First two acts are perfectly serviceable and okay meta-commentary on horror tropes that some will claim are more clever than they in fact are; third act is some of the most ambitious, exciting horror filmmaking in years, and since it’s the last bit, you’ll forget that the first two-thirds of it was only okay.
Related Articles
24 users responded in this post
Yes.
Go see it.
Obviously, I wasn’t speaking to MGK. I was talking to you. Yes, you in particular.
So, it’s worth checking out when it comes out on DVD? Good to know. I’ll have to keep that in mind.
@Steve Ray Orr: Yes, but what if one has a pathological dislike of horror movies? I mean, I’ll see a movie in any genre if it’s amazing enough, but I haven’t seen the horror movie yet that’s good enough to overcome my dislike of being terrified.
I don’t have anything against horror movies, I do against splatter movies because of the typical misogyny so I suppose a good horror movie would have to tackle that issue – and a lot better than Scream did with its have the cake and eat it too aesthetic (although Scream was bearable)
I’ve heard this film called a “loving hate letter” to the horror genre and that’s an apt description. MGK is also right, the first two acts are serviceable (there were a number of times where you could plainly see Joss Whedon’s touch), but I was starting to get a little impatient for some payoff. The third act is very good, it didn’t say exactly what I had wanted it to say, but it was still worth my ten bucks.
@Kirala: Being scared is not a satisfying experience for me either. I make it a habit to stay away from the horror genre, but I made an exception because it seemed to be a comedy-horror and because I know how talented Joss Whedon is.
The payoff was good and you could clearly see both the love an the hate that Goddard/Whedon have for the genre. But it is really a horror movie at its core and if you aren’t going to enjoy it, I don’t think it is worth seeing just for the payoff.
So when you say “loving hate letter,” can I expect that to mean that they actually take steps to really address the usual issues of the genre (particularly the misogyny), rather than just being winkingly self-aware about them? Still, this endorsement means I’ll probably go see it after work today.
The first half isn’t as intense with the meta aspect, but I don’t think that’s the focus at that point. It’s more about the lives of people for whom unleashing horror is just a job, and Bradley Whitford and Richard Jenkins are MAGNIFICENT. And pretty much all their best stuff is in the first two acts. By the way, Whitford and Jenkins are the stars of the movie–I don’t mean they’re the “secret weapons” or whatever, I mean they’re literally the stars of the movie. But because they’re a couple of nerdy old dudes they’re not featured in the advertising the way the sexy “teens” are.
I also thought most of the movie’s legitimate scares came in the first half–and it came from the intentionally more cliched stuff, which may in fact be part of the point of the movie. When things get nuts and self-aware in the second half, it’s amazing, but there aren’t a lot of legitimately scary bits, and the few that there are are sandwiched between rapid-fire gags and metacommentary, leading to a rather dizzying tone that doesn’t lend itself to terror. That final act is really more of an action movie than anything. I’d argue that the movie as a whole is really a comedy first and horror movie second.
Look, I consider Joss Whedon to by God, so I am not an unbiased source… But this was the best horror film I’ve seen since Behind The Mask: The Rise Of Leslie Vernon. (Which, side note, is one of the great horror films of all-time.)
Cabin in the Woods is a brilliant movie about horror movie tropes. It is not, however, a particularly good horror movie.
“So when you say “loving hate letter,” can I expect that to mean that they actually take steps to really address the usual issues of the genre (particularly the misogyny), rather than just being winkingly self-aware about them?”
…No. While the film does comment on misogyny, it fails to incorporate that commentary into the body of the film in any particularly meaningful way. What’s more, the film employs gender stereotypes and the male gaze in ways that, while almost certainly intentional, nonetheless feel like an attempt to have one’s cake and eat it, too: Whedon & co. (as they often do) tend to critique the latent gender problems of the genre and pander to them in the same breath.
It’s also more than a little troubling, in a film so obviously invested in horror’s persistent issues of representation, to see a complete lack of reference to race and sexuality/sexual identity. “Cabin” only seems to feel comfortable addressing the horror genre from within a very heteronormative, very color-blind political sphere. It’s a very fun movie–I’ve seen it twice already, and I very rarely see films multiple times in theaters–but it hardly feels like a meaningful intervention–except insofar as its very existence feels like an attempt to close the book on some (admittedly threadbare) narrative tropes.
So I ended up seeing it with my sister last night. Complete waste of time, overhyped as shit. Calling bullshit on this one MGK, that third act was completely stupid and telegraphed as all hell. Also, you were right Luke, this movie didn’t do nearly as much as it could have or should have.
After pondering “Cabin in the Woods” for a bit more, it occurs to me what it really is. It is a pretty vicious excoriation of the audience for horror movies. On the surface, it appears to be an examination and commentary on horror movie tropes. While it is that to some degree, it is primarily a criticism of the audience for the sort of horror movie “Cabin in the Woods” is examining.
