YES.

There's literally nothing I can say without spoiling the fun or the surprise. All I will say is this will be on many people's best-of-2012 list. As fun and creative a horror film as I've seen in... well, in memory. Never gets too tongue-in-cheek but never loses sight of its satire. Certain well-known actors in top form (DON'T YOU DARE GO TO IMDB AND RUIN THE SURPRISE).

So many things I want to discuss but won't. SEE NO TRAILERS. READ NO ARTICLES. JUST GO SEE IT WHEN IT COMES OUT, DUMMIES. The joy of this film will be in the discovery.

I need a good horror film to peep on the big screen.

Shit, I might have to give this a try then.

Thanks.

As an avid fan of horror films. It's at the top of my list to see.

Although I'm not necessarily the biggest fan of the genre yet I still had crazy amounts of fun.

Now I'm excited. I always love a horror movie on the horizon.

I figure it's gotta be more along the lines of Sam Rami then Eli Roth.

Ok I will go see it.

http://shar.es/rGxru

A lot of loud laughter during the screening I attended.

A little predictable in terms of kills, but I think most of us have figured out the rhythms of these type of films, so that's not really a negative.

Don't think it will make my 'best of' list, but yeah...it was fun.

I'm too excited to see this, the buzz is making me think i'll be disappointed.

I can't wait.

Although, honestly, it was 90 minutes long and I felt like it dragged at parts and could have been tighter. The final act is a weird mix of un-ironic horror cliches and exposition but then mixed with arguably the most ball-to-the-wall final battle I've ever seen in a horror movie. But even when I was kind of checked out, I still had fun watching it.

A must for horror fans and probably the best thing out there right now.

Jump scares are pretty much 'whatever' to me, but this film had one of the best ones I can remember.

The movie title.

Girl close to me nearly flew out of her seat.

I loved this flick honestly. It was such a great homage. For a horror movie fanatic like myself it was a lot of fun. There are a lot of genuinely good laugh scenes.

I won't even bother with spoilers, I'll wait for someone else to bring shit up before I comment.

I really hope folks go out and see it. My only fear is they go out to get legitimately scared and end up finding a pretty comedic take on the genre.

as a long time fan of horror this one really shocked me. Even after its over I keep thinking about it but I don't want to spoil anything yet so I can't say too much about it.

Got a few questions I wanna talk about with people that have seen it on these boards but damn I gotta wait lol.

"oh I get it. it's very clever. how's that working out for you...being clever?" (c) Tyler Durden








I give credit for attempting something creative. unfortunately, it was more tedious than entertaining. being that the first twist is instantly revealed, getting through 3/4ths of the movie is a labor -- you know the parameters, tension is muted because of that knowledge, and it's a slow crawl to see it unfold and get on with the next part.

all the cuts back to the control room didn't help; it was like being bludgeoned repeatedly by the writers' wit (this is us winking at the camera!). and the final act, while having some good scenes, was not enough payoff for sitting through the first 70 minutes. I mean, I get it -- we, the viewers, are the ancient ones -- but there's not a lot of nuance to that point.

it's not overly comedic, it's not very thrilling, and it's certainly not scary. I'd rather watch a stereotypical horror movie than a stereotypical horror movie done ironically.

I enjoyed it tremendously and even yelled at the screen a bit.

I agree that the opening give away took something away from that death scene, but honestly I thought it was good and fun.

I ignored the viewers as the ancients issue because it doesn't really work. I mean, if that's the case, Whedon is saying that the audience will revolt if you don't give them EXACTLY what they asked for and, IMO, that's bullshit. (Nevermind that the fool living is rarely a problem and usually a staple. They don't die until the sequel. Ditto for the one person who you thought was dead coming back to life.)

Also, if the viewers are the ancients, than this film is actually an argument in favor of the Hollywood machine and why movies like Cabin in the Woods DON'T get made. The movie probably should have ended with a studio exec waking up from this nightmare and greenlighting a remake over an original film.

I just saw the film as mocking the archetypes and cliches of horror films but if it is supposed to have some commentary on the viewers, then it's kind of a misplaced point IMO.

appeasing the ancients is playing on the horror movie archetype: however redundant, it's a formula that's loved. the specifics presented in the movie were just a way to project fans' bloodlust into a ritual.

we are willing to ignore every character stereotype and overused plot device ("don't go in the cellar!") as long as we get what we want: gruesome deaths and scares. that's as much an indictment of horror fans as Hollywood.

thing is, Whedon *did* give us a clichéd horror movie, but with so many satirical trappings that it still causes a revolt by the end. as our heroine laments that never saw what the ancients looked like, that's us, the rising hand that ends this allusion to the genre.

