Nah man, I wouldn't belittle people if they actually had very little experience with the horror genre. But I dunno, I think that even if you've seen a small amount of horror movies that it should still be easy to notice the concepts the movie is making fun of.
Cheers. I noticed them easily, sure, I just enjoyed reading about them in a new way.
Haha.
Yeah, I know why you might think so, but I still believe that the way
the monsters have been setup is a huge reference to Cube. That scene where they zoom out and show you all these cubes gave me a huuuge Cube vibe. Especially the way they shifted around, that's just a giveaway in my opinion.
Well, fair enough, it just struck me as a coincidence. I've seen Cube more than once and really liked it, it's just not like they have a monopoly on cubes in movies
Cube with that one shot, but I didn't think it was an intentional reference, since that film doesn't really jibe with the rest of the film and the tropes it invokes.
