|
Post by Beelzebibble on Apr 29, 2012 22:33:01 GMT -5
Who's seen it??
Man it's good. I'm going back for another viewing. I practically never do that.
If you want to discuss the plot at all, remember that the spoiler tag is a thing we have.
|
|
|
Post by The Evil Biscuit on Apr 30, 2012 8:43:20 GMT -5
I also am going back for a second viewing, which I also never do. It was awesome.
|
|
|
Post by Ninety on Apr 30, 2012 17:48:07 GMT -5
i am going for a first viewing sometime in the future. that is something i do a lot.
|
|
|
Post by The Evil Biscuit on Apr 30, 2012 18:58:33 GMT -5
Come to Beaumont and watch it with me so that we can 1. Watch a badass movie 2. Drink beer 3. Wear our badass Mastodon shirts 4. Drink beer 5. 6. Profit
|
|
|
Post by Ninety on Apr 30, 2012 20:06:38 GMT -5
Step 5 is you giving me money for mastodon shirt.
|
|
|
Post by {WW}BetaBloodWolf7 on Nov 10, 2012 14:51:52 GMT -5
I honestly don't get what all the hype was about. I heard a bunch of people found the movie scary, or somn. I think I spent most of the movie trying to figure out if it was a horror flick, or dark comedy. Maybe I'm just too familiar with Whedon's other works, but I found it too predictable (yeah, I know some of it was intentional). I also didn't care for the ending, it's just not my kind of thing.
|
|
|
Post by Beelzebibble on Nov 12, 2012 10:15:47 GMT -5
I don't think any of that criticism except for the last sentence was valid. The movie definitely wasn't supposed to be scary to the audience, certainly not the zombie redneck torture family (although I do recall a good fleeting scare involving something with an upside-down face crawling toward a security camera on the ceiling). It's not the moviemakers' fault that you couldn't figure out whether it was a horror flick (wrong) or a dark comedy (correct). And as for the predictable nature of the first two acts of the story....... yeah, that was kind of the whole point.
If the third act didn't do it for you then fair enough (personally I thought it was amazing), but it seems to me that you approached the first two acts with entirely the wrong frame of mind.
|
|
|
Post by {WW}BetaBloodWolf7 on Nov 12, 2012 10:29:29 GMT -5
" The Cabin in the Woods is a 2012 American horror film directed and co-written by Drew Goddard and co-written and produced by Joss Whedon. It stars Kristen Connolly, Chris Hemsworth, Anna Hutchison, Fran Kranz, and Jesse Williams. " Horror, Mystery, ThrillerGoing by the fact that both IMDb and Wikipedia both list it as a horror flick, I'd say that I have some justification for believing that it was supposed to be a horror movie. I'm pretty sure the redbox my wife rented it from categorized it as horror as well. I get that it was made predictable, but I found the last part of it rather predictable too. Ever see Buffy the Vampire Slayer? The TV series? There were a few paramilitary groups in it that were working for the big bads and were fighting against them too. So it's been done, by Whedon, and as such I find it a bit hard to see as all that amazing. On top of that, I know a fair amount of people who saw the movie when it came out, and they thought it was scary for some absurd reason. So, can you blame me for approaching it with the "entirely wrong frame of mind" ?
|
|
|
Post by Beelzebibble on Nov 12, 2012 10:51:31 GMT -5
Sites like IMDB and Wikipedia are sure to categorize it as horror because it's steeped so heavily in horror tropes, but that's not the movie's real intent. I think Tim Brayton nailed it in his review: "And make no mistake, The Cabin in the Woods is a comedy - a comedy with lots of deep dark mood lighting and blood and tottering zombie rednecks, but a comedy. A comedy, plus a satire, plus a parody, all adding up to the conclusion that horror movie formulas are just so effing damn stupid that ascribing all of it to the machinations of an Elder God cult is practically sane in relationship. What it really just isn't, is horror: for horror depends on the intrusion of the uncanny, perverse, and inexplicable into the mundane and normal. Cabin does exactly the opposite, taking the uncanny, perverse, and inexplicable, and intruding the mundane into that; rationalising every slasher and monster and Thing Going Bump as the by-product of a world of office betting pools, petty quibbling about bureaucratic responsibilities, and conference calls (the conference call scene in this movie is, for serious, the funniest thing I have seen all year and then some). It is, in fact, anti-horror, and that is exactly what makes it an effective piece of commentary on what legitimate horror is - it is light-years from Scream, a horror movie acting like it was above horror, for this is aspiring to be horror when it is not. And my respects to those who managed to be creeped out by the kids' misadventures, but I was as resolutely not-scared as I think I've ever been at a movie with so much blood and monsters."
|
|
|
Post by {WW}BetaBloodWolf7 on Nov 12, 2012 11:32:20 GMT -5
Now see, if I had seen a review like that, or if someone was going on about it being a dark comedy, I'd have probably enjoyed the movie a bit more. So can I assume that you at least see my point here? Why I was confused?
|
|
|
Post by Beelzebibble on Nov 12, 2012 11:45:11 GMT -5
Yeah, I can see how you wouldn't have known what to expect beforehand. That's fair.
|
|
|
Post by Ninety on Nov 16, 2012 8:57:50 GMT -5
I was led to believe it was a horror movie as well but was delightfully shocked.
|
|
|
Post by {WW}BetaBloodWolf7 on Nov 16, 2012 11:25:37 GMT -5
Even if I hadn't been misled, I wouldn't have enjoyed it. The boobs, the pot head, the end of the world ending, they're not my kind of thing.
|
|
|
Post by Beelzebibble on Nov 16, 2012 11:57:45 GMT -5
BOOBS [/font] "NOT BLOOD'S THING""Come On, You Know What I Meant", He Says Exasperatedly[/font][/size] WIFE UNCONVINCED[/font][/center]
|
|