>appeasing the ancients is playing on the horror movie
>archetype: however redundant, it's a formula that's loved.

I really don't think it's the formula that's loved. People go to horror films to be scared. And again, almost ironically, the focus on formula in "Cabin" actually makes the film less scary and therefore more like a comedy than a horror film.

That's where I think Whedon (if this is his point which, since he said this was a "loving hate letter" to horror films is probably right) misses the boat and thinking more like an out-of-touch studio exec. To argue that the audience NEEDS certain things in a certain order to be entertained strikes me as odd/lazy. It overplays the importance of formula and underplays the strength of the bloodlust - people don't care who gets killed first as long as they get killed in a cool way.

I thought the movie was fun as a play on horror movies but if they really think they made a bigger statement, then it's a pretty flawed argument that they didn't make well (probably because they had to, in the end, fit the formulaic movie.)

I took it as a representation of the standard death countdown, but cool.

>people don't care who gets killed first as long as they get killed in a cool way.

the Japanese and American competition could have been (more) interesting in this regard. they're portrayed as the two leaders of the genre, but in recent years have used different methods: torture porn vs. psychological threats (hence the ghost in their simulation). does violence necessarily define horror?

of course, it ended up being just a nod to Asian genre interpretations. like most ideas in the movie, it's underdeveloped satire.

>I just saw the film as mocking the archetypes and cliches of
>horror films but if it is supposed to have some commentary on
>the viewers, then it's kind of a misplaced point IMO.

^^^co-sign

I fucking loved every minute of it. I hope it does well at the box office.

Although I think that was expected.

Loved it. Was anyone else kinda rooting for Bradley Whitford and co the whole time?

Shit happens

It gave that Scott Pilgrim feeling, where I felt like I was actually seeing a movie unlike any other movie I had seen before. I probably smiled through 3/4 of the movie.

SPOILER

I was so happy when the merman showed up.

the unicorn was the "Oh shit!" moment.

>the unicorn was the "Oh shit!" moment.

Was that a reference to some movie, or just an out of left field gag? I know it's unlikely that it's a horror movie reference, but since everything else in the movie was a reference, it made me wonder if the unicorn was just a really really obscure one.

Regardless, indeed, the unicorn was awesome. As were the Japanese school girls holding hands and singing.

>Regardless, indeed, the unicorn was awesome. As were the
>Japanese school girls holding hands and singing.
- Man this scene was so damn random and funny.

the whole unicorn aspect

>the whole unicorn aspect


On the dock of that bay serving a life sentence,even if I’m going to hell I’m gonna make an entrance

>It gave that Scott Pilgrim feeling, where I felt like I was
>actually seeing a movie unlike any other movie I had seen
>before. I probably smiled through 3/4 of the movie.
- You speaking that gospel my friend. I loved SP, I have watched that film around 5 times now. I even bought the books, devoured them within a week. I'm sure I'll watch Cabin just as much if not more.


>SPOILER
>
>I was so happy when the merman showed up.
- Excellent payoff.

>
>I was so happy when the merman showed up.

All around the board. Glad I went in a blank slate.

def goin to see this. love Drew's work.

V.

I haven't cheesed this much during a movie in a long, long time.

when the wolfman showed up and started eating the virgin and shit, and Marty put like 6 in him and was all like "awwww shit! aiight man I'm going home then, dannnnnnng!"
that shit was the breaking point for me and I just lost it in the theater

I cheered when the Merman and unicorn showed up. So ridiculous.

Also, I don't get what you guys mean by we the viewers are the "ancient ones". Especially when the one of the gods rose up at the end.

I can understand that these "movies" are made to appease the public but I thought that kills two birds with one stone
because you're entertaining us and making a sacrifice to the gods.

http://www.aintitcool.com/node/54997

" If that were true, there wouldn't be so many movies based on other sources, and when a minor change happens that we don't like, we throw a hissy fit. Remember the fuss over LORD OF THE RINGS when fans of the books didn't get their Tom Bombadil in the movie? All these superhero movies where the casting isn't just right? Hell, there were people who didn't like THE MUPPETS because the filmmakers couldn't somehow bring Jim Henson back from the dead. "

Whedon said that this was a "loving hate letter to horror movies" and NONE of those above examples are horror movies. In fact, horror movies are quite the opposite, almost never coming from source material. This article is arguing that the film is actually against all fanboy culture, not horror movies. (Also, most of those complaints come from when a source material is BETTER than the newer version. If changes are made for the better, usually the complaints are few and far between.)

