these are actual creatures, not animatronics or holograms.  Which further implies that at some point, someone went out and rounded these things up.  Now there's your prequel.

Stop teasing me!

Quote:

Originally Posted by cccc 

You're insane.  Anyway, the past decade has been great for horror, if you are open to the foreign markets.   

Preach it!

Quote:

Originally Posted by PBar 

 

 

But even with my issues with CABIN (and I have some with AVATAR,) there was nothing about it that would lead me to believe that it will change the course of horror.

 

Time will tell if I'm wrong.

You're not.  It's not going to change horror in any way.  In fact, it'll really have zero impact.  This isn't Blair Witch in anyway shape or form. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by cccc 

 

 

You're not.  It's not going to change horror in any way.  In fact, it'll really have zero impact.  This isn't Blair Witch in anyway shape or form. 

Thank god, found footage horror is one change I would gladly give back with a few exceptions.  Cabin was a smart and fun approach to stale ideas that have never been given a genuine opportunity from studio or distributor.  If the same story had been told in less capable hands, it would be forgettable, but as it is, it had Buffyverse nerd appeal, a decent script, acting on par with the best of the genre and a generous production value.  I really enjoyed it, but it didn't change the world or horror.  What we can hope for it to do is rejuvenate the field, and get some studios willing to give budget to some more intelligent horror, and pass the amount of  torture porn/found footage movies they pump out.  (though I loved V/H/S).

Quote:

Originally Posted by jahosive 

 

 

Thank god, found footage horror is one change I would gladly give back with a few exceptions.  Cabin was a smart and fun approach to stale ideas that have never been given a genuine opportunity from studio or distributor.  If the same story had been told in less capable hands, it would be forgettable, but as it is, it had Buffyverse nerd appeal, a decent script, acting on par with the best of the genre and a generous production value.  I really enjoyed it, but it didn't change the world or horror.  What we can hope for it to do is rejuvenate the field, and get some studios willing to give budget to some more intelligent horror, and pass the amount of  torture porn/found footage movies they pump out.  (though I loved V/H/S).

The problem I have with Cabin is it's not scary.  Don't get me wrong I enjoy comedy in horror, but I prefer my horror movies to be scary.  I enjoyed it for what it was tho.

Quote:

Originally Posted by cccc 

The problem I have with Cabin is it's not scary.

I don't mean to single you out, but this seems to be a common complaint, and it kinda rustles my jimmies.  I wasn't shitting my pants in fear or anything, but the upstairs stuff with the redneck zombies isn't really for played laughs.  I guess Hemsworth's death kind of is, but for the most part its tense and brutal.  Sure, its funny to see the downstairs guys pulling the strings (and in the process, making the audience very aware of the genre cliches at play) but I don't think that makes a girl's head being removed via crosscut saw any less horrifying.     

And if sacrificing kids to postpone the end of the world at the hands of ancient Lovecraftian god-monsters isn't scary, I don't know what is!           

Quote:

