The Cabin in the Woods: Theatrical Review

[DGoodhart]

I'm running a little behind on this one, I'd originally intended to post it last weekend, but unfortunately, personal circumstances came ahead of it.  But still, better late than never...

As The Cabin in the Woods starts, were introduced to two technicians, Sitterson and Hadley, as they're beginning to start their day.  By their conversation, it all sounds like it's going to be rather mundane, but as the title of the movie comes up, you certainly get the idea that there's something way more to this than it seems.  We immediately flash to a group of five college students who decide that they're going to get away from it all for the weekend, literally heading to the titular cabin in the woods. but as they leave, we soon find out that they've been under some major surveillance and that aspects of their trip and preparations for it have been totally manipulated.  As they get to the cabin, they realize that they're getting way more than what they bargained for and both of the scenarios that we've been presented with are about to collide in a way that neither have expected.

Sorry if all of that sounds rather cryptic, but saying much more would lead into some major spoilers for this film, and I just don't want to give too much away at the start of this review.  The Cabin in the Woods comes to us from director Drew Goddard and producer Joss Whedon who also collaborated on the story together.  These guys certainly have geek street cred, having worked together on the Angel and Buffy the Vampire Slayer TV series and having separate credits like Goddard having been a writer on Lost and Alias as well as writing the movie Cloverfield and of course, Whedon also being responsible for such things as Firefly and Dollhouse as well as next week's highly anticipated Avengers film. Lionsgate has been sitting on releasing this one for awhile, though I have to admit after seeing the trailer and knowing the pedigree here, I was certainly looking forward to it.  Unfortunately, immediately after seeing it, I really wasn't that thrilled by it, in fact, I just didn't like it.  Having had a week further to stew on this (and also having a chance to read an extensive interview with Goddard), I appreciate it more now than I did immediately after seeing it, but I still don't think it's that successful in getting it's points across.

The Cabin in the Woods is some pretty ambitious meta-commentary from both Goddard and Whedon, not only on what they see as the state of horror films but also about the ideas of sending the young off to do the bidding of the old.  It's pretty apparent from the start that there's some sort of master manipulation going on here.  But, thanks to the rather snarky treatment that all of the characters and the situations get, it was hard for me to give a damn about either side and so the point for me was to see what exactly the punchline was at the end.  And when it does get to the end, it does all get resolved, but to a point where there's really no "pro" side to what they're commenting on.  Basically, if you look at the implications of it's final moments, it's not really saying much for the side of the young, at least from my point of view.

In the interview that I read with Goddard, The Cabin in the Woods was described as a love/hate letter to horror films.  While I get Goddard's points, they just didn't come across to me in what I was being presented.  To me, it's points about horror films and it's characters were more on the mocking and contemptuous side more than anything else with their "love" side being more confined to the film's end and then still just not balanced enough.

And then there's the characters... Each of the five college students are essentially playing two roles; pre- and post-manipulation.  But the pre- side gets quite a bit short-changed, so much so that basically they all just blend together.  Kristen Connolly plays the red-headed lead amongst the college kids, Dana, and she's a bit on the dry side here, having me think that she was cast only because Felicia Day (a perennial Whedon favorite) just wasn't available (and having said that, I think Day could've brought quite a bit more here).  Fran Kranz (who played Topher in Whedon's Dollhouse) plays everyone's stoner friend Marty and is just too cartoonish to me, so much so that I had a hard time buying that the other kids would even be hanging out with him.  It's also worth noting that Chris Hemsworth is one of the college students having made this film before he ever played Marvel's Thor character.

Faring better are the characters of Sitterson and Hadley played by Richard Jenkins and Bradley Whitford respectively.  There's certainly plenty of snark shown with these guys as well, but they have their moments where they do display the gravity of the situation that's about to unfold and that certainly goes a long way.  Giving them support, you have another perennial Whedon favorite, Amy Acker as a fellow tech and Brian White who plays security for this group.  White stands out for me as he's all-business in his part, and amongst the cast is the one who totally shows the importance of what's about to go down.  It's also worthy of note that you do have a big-name actress (who's a bit of a horror icon her own self) who comes in for a very important cameo.