Also, the idea that people rage because they don't get what they want and what they want is the exact same formula isn't congruous with the fanboy focus. If anything, it's the non-fanboys/avid filmgoers who prefer the formulas. The die hard cinema fans are always looking for something new or something fresh and if they don't get it, the film is knocked by being called derivative. (Hell, even some critics of this film say it's a differently clever twist on the same meta approach.)

In the end, what this review does (and to a certain extent the film) is give audiences the same lack of respect that studio execs do. Stupid movies get made, not because that's what the audience wants, but that's because how lowly studio execs think of their audience. The pandering comes because, when it comes to spending tens if not hundreds of millions of dollars on a film, studios want to appeal to everyone and shooting for the lowest common denominator via a well worn trope is better than trying something new that might not work.

You tell someone to read a long review and can't be bothered to read a shorter response?

The Elder God's hand rise up at the end making that reference literal and not allegoric for it being us, the viewing audience.

I guess because the 4th wall was never broken, I saw the movie self contained in its own world.

Interesting premise, and the execution was fine for the most part, but I thought it dragged in a few spots

Can't really comment on the kids, since they were mostly cyphers, except to say that the stoner kid got off a couple of good lines

Can't say I saw the "ancients = the audience" thing, in part because that would be a pretty shitty "fuck you" coming from the writer/director of one of the summer's bigger tentpoles, not to mention created one of the more celebrated TV shows that gleefully twisted and played with genre convention.

I can see Whedon saying that he's just poking fun at horror/sci-fi movie conventions, as well as our expectations, but the other interpretation just seems too mean and cynical coming from him, even though this movie is actually a black comedy more than anything else.

Anyway, the "veteran, non-spoiler" leads were okay.

It wasn't terrible, I had fun with it, but in the midst of all of the deconstruction it felt like something... more was missing...

_________________________________________________________________________
© ZooTown74 All Rights Reserved

>Interesting premise, and the execution was fine for the most
>part, but I thought it dragged in a few spots
>
>Can't really comment on the kids, since they were mostly
>cyphers, except to say that the stoner kid got off a couple of
>good lines
>
>Can't say I saw the "ancients = the audience" thing, in part
>because that would be a pretty shitty "fuck you" coming from
>the writer/director of one of the summer's bigger tentpoles,
>not to mention created one of the more celebrated TV shows
>that gleefully twisted and played with genre convention.
>
>I can see Whedon saying that he's just poking fun at
>horror/sci-fi movie conventions, as well as our expectations,
>but the other interpretation just seems too mean and cynical
>coming from him, even though this movie is actually a black
>comedy more than anything else.
>
>Anyway, the "veteran, non-spoiler" leads were okay.
>
>It wasn't terrible, I had fun with it, but in the midst of all
>of the deconstruction it felt like something... more was
>missing...
>

I'm with you here...I felt like, to me, something was missing. I don't know what it was but it felt like Whedon and company were going to go somewhere with all of this...but backed off at the last minute because they weren't sure or maybe even trusted themselves.

I don't know.

I dug it...it's so *NOT* one of the better horror films out...better than what has come out in a while though...

but Richard Jenkins and Bradley Whitford are *FUCKING* rockstars! LOL! and Whitford's death...the audience fucking hollared at that.

but, it was a nice play on the archetypes/tropes of horror movies.

and shout out to Whedon for putting all of his regulars in the movies: Acker, Kanz, Lenk, etc. I was waiting for Buffy to pop out of nowhere and slay some beasts only to get eaten alive by one of the monsters for real

Not scary, Not funny, nothing to cringe about, lame story. What the fuck is the hype about? I fucked up for going in blind to this movie.All the critics are sucking this movies dick, I trusted them and got burned. If it was a HBO movie or a Red Box movie it would get a D grade.

SPOILERS

Everything below ground was awesome.

The control room, system purge, etc.

Consider me thrilled and amazed.

The straight part of the story left me uninvolved though.