Originally Posted by voltes5 


Marty did not just get a "little bit of free will towards the end"; he had free will throughout the whole movie (well, maybe except that one funny scene where he had to take a walk in the dark). Not only that, he was the one who found out about the whole mystery of why they were being killed. He was the ultimate hero. Now whether you disliked/liked him for being a stoner and/or whether you rooted for/criticized him for for being a "nihilist," are the very reasons why this film was extremely effective. We were IN a horror movie and we were aware of every single possible ramifications of what could occur. Werewolf and Zombie Girls as deus ex machinas? Everything was fucked and there was a "reason" these Ancient Ones' creations had been set loose. The idea of being punished for your transgressions was palpable throughout the whole film: Dana read the book, so why should she "live" just because she was the "virgin"? Marty was the one who kept insisting to "not read the Latin." He warned everyone from the get-go, but no one would listen to him. And Dana also pressed the "system purge" button. Getting blindsided by the werewolf was her comeuppance.
There is a result for everything that you do. Case in point: the immensely satisfying payback for the workers below. Their transgressions over the years have been paid in full with some serious interest. Virgin girl who was pushed off a volcano can now rest in peace.
Here is an important point: Marty saves Dana with his bong at the lake. That one minor detail is being forgotten about this discussion about Marty being selfish. It appears that does not mean anything since the lives of innocent babies are at stake. Put yourself in Marty's shoes. You just saved someone's life and within a few moments, you see that same person is about to end your life.
Yes, it's one of those complicated catch-22 decisions. That's why Marty said, "Gosh, they are both so enticing." So this film would really challenge folks' ideas and morality. It challenges you to think who is more important to save: Marty or billions of innocent lives? But let us tinker around with the question: who is more important to kill: Marty (and a few innocent victims every year) or billions of innocent lives? Either way, you will choose to kill someone. Choosing either one is wrong. Plain and simple.
Why? (I really don't have to explain this, but I will only do it to explain my point of view.)
Killing Marty will save billions of people and will perpetuate "the system" of killing a handful of innocent children/teens every year. So if you agree to that, then you might as well be a worker for The Director and The Ancient Ones. You are so worried and concerned about billions of innocent babies, that you won't think about the horrific nature of "The System." Over time, you'll end up like them as you partake in the betting pool, dance with your victims' music, and call Tequila as your "lady"...
Not killing Marty will obliterate the whole human race. So, yes, it seems like a humane thing to say things like, "What's one death compared to billions?!" Marty was the one who chose to go underground with Dana (plus he had the technical skills to do so). He could have just stayed "upstairs" (if he didn't know how to tinker with the elevator) and survived a little bit longer and the end of the world would still arrive but he wouldn't have any idea as to why that big hand just popped up below their cabin and caused the end of humanity. What would you think then at that point?
But there is a third option... Let's use film logic for one moment. Obviously, these Ancient Ones have been contained at one point and the human race flourished. Remember what Dana said? "It's time to give someone else a chance." Who is this "someone"? That someone will be the person(s) who will figure out another way to contain the "Ancient Ones" without resorting to spilling the blood of innocent human beings. I guess that would mean destroying the Ancient Ones, but that is what the ending of the film leads to. It's actually a hopeful ending because we've decided to not be slaves to these Ancient Ones any longer and we will find a champion who finally obliterate these fucking Ancient Ones from our world.
And back to EvilTwin's quote: With that said, I believe that Marty is the audience identification character and not Dana...
And as a sidenote: I fucking loved this movie. Best film of the year. A game changer, especially to aspiring filmmakers who wants to delve into the horror genre. And if you are a film lover, this is that movie that you will just love and something that you will repeatedly watch. It will inspire you and will bring back the joy and wonderment of watching movies, especially horror films. This might not be a financial success, but it's an important film that I'm very grateful that it found the light of day. Because even though it won't make a blip on anyone's radar, while PA4 to PA20 will make buttloads of cash, somewhere out there is a person who has been creatively-charged by the loving geek juices of Whedon and Goddard. He/she/it is that "someone else"...

I hear what you're saying, but I'm not convinced.

For one, I don't think audiences see themselves as paranoid stoners/fools. The film is structured in a way that Dana is the clear protagonist of the upstairs portion. Marty even disappears for a good chunk of the film while Dana never does. Switching the p.o.v. from Dana to Marty at the end doesn't really work for me. For that matter, while I get why Sigourney Weaver was there, Jenkins arguing his p.o.v. at the end may have been the more dramatically satisifying choice. At least within the confines of the movie as you need outside knowledge to make Weaver's presence really work.

Second, I think it's a weaker dramatic choice. Dana has the choice to live, Marty never has that choice. Given that we never really see these characters outside of the scenario presented, we see nothing of Marty's stake in the world. No family. No other friends. Nothing that defines him outside of the scenario. Sure, we have the our idea of what "the world" consists of, but apparently these characters have no stake in that world. To me it's the opposite of the ending of The Mist where Thomas Jane has all the stake in the world with his choice. That's horror. This is "fuck you, if I'm going to die I'm going to bring everyone down with me". Only we don't get a really good picture of why he's defiant to the world in general. We never see him really wrestle with the choice or have to deal with the consequences which I think is a more interesting idea than what's presented in the movie.

Which, again, isn't to say that I didn't enjoy the movie, but simply that I think it only touches on ideas instead of really exploring them as it's always in a hurry to get somewhere else. That's the opposite of Alien which is always willing to linger. But there are so many ideas, it's always moving, and it's at least clever so I certainly get the affection Cabin in the Woods is receiving. To me though, it's a little like a Rorschach test, there's stuff to see if you analyze, but it's really not making an overall consistent statement. It is a love/hate letter to horror rather than one or the other.

I hope it does inspire people to think out of the box a little, but there are movies that I think are legitimately great that can do the same thing. Or, if not great, have interesting kernels of ideas. If The Blair Witch Project isn't everyone's cup of tea, I'm still glad it inspired [Rec]. I'm glad that people are still getting inspiration from the likes of Evil Dead 2, Halloween, Alien, Frankenstein, etc. Heck, I legitimately enjoyed The Innkeepers and Woman in Black this year which didn't need any meta commentary or ironic detachment or deconstruction.  Ultimately though I think Prometheus is likely to have a much bigger impact on the future of studio horror, hopefully making it possible for At the Mountains of Madness to get made, than this little lark of a movie.