@Rbx5 “Should have”?
Okay, so you didn’t like the movie. That’s fine. But suggesting that Whedon/Goddard are obligated, in some way, to be the end-all of post-racial, post-gender horror flicks? Come on.
Also, the very expression “calling bullshit” (or, “I call bullshit” or even just to “call out” etc. etc.) is the exclusive property of those who need to get the fuck over themselves.
(Not to fond “get over yourself, either, but nothing else fit.)
“Too fond”!”
Shit.
“But suggesting that Whedon/Goddard are obligated, in some way, to be the end-all of post-racial, post-gender horror flicks? Come on.”
I don’t know, actually. I do think that when films are this consciously attempting to challenge paradigms, their blind spots do become much more important. If you claim–as I do think “Cabin in the Woods” does–to be subverting a genre’s implicit problems, a lack of reference to some persistent issues can have the extremely negative effect of appearing to deny that they are issues in the first place. I don’t share RBX’s strong dislike for the film, but I don’t think it’s inappropriate to hold it to a different level of responsibility than something like, say, “Friday the 13th.”
@Luke: I don’t have a problem with critique. My difficulty is when we ignore the good that is done, because of a few troubling parts. Why can’t we say, “these were the good parts. These were worrying. Here’s why”. Especially with regards to feminism when the creator is particularly well known for his attempts to bridge gaps in sex and sexuality (and this is off topic and not aimed at you Luke, but I’m going to say it anyway: Joss Whedon is a feminist and is doing his best. Is he perfect? No. Are his characters? No. But I think it’s time we stop demonizing someone who is, so clearly, on our side).
Truthfully, I’m open to your thoughts on “Cabin” and whether it was blind to the problems of gender or race that persist in the genre. I don’t necessarily agree, as I think that Whedon/Goddard were trying to make the last horror film and make it impossible for another to honestly come after it. I think they showed the very core of the genre to be problematic. But I could be wrong. And this is a worth conversation to have. This, itself, is a fruitful discussion to have and worth spending our time on.
My comment above wasn’t aimed at you. It was aimed at Rbx5 who seems rather intent at shitting on something despite the fact that other people are interested in having a conversation about it. What is the point?
I’d just like to say that I thought there was a lot in the first two-thirds that was better than “just okay”. The opening title card! The speakerphone! “I dare everyone to go back upstairs”! The betting board! Seeing Deadites on the betting board! And so on!
Well you get the idea. If anything I was a bit annoyed with the Fran Kranz character choosing to let the world end even though he was dead either way. Although then I remembered he has some speech early on about being pro-apocalypse or something, so maybe it fit after all.
And yeah, the insatiable Ancient Ones is definitely an allegory for us, the audience. And yet the office workers choosing to feed them is also us (our higher brain functions choosing to indulge our baser appetites). And the people sacrificed are… our idealism? Hm, so the whole movie can be internalized as each of us making practical decisions that sacrifice our ideals with the rationalization of “well, that’s the way the world works”. Or something.
Bring back Firefly! #sixseasonsandamovie
@Stephen Ray Orr: Luke summed it up better than I could- when a movie takes it upon itself to address the flaws of its genre as this one does, there are certain issues, particularly sexuality and race, that it is obliged to address lest it seem like regarding those as not really being issues. So I was rather disappointed to see it did not. Although, to be fair, it could be said, as Lamar does, that the movie’s target is more the audience for slasher films than slasher films themselves, and thus addressing said issues isn’t quite as much a priority, but they’re still pretty obvious targets.
@Ed(Jack Norris): …that’s a) entirely subjective, b) irrelevant, and c) rather more personal than is warranted.
Also I’m not trying to shit on the movie, in the sense of trying to stop or derail discussion of it, discuss away; it makes for half-decent food for thought at least. I was merely expressing my disappointment and ultimate dislike of it.
A rebuttal (also posted on my own blog, but I’m not that much of a link whore):
Yet again Joss Whedon subverts enough cliches to be thought of as clever and innovative, while also following enough cliches to confirm he’s a one-trick pony.
I thought this was good. Like, fine, funny, and somewhat clever, and worth a Saturday afternoon. I just felt like it had more riding on the meta-humour and winks than a story, or investment in characters. But maybe that’s part of the horror genre? I don’t watch many at all.
I was kind of disappointed that the two office guys weren’t tied into the final act more. They felt like the true protagonists to me, and I was much more interested in their dilemma (partly because they don’t seem to recognize they have one).
This was definitely more of a comedy than a horror flick. It kind of reminded me of many Hong Kong horror-comedy movies that genre-bend without blinking an eye.
@Gloria
Ditto. It’s almost a great movie, but the plot holes and dated (albeit, obviously intentional) cliches that somehow exist even after the set-up is discovered makes the movie a contender, not a champion.
Besides, when was the last time that a “great” movie needed a companion novel to tie everything together…?