1/3 okay, pretty nice
1/3 ehh, what is this?
1/3 geah, this is it!

It's most definitely about audience expectations and a commentary on the way cinema is consumed, but I disagree with the "we are the ancients" interpretation. I saw it as, for lack of a better term, the last horror movie -- the whack-balls conclusion representing a great, final purge of every genre cliche you can think of.

On one hand I give it credit for its wit in deconstructing conventions and toying with expectations, but as someone who rarely watches horror films it sort of felt like one big elaborate in-joke that I wasn't a part of.

In some strange way, to me at least, it works better in theory than practice. The idea of "controllers" (directors) who influence the goings on (plot/movie) is interesting when you think about it after the fact, but during the movie it just didn't work for me. The uproarious fun that you guys seem to have had eluded me

No matter how clever the subtext is, I didn't think it worked on it's surface at all. I mean, I heard a lot of pissed off people walking out of the theater. I literally heard multiple "worst movie I've ever seen" comments. Cerebral horror fans who understand that it's a clever commentary on genre cliches will like it, but I can't see it having much of an audience beyond that.

I enjoyed thinking about it and reading people's thoughts on it way more than I actually enjoyed watching it.

I will say this movie rubbed me the wrong way - it wanted to be sooo clever, but it really wasn't. The premise nor the writing really impressed me.

I definitely found myself bored a few times, but there was about 15 minutes where I was really into it (the elevator scene, of course).

Wasn't scary, wasn't funny... it just kind of was. I remember thinking I wish I was watching a straight-up horror movie instead.

and everything in between, I'm curious on the splits of which people were already predisposed towards the horror genre and which people weren't.

I remember thinking during the movie "this is like 'Scream' for the next generation." I LOVED the original Scream because it was self-referential, tongue-in-cheek and willing to poke fun at the very genre it was paying homage too. And it was unabashed in doing so.

Some may interpret this style of movie as "trying to be too clever for its own good", but for horror aficionados that love jump scares, camp, slashers, monsters, cerebral, atmospheric, gore, psychological, torture, everything in between and nothing of the above... Cabin in the Woods (just like Scream) honors all those horror tropes that we've grown to love while being able to laugh at itself at the same time.

And that's why I fucking LOVE this movie.

>Some may interpret this style of movie as "trying to be too
>clever for its own good", but for horror aficionados that love
>jump scares, camp, slashers, monsters, cerebral, atmospheric,
>gore, psychological, torture, everything in between and
>nothing of the above... Cabin in the Woods (just like Scream)
>honors all those horror tropes that we've grown to love while
>being able to laugh at itself at the same time.

I think the key difference between Scream and Cabin in the Woods is that Scream was actually a scary movie. Cabin was clever but it wasn't really scary at all. The scariest moment was the jokey/great jump scare at the very beginning.

After a friend asked me, "Is it scarier than Insidious?", I've warned everyone who I've recommended it to that they should expect a horror-based comedy and not an actual frightening horror flick.

>
>I think the key difference between Scream and Cabin in the
>Woods is that Scream was actually a scary movie.

Scream at least taps into the "evil in your home" vibe that is far easier to sympathize with/have fears about (Halloween, The Exorcist, etc). Cabin In The Woods goes off the radar pretty early in terms of strict realism you can relate to.

>I think the key difference between Scream and Cabin in the
>Woods is that Scream was actually a scary movie. Cabin was
>clever but it wasn't really scary at all.

movies like Scream and Hot Fuzz played on genre tropes, but never forsake entertainment for cleverness. comparatively, the bulk of Cabin in the Woods was just tiresome. humor is subjective and all, but I thought the gags were more "oh, that's kinda funny" than "HAHAHAHAHA".

or is that nostalgia talking? I mean, it did come out sixteen (!!!) years ago.

So while I would definitely agree that Scream is 'scarier' than CitW, it's really not that scary a movie. It relied on the familiar slasher tropes: gore, jump scares and the omnipresent killer. It was also frequently humorous, lessening the overall tension. I was in my early teens when I first saw it and that was a time (at least for me) when I was more than willing to buy into what I was watching on-screen without thinking too much outside of that. Nowadays when I rewatch the movie it's for the tongue-in-cheek commentary than to fall into a horror atmosphere (versus movies like The Descent and 28 Days).

FWIW, I think Scream is still the better overall movie. CitW, once you warm up to the driving conceit of the movie, kinda beats you over the head with it in the third act.

Still a fun ass movie overall though and definitely on my short list of films to recommend to anyone looking to get into horror.

The Drew Barrymore scene alone spooked people out enough to be a scary movie. And even if it does have some humor, that doesn't mean it isn't a horror flick. By that rationale, half of the Nightmare on Elm Street's aren't scary movies.

It definitely has a lighter tone but it's still a pretty formulaic scary movie.

A good one, like the original hitcher, or the exorcist or matyrs, and I'm in. But most horror flicks are soooo damn bad/bland/predictable til i generally leave them alone, though I AM more prone to watch an international/indie horror film than a domestic big studio flick.

That being said, I just thought the shit was funny. The humor worked really well, for the most part. And there were a couple of moments that were genuinely disturbing, not so much for violence, but for the implications of things (trying not to spoil here).

It was just a good movie *shrug*

I absolutely LOVED this! This film had a LOT to say, but said it in such a silly/fun way. I'm thoroughly impressed.

The comment on the film industry
The comment on labels in our society
The comment on the selfishness of our society
The whole Perception/reality dichotomy that was EVER present....

love Love LOVED it!!!!

Might be checking this out today but pressed for time afterwards

Wasn't too impressed with the rest of it tho. The stoner helped to save it for the most part.

Has all the trademark Whedon humor and dialogue that makes everything he touches great but I'm still marinating on the final 5 minutes. Once Sigourny Weaver shows up and reveals what's really good, I find it questionable, rushed, and weak. Gonna have to sleep on it to see how I feel later.

>Once Sigourny Weaver shows up...


Honestly, the way Frank was like DON'T YOU DARE CHECK IMDB TO SEE WHO IS IN THIS, he had me expecting something a little more "surprising" than Sigourny Weaver. Not mad, just saying...

Paul.

Cabin in the Woods had been sitting on the Lionsgate shelf for three years...

and even while they were shooting it, names were being dropped about who was in the movie and who wasn't...

casting choices had already been known (Brian White had been tweeting about who was in the movie and did an "OMG" when he tweeted Sigourney Weaver's name when Lionsgate was thinking about dropping the movie on Halloween last year, etc.) and folk had already been speculating on who Weaver would be in the movie (and everyone pretty much figured out she was The Director or going to be the one controlling everything in the movie, in theory)

so that wasn't necessary....but the ending was eh, but it was still good.

I had no clue the two older members of the cast were in it. While I'm aware that's not exactly a "spoiler," if you sat and thought about it ("hey, wait, they're not co-eds!"), it would allow you to immediately grasp their role in the film and it would ruin some of the surprise.

I went in more or less TOTALLY blind. And it had that much more of an impact as a result.

but I think the spoiler persay was who played the director...

i mean, people were more shocked to see her strut into the frame then the others...

but, eh, they still were fantastic in the roles they had.

And really listening to the dialogue the ending was set up actually perfectly. It's actually all there that they're sacrifices for *SPOILERS* the old evil gods.

Great fucking movie.

I already want to see it again, but I'll wait.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/04/16/the-cabin-in-the-woods-spoilers-drew-goddard-speaks-freely.html

It's a pretty damn good article. And, for a first effort as a director, Goddard kicked ass for real imho.

"With most genre films, we ask, "Does it work?" In other words, does this horror film scare us? "The Cabin in the Woods" does have some genuine scares, but they're not really the point. This is like a final exam for fanboys."

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20120411/REVIEWS/120419993

>"With most genre films, we ask, "Does it work?" In other
>words, does this horror film scare us? "The Cabin in the
>Woods" does have some genuine scares, but they're not really
>the point. This is like a final exam for fanboys."
>
>http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20120411/REVIEWS/120419993


man, Ebert has gotten ETHEROUS post surgery...and i LOVE IT!

damn...where has the vile, ether spilling Ebert been all these years?

LOL

.

If it was a comedy I didn't laugh enough.
If it was horror I definitely wasn't scared enough.
It certainly had a mocking tone, but I am not willing to say it was deep or had meaning.
My sister wants to see it so I'll prolly check it out again to see how it holds up,
I'm willing to allow my view of it to rise or fall.

>If it was a comedy I didn't laugh enough.
>If it was horror I definitely wasn't scared enough.
>It certainly had a mocking tone, but I am not willing to say
>it was deep or had meaning.
>My sister wants to see it so I'll prolly check it out again to
>see how it holds up,
>I'm willing to allow my view of it to rise or fall.

I'm right there witcha. Not sure if I'll bother checking it out again though.

Mostly for the two actors introduced in the beginning (I won't name them because Frank has a good point, the less you know the better).

It was amusing, entertaining, not amazing. The deconstructing the horror movie thing reminded me a lot of Behind the Mask--although Behind the Mask is still a totally different, and better movie.

I'd say it's worth seeing. Not as a horror movie but a morbid comedy in a horror setting.

but it was who played the director that was the BIGGER SPOILER that everyone was referring to...

I explained it elsewhere in the post.

I wanted folks going in totally blind.

>I explained it elsewhere in the post.
>
>I wanted folks going in totally blind.

oh really? they were the spoiler for you?

hmm...I guess I ready way to many 2009 era blurbs about the movie because they had been spoiled early with some of the character descriptions...

I just assumed you were talking about Weaver, who I would think would be a bigger spoiler than Whitford and Jenkins...

*lizphairsupernovashrug*

I agree with Frank.

Unfortunately a quick imdb scan told me weeks or months earlier the performers in question that show up in the movie.

But if I hadn't known, it would have been a MUCH bigger and more pleasant surprise than the surprise towards the end of the movie. Especially since they aren't in the trailer (I don't think). The reveal at the end wasn't really that big a deal--to me, anyway. I almost wonder if they had others in mind first, but every other choice turned them down or had to drop out.

Mostly because one of the people in particular is FANTASTIC in the film, maybe giving the best performance of the film, and in general the best thing they've done since that other thing that most people remember them for.

It's clear that Whedon Co. made the movie they wanted. And it was very well done.

But I found the movie wayyy too meta to fully enjoy. A movie like Scream could be enjoyed even if you didn't realize how much it was deconstructing the genre. Because CITW has so many recycled themes from Whedon's older work, and so clearly uses the control room to symbolize the audience, it is impossible to get away from the 'meta-angle' of the movie. And because of that, we can't detach ourselves from the judgement Whedon is making about us as an audience. That's very distracting for me as a movie-goer. (It's why I had to give up on Spike Lee race movies)

Also, the cynical conclusion at the end is really, REALLY unsatisfying. 'Drag Me to Hell' had a hopeless ending, too, but Cabin In the Woods takes that kind of bleakness and escalates it to a depressing degree.

On the flip, I admire Whedon's willingness to 'go there' at the end. Most auteurs would punk out.

I am not sure if Whedon has always had statements and judgements so overtly written into his work, or if I am just noticing them more since Dollhouse. Either way, I am beginning to put him in the Woody Allen category - ridiculously talented film-makers whose work I respect, but am not very entertained by.

and it was probably the BEST damn thing you've recommended in a while. I'm not familiar with Joss Wheadon (I never watched Buffy or Angel or any of his other stuff) but I just enjoyed how creative and different this flick was. I saw it Friday night and then took my wife to see it tonight, and caught stuff in it the second time I didn't see the first time. I didn't see the whole "the audience are the ancients" angle everyone keeps talking about when I was watching, but after reading everyone's commentary I can see how folks saw that.

I also had the pleasure of seeing this with a small audience the 2nd time and had a guy in particular who kept making hilarious comments all through the movie. Made it that much better in my opinion, nothing like the audience shouting at the screen to make a "horro" move entertaining.....



<---- Downtown Kansas City, Missouri 5/24/2011

and it lived up to it.

more fun than a Rebecca Black hook.

More funny than scary. That might be cool for a fanboy or someone for familiar with Wheddon's work but 80% of moviegoers go to a movie to see the movie as marketed. I.E., You market a movie as a horror movie, I go to be scared. You market a movie as a comedy, I go to laugh. This movie fell somewhere in the middle. I'm not saying it's a bad movie, I just left the movie feeling blah about it in the end. Nothing memorable about it other than it had whitty lines and a few "look out behind you" kind of moments.

Solid 3 out of 5 stars in my book overall as a movie.
Would give it 2 out of 5 stars if basing it off being a horror movie.
4 out of 5 if basing it off of being a comedy flick.

>Solid 3 out of 5 stars in my book overall as a movie.
>Would give it 2 out of 5 stars if basing it off being a horror
>movie.
>4 out of 5 if basing it off of being a comedy flick.

I enjoyed it, but yeah, it's weak as a horror movie, good as a comedy.

Overall? About in the middle.

I walked out of the movie thinking that was...wild. But honestly the ending was kinda eh. There were times where I felt the story was just moving along to get the command center. I enjoyed it and would give it a 3 but I would rather see an actual horror film.

....A MOTHERFUCKING UNICORN, SON!!!!!!! - is it?
This is probably the last week/weekend it will be in theatres, so if you're trying to catch it, do it now.
I caught it on a lark.
I knew nothing about it (other than the "kids in a cabin - it's a scary movie!" trailer - which I more or less ignored anyway).
I'm not much of a horror movie fan.
And I'm not a Joss Whedon fanatic like every other male under the age of 40.
That said...
Movie was great! Such a fun time. Worked very well, on some "not too corny, not too preachy" vibe.
Really top notch acting performances, especially when you consider how "exactly to form" some of the performances have to be. That's catering an acting style to best fit the movie's needs - you don't see that in movies these days.
Between this and TAKEN WITH WOLVES - it's the best movie of the year.


"Your current frequencies of understanding outweigh that which has been given for you to understand." Saul Williams

SUHWEET.
bookin my ticket soon as they go on frign sale.
---

http://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/movies/protests-by-fans-get-film-a-start-20120509-1yd7i.html.

Protests by fans get film a start
May 10, 2012

BUFFY creator Joss Whedon has the biggest film in the country right now, but not even the mega-success of his The Avengers, which has taken almost $40 million locally in two weeks, was enough to get his 2009 horror flick The Cabin in the Woods into cinemas.

But that has changed thanks to a social media campaign that has pressured distributor Roadshow into giving the $30 million film a theatrical release at last - albeit a limited one.

The Cabin in the Woods was originally slated for a wide release in February 2010, before the collapse of Hollywood studio MGM sent it into limbo. Last month, it finally made its debut in American cinemas. It has also been released theatrically in the UK and across much of Europe.

It has taken an unspectacular $US53 million ($A52.6 million) to date, which perhaps is why Village Roadshow ditched the local July release date and decided on a straight-to-DVD release instead. Until, that is, Australian fans began bombarding the company's Facebook page with pleas to change the strategy … or else. From late April, hundreds of devoted Whedon fans began posting. ''For the love of Joss release it theatrically or TELL US WHY!'' one fan wrote.

"Don't release Cabin in the Woods. Suffer the wrath of a VERY LOYAL fanbase, who will boycott your company and buy the DVD from the UK (or else, just pirate it). It’s up to you, Roadshow! Make the right choice!" wrote another.

Robert Woods, a 26-year-old film editor from Perth, was moved enough to start a petition on change.org and to create a video for YouTube using the film's trailer and highlighting the fact the film stars Australian actor Chris Hemsworth - a star on the rise thanks to Thor and The Avengers - and Kiwi actress Anna Hutchison.

"A movie perfectly marketable to an Australian and New Zealand audience," Woods says in a faux American voiceover.

"So, why aren't Roadshow releasing it theatrically here? That’s just one of the mysteries behind The Cabin in the Woods."

On May 3, Roadshow bowed to the pressure and announced it would release the film in a single cinema in Melbourne (the Nova) and Sydney (the Chauvel). The film will also screen at the Astor in St Kilda, Melbourne, on July 6.

"Your response has been overwhelming," the company said in a statement. "Thank you for being so passionate about The Cabin In The Woods."

Yesterday, the distributor confirmed that Adelaide and Brisbane would see the film too, and Perth was expected to be confirmed within days. It will release nationally on June 14.

Woods said he was ecstatic that this small manifestation of people power had had its desired impact.

"It's the most political thing I've ever done in my life," he said. "I want the first time I watch the film to be with a big crowd, going through the experience with me."

A delighted Kristian Connelly, general manager of Cinema Nova, offered an insight into why Roadshow had baulked it releasing it cinematically.

"In Australia the horror market is not what it is in the United States," he said.

"There's a lot of hunger for horror in the African-American and Latino audiences in the US and that doesn't exist here."

Generally, he said, horror films do about a third of the business in Australia that other genre films do. And given Cabin's modest take in the US, that simply wasn't enough to justify a wide roll-out.

"But if it were to absolutely obliterate all preconceived notions and Roadshow came calling to do a wide release we'd be willing to negotiate," he said.

"We just want what's best for the film."
---

V.