Quote:

Originally Posted by fuzzy dunlop 

 

I don't mean to single you out, but this seems to be a common complaint, and it kinda rustles my jimmies.  I wasn't shitting my pants in fear or anything, but the upstairs stuff with the redneck zombies isn't really for played laughs.  I guess Hemsworth's death kind of is, but for the most part its tense and brutal.  Sure, its funny to see the downstairs guys pulling the strings (and in the process, making the audience very aware of the genre cliches at play) but I don't think that makes a girl's head being removed via crosscut saw any less horrifying.     

 

And if sacrificing kids to postpone the end of the world at the hands of ancient Lovecraftian god-monsters isn't scary, I don't know what is!           

The idea is scary, but I'd argue that the tone of ironic detachment and amusement at genre conventions undercuts that scariness. The control room sequences are definitely not scary and we're constantly cross-cutting to them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by EvilTwin 

The idea is scary, but I'd argue that the tone of ironic detachment and amusement at genre conventions undercuts that scariness. The control room sequences are definitely not scary and we're constantly cross-cutting to them.

A lot of the laughs come from the control room, but for me it didn't undercut anything, mainly because Jenkins and Whitford are so good.  They're funny, and they are clearly meant to be, but at the same time, their day-to-day job forces them to do some horrific things and both actors do a great job of selling this.  

Quote:

Originally Posted by cccc 

 

 

The problem I have with Cabin is it's not scary.  Don't get me wrong I enjoy comedy in horror, but I prefer my horror movies to be scary.  I enjoyed it for what it was tho.

 

Quick, name a actually scary horror movie.

Justin Bieber in 3-d?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nardo 

 

 

Quick, name a actually scary horror movie.

 

 

Just one?  Or recently?

Off the top of my head  [REC], The Strangers, Session 9, Martyrs, IIs, Inside, haute tension, the others.

These movies had actual suspense and scares.  Cabin had zero suspense or scares.   I think it's more fun in a way of Buffy or Supernatural (tv series).  Just not my cup of tea I guess.  I respected it, but the movies I mention above effected me emotionally.   I enjoyed it just not on a horror level.  

For me if you are going to have comedy in horror Evil Dead 2, Re-Animator, Dead/Alive, Return of the Living Dead do a much better job of mixing the two.  

Quote:

Originally Posted by EvilTwin 

 

 

I hear what you're saying, but I'm not convinced.

 

For one, I don't think audiences see themselves as paranoid stoners/fools. The film is structured in a way that Dana is the clear protagonist of the upstairs portion. Marty even disappears for a good chunk of the film while Dana never does. Switching the p.o.v. from Dana to Marty at the end doesn't really work for me. For that matter, while I get why Sigourney Weaver was there, Jenkins arguing his p.o.v. at the end may have been the more dramatically satisifying choice. At least within the confines of the movie as you need outside knowledge to make Weaver's presence really work.

 

Second, I think it's a weaker dramatic choice. Dana has the choice to live, Marty never has that choice. Given that we never really see these characters outside of the scenario presented, we see nothing of Marty's stake in the world. No family. No other friends. Nothing that defines him outside of the scenario. Sure, we have the our idea of what "the world" consists of, but apparently these characters have no stake in that world. To me it's the opposite of the ending of The Mist where Thomas Jane has all the stake in the world with his choice. That's horror. This is "fuck you, if I'm going to die I'm going to bring everyone down with me". Only we don't get a really good picture of why he's defiant to the world in general. We never see him really wrestle with the choice or have to deal with the consequences which I think is a more interesting idea than what's presented in the movie.

 

Which, again, isn't to say that I didn't enjoy the movie, but simply that I think it only touches on ideas instead of really exploring them as it's always in a hurry to get somewhere else. That's the opposite of Alien which is always willing to linger. But there are so many ideas, it's always moving, and it's at least clever so I certainly get the affection Cabin in the Woods is receiving. To me though, it's a little like a Rorschach test, there's stuff to see if you analyze, but it's really not making an overall consistent statement. It is a love/hate letter to horror rather than one or the other.

 

I hope it does inspire people to think out of the box a little, but there are movies that I think are legitimately great that can do the same thing. Or, if not great, have interesting kernels of ideas. If The Blair Witch Project isn't everyone's cup of tea, I'm still glad it inspired [Rec]. I'm glad that people are still getting inspiration from the likes of Evil Dead 2, Halloween, Alien, Frankenstein, etc. Heck, I legitimately enjoyed The Innkeepers and Woman in Black this year which didn't need any meta commentary or ironic detachment or deconstruction.  Ultimately though I think Prometheus is likely to have a much bigger impact on the future of studio horror, hopefully making it possible for At the Mountains of Madness to get made, than this little lark of a movie.