There's massive elements of The Cabin in the Woods that are very similar to  parts of both the Angel and Dollhouse TV shows (specifically the Wolfram and Hart firm on Angel).  The advantage that those shows have though, is that they had time to develop and here, it's just shown as sketches more than anything else.  I tend to think if we'd had just a little more time with the college students at the start and some more time with the organization behind this master plot, this could've been a lot more satisfying to me.  As it stands, The Cabin in the Woods seems to me to be more concerned with it's contemptuous lampooning more than anything else.  I'm not adverse to this stuff getting fun poked at it all, but here it just went overboard and maybe some more serious development time would've helped to balance this better.

Again, I certainly appreciate The Cabin in the Woods more now than I did immediately after seeing it and I certainly admire the massive ambition that's here.  Compared to a lot of reviews I've been seeing, I'm in the minority on this one.  I think it's unsuccessful, but... I'm not going to discourage anyone from seeing this, and more, if you haven't seen it yet and are of a mind to see it, I'd encourage you to do so.  It may not have been successful to me, but there's still some good ideas here and they very well might work for you.

[Jordan]

The best movie of the year so far for me.  I loved just about everything about it. 

[RickV]

I don't feel there is any ambition in this movie whatsoever it is the most lazy pandering thing I have seen in a while on screen.

[JimN]

I'm with Jordan. I loved it. I thought they balanced their affection for horror films with their lampooning of the genre's tropes almost perfectly. Several of the performances were memorable and I found the whole film fun and refreshing.

Jim

[grither]

I'm with Jordan. I loved it. I thought they balanced their affection for horror films with their lampooning of the genre's tropes almost perfectly. Several of the performances were memorable and I found the whole film fun and refreshing.

Jim

+1

[legion of daves]

best non-sam raimi american horror movie in like 30 years.

[the other mike]

i really liked it a lot. the concept is just so damn brilliant. i just wished more of the movie was the third act. or i wish they had introduced more baddies in the second act; like between a rock and a hard place. and yeah, i agree the stoner was a little too much of a cartoon.

-mike

[RickV]

best non-sam raimi american horror movie in like 30 years.

I can't call it a horror film because the part of it that was a horror film was so hackneyed that horror & terror could never take a foothold.

Or the best thing I read about the film after:

Somebody mentioned to me, on one social network or another, how much the structure of Cabin in the Woods resembles an old Scooby Doo episode, only those meddling kids get a bit more dismembered, and the Old Man Wilickers is the guy stuck on speaker-phone. I can see that and to a degree that is the problem: A complete lack of stakes. Even as the main characters drop like flies and the larger picture begins to be revealed, there is never anything weighty enough to imply that the world is on the line, and when all the beasties and nightmares on the big white board (no sign of “Kevin” though) are released it just feels like an action beat to destroy all the sets and show off all the half-remembered ideas from other films/books/comics. Nothing wrong with that kind of scene per se, I like those kind of scenes in films (not the storage facility break-down in Ghostbusters), but it has a lot more impact when you feel that the destruction and CGI carnage means something. Joss and Drew seem to be doing a Suckerpunch at the audience and I like it about as much (which is to say, not at all) when Zack Snyder does it either. It’s all flourish and no fun. Do we want to destroy the system and start over, as voiced by the stoner character in Cabin in the Woods? I don’t believe we need to, eventually a film will come along, be it an Alien, a Pulp Fiction or a Memento that will do that for us. Or there are plenty of great horror films sitting in the film festival world outside the multiplex to scratch the urge of quality and not over-convoluted horror.

[JimN]

I can't call it a horror film because the part of it that was a horror film was so hackneyed that horror & terror could never take a foothold.

I think that was the point.

[RickV]

The point was to be a bad movie? Also to show us all the scenes of that terrible film? That is incredibly lazy film to me. Michael Haneke made Funny Games 15 years ago and it worked as a great example of genre on top of the deconstruction, same with Shaun of the Dead.

It just feels like the movie is nothing but showing everyone all the jokes that are made about slashers without also using that knowledge to make a great example of  one too.

[steve bryant]

The point was to be a bad movie? Also to show us all the scenes of that terrible film? That is incredibly lazy film to me. Michael Haneke made Funny Games 15 years ago and it worked as a great example of genre on top of the deconstruction, same with Shaun of the Dead.