I just watched it last night.
HOLY FUCK!!!!!
I wasn't expecting any of it.
Awesome...awesome movie.
I've been thinking about it alllllll day.

First of all,... yes, the movie title (in the beginning) was a funny "jump/scare the shit outta you" scene.
I don't feel the director ruined the film by showing us the control room people. Not at all. Do you realize how painstaking it would've been to wait until the end of the movie to show those military control-room people?

I don't get why so many of yall are saying that "The Ancient Ones" are a metaphor for us/the audience.
Clearly, the movie was meant to be taken literal, and its pretty straight-forward (especially when Sigourney Weaver explains it all).
I just accepted the story for what it was: The Gods were controlling the fate of humans.
All those monsters (and an "evil" UNICORN?)..... WOW!
The best scene in the movie was when the 2 cabin survivors unleashed those monsters.

I love the Greek/pagan mythology reference.
I didn't see much of a pop-cultural reference (in regards to mainstream cinema) as much as I saw polytheistic & pagan mythological references.
I love shit like that. An underworld that exists unbeknownst to civilization.

It was more of an existential/philosophical question (for me): in relation to those monsters.... are we supposed to fear "the monsters", or are "the monsters" created from our fears?
You can pose that question in a religious context as well.

anyway,... great fuckin movie.
It doesn't matter to me that it didn't have a hardcore "scare you" horror aesthetic.
We've seen too much "scare you" shit anyway. Most people are too jaded. Thats probably why a lotta folks feel like the director is "winking" at them. When, in actuality, the director just wanted to make a really fun movie with some wonderful references that aren't obvious.
This was more shocking to me, than anything. Because I wasn't expecting the result at the end.

The end wasn't depressing to me, at all.
Actually, the ending felt cathartic & free. My perspective is that its better to end all horrible existance, with the hopes of a fresh new start and let "someone else have a chance at it".
Fate was set for the humans, regardless. I wouldn't want to live in constant fear that I could be sacrificed, just so humanity could live another self-loathing day under servitude to The Gods.

heads in here hyped this up way too much. they revealed the lab/base too early and too often. i get the mocking tone, but didn't laugh enough, and I found the overall story just corny. unicorn awesome, weed head hilarious, no booty blondy made my dick move a couple of times, and i wanted to violate "the virgin" sumthin serious, but overall not great in the slightest. my cousin, who i went to see it with, loved it though (we got a local dollar theater, so i got the big screen feel)

2.75/5

my wife, who refuses to deal with shit in her mind and heart, and ends up just pissing all the way off when she comes sideways at me outta nowhere.

I did not see the whole thing as a horror and audience commentary. I saw it as an economic tale.

Been waiting for this to come out for years.
Totally paid off.

Fun shit.
Definitely rewatchable.

http://i.imgur.com/zJdDr.jpg

Might even be better on a second viewing.

felt like i was peeling back a layer each time n understanding it moar.

V.

1. Not getting the "this is a great movie!" reaction. I think there is something to the notion that there may be a generational divide. The praise heavy reaction to this movie sounds a lot like the reaction I had to the first Scream.

2. Agree with the idea that it wasn't scary enough to be a scary movie or funny enough to be a funny movie. I spent a lot of time trying to figure out what the relationship between the control room and the people would be. Once it was revealed I was a bit disappointed it was so straight forward. After the first kill I wanted to fast forward past all the conventional horror movie running around and killing, to see what the movie was ultimately about. It wasn't until the elevator I was engaged again.

3. I have gained a bit more appreciation for the film with the idea that we are the ancients ones but I think they made a huge mistake in by actually showing the audience a glimpse of the ancient ones. It would have been better if the movie ended at the alter grounds crumbling.

4. Also, if the theme is audiences are lazy I take issue with that. I think Game of Thrones have proven that if you can fashion a really compelling story, the audience will go with you on all sorts of unconventional twists and turns.

5. I think Weaver was a waste and a bit superfluous because it was sufficiently spelled out what was going on. The kids had it pretty much figured out before she showed up.

Again I think I enjoyed it as a free netflix nothing else on movie. I think I might have been more disappointed if I saw it in the theater.


**********
"naive as the dry leaves on the ground looking past the trees to the blue sky asking 'why me?'" -Blu

Why I still fuzz with the Lesson
http://open.spotify.com/user/brothersport86/playlist/3DhEhilho77Z0UCPbJlEJf