BINGO!

I think Cabin was more creepy than scary.  Human sacrifice creeps me the fuck out and tying that into a ritual that would ward off the end of the world ratchets the creep factor up even further.  But yeah, the kills weren't the scariest things in the world. I still really liked the movie.

Just saw this a few days ago and I avoided this thread, but did anyone mention how awesome the NIN song was at the end?  Pretty fantastic song choice.

Holy shit, add Martyrs and Inside to two other films from the latter half of the aughts that in my earlier posts here I somehow TOTALLY forgot about like a dipshit. Both terrific fucking pieces of wonderfully uncompromising horror. I'm once again a moron who's totally losing it as I get older.

Martyrs is pretentious.

I know horror is subjective and all that, but it seems like people are mistaking 'unpleasant' for 'scary'.  

Quote:

Originally Posted by fuzzy dunlop 

I know horror is subjective and all that, but it seems like people are mistaking 'unpleasant' for 'scary'.  

I like "unpleasant" just fine thank you very much and know the difference between it and "scary". Horror, by its very definition is meant to "horrify". That can take any number of forms for me: "scary" in a very common garden variety "spooked" sense is but one of them. I can also be disturbed or made unnerved or just plain uncomfortable on a more cerebral and/or visceral level by the images I'm being shown without necessarily being "scared" under the traditional criteria. To solely expect traditional "fear" in the strictest sense of the word out of horror for me is limiting it down under way too narrow a definition.

Granted by that above criteria, I also STILL have standards and won't just take any old garbage thrown my way so long as there's enough innards sloshed about. Whether there be some manner of undeniable craft on display, or just an infectiously gonzo sense of not giving a fuck about conforming to conventional  cinematic standards, or (ideally) some combination of the two, there does indeed have to be SOME other merit to the film that attracts me to it beyond just karo syrup all by itself. The two aforementioned films, on some level or other, had such qualities that left a positive impression on me (horror-wise).

My ultimate point was however that for some of us, "unpleasant" is (or at least CAN be) an asset, not an inherent liability in and of itself. Not all of us see horror under a light that says "it has to go far, but not TOO far or not too far in a particular direction". Some of us WANT it to keep going and keep pushing and pushing without caring how badly it tears away at the envelope or whose sensibilities it offends as it does so. Horror's that one special genre where I WANT it to "offend" some taboo of mine, where I RELISH in having the film (or book or comic or whatever form of medium it takes) yank me violently by the hair and forcibly press my face up uncomfortably close flush against something that makes me positively squirm deep inside.

I'll also by that above token take Martyrs' brand of "pretentiousness" over a whole MESS of swill that's thrown at me out of the mainstream Hollywood machine these days and ask for seconds.

Please understand that I neglected to think to mention either film NOT because I found them forgettable in the slightest (far from it), but because I am in fact a meathead. My own stupidity and airheadedness shouldn't be confused for an instant with the degree to which the two films in question can be seen as "memorable".

BTW, speaking of modern horror, what's the general concensus on The Skin I Live In?

Quote:

Originally Posted by EvilTwin 

BTW, speaking of modern horror, what's the general concensus on The Skin I Live In?

I personally loved it, but as I mentioned in my post on it in its particular thread, it also bore an eerily identical resemblance to an incredibly obscure Australian (or at least I'm FAIRLY sure it was Australian) horror film by the name of Victim which came out roughly around the same-ish time.

Yet another goodie that I forgot to mention. For a thread devoted to a film that largely celebrates everything about the genre within roughly its past 30/40 some-odd years worth of history, I'm being a ridiculously shitty horror fanboy here.

In my defense, these days I only have like three or four other friends I know (all of whom I rarely ever get to see too often) left over who are anywhere near as big dorks for this stuff as I am. Way too many other people in my immediate surroundings for the past six or seven years have been cartoon and childhood nostalgia-obsessed man babies for whom Digimon is considered the epitome of "dark and edgy", who are glued mostly to Nicktoons and The Hub (and formerly Jetix when that was around), are proud "Bronies", and who can't even handle something as relatively benign as the original Die Hard.

Quote:

Originally Posted by fuzzy dunlop 

I know horror is subjective and all that, but it seems like people are mistaking 'unpleasant' for 'scary'.  

It's horror.  It's not supposed to be a pleasant expirence.