It just feels like the movie is nothing but showing everyone all the jokes that are made about slashers without also using that knowledge to make a great example of  one too.

I think the point was to both embrace and defy the conceits of the genre in a tongue-in-cheek manner. If it didn't work for you, that's fine. But it's no reason to piss all over the enjoyment of others in a condescending manner.   

[RickV]

I think the point was to both embrace and defy the conceits of the genre in a tongue-in-cheek manner. If it didn't work for you, that's fine. But it's no reason to piss all over the enjoyment of others in a condescending manner.   

Both the films I mention do exactly what you are talking about. Anyway my intent was never to be condescending to fans, just the movie which I find lazy.

[JimN]

The point was to be a bad movie?

Of course not, and that's not what I said. The movie was clearly intended as both an affectionate nod to the genre and a commentary about how hackneyed and ineffective some of it's standard tropes have become. The theme of replacing the old with the new runs throughout the film and the horror never truly gets a foothold because they didn't give it a chance to get a foothold. They repeatedly defused it. That was intentional and I can certainly understand why somebody wouldn't like that choice, especially if they saw the movie with the expectation of being scared.

It just feels like the movie is nothing but showing everyone all the jokes that are made about slashers without also using that knowledge to make a great example of one too.

As I indicated above, that's obviously not what they set out to do.

[JimN]

Both the films I mention do exactly what you are talking about. Anyway my intent was never to be condescending to fans, just the movie which I find lazy.

It strikes me as ambitious, not lazy. They clearly tried to do something different. If that didn't work for you, fine, but it's not as if the film doesn't have aspirations.

Jim

[RickV]

It strikes me as ambitious, not lazy. They clearly tried to do something different. If that didn't work for you, fine, but it's not as if the film doesn't have aspirations.

Jim

You assume it didn't work for me because of what they were doing rather than the quality of the movie. Especially when I have stated I like movies that are comparable is getting annoying.

The reason I would call it laziness over ambitious is going into that theater to watch this movie you already know all the tropes they are going to be railing against. It is so much preaching right at the audience and pandering to their inside knowledge that it all becomes weightless. I don't need to go see a new movie to tell me that 90% of the horror films that come out of the course of a year are bad. Which is why if you are going to do that on screen you have to bring something else to it.

Also after they 'break' in and shit starts going down they still continue to play on the same tropes as before.

[Farrell]

You assume it didn't work for me because of what they were doing rather than the quality of the movie. Especially when I have stated I like movies that are comparable is getting annoying.

The reason I would call it laziness over ambitious is going into that theater to watch this movie you already know all the tropes they are going to be railing against. It is so much preaching right at the audience and pandering to their inside knowledge that it all becomes weightless. I don't need to go see a new movie to tell me that 90% of the horror films that come out of the course of a year are bad. Which is why if you are going to do that on screen you have to bring something else to it.

Also after they 'break' in and shit starts going down they still continue to play on the same tropes as before.

We get it.  You didn't like it, and watching it made you angry.

[JimN]

You assume it didn't work for me because of what they were doing rather than the quality of the movie.

 

That's a puzzling statement since "what they were doing" undoubtedly influenced your perception of the movie (it really can't be otherwise).

Anyway, I'll be glad to drop the subject.

[Kenney]

I dug the movie myself. I definitely liked the idea more than the actual movie, but I still had a really good time with the flick. The thing that hurt the movie for me was I didn't really care about the characters at all, so I didn't have anyone to root for.

Still, I would like to see this idea explored further. On another forum, someone talked about stories taking place in other time periods, and one of the posters said something about how they could have the British Branch introduce Jack the Ripper, upping the ante for everyone else, which I think is just a badass idea. I think this kind of thing would be best served as an anthology, be it book or comic.

[RickV]

That's a puzzling statement since "what they were doing" undoubtedly influenced your perception of the movie (it really can't be otherwise).

Anyway, I'll be glad to drop the subject.

Sorry bout that only meant that a movie being meta or deconstructionist isn't something that turns me off, which is why I am placing the blame more on this movie than on the type of movie or things that it does.

[JimN]

Sorry bout that only meant that a movie being meta or deconstructionist isn't something that turns me off, which is why I am placing the blame more on this movie than on the type of movie or things that it does.

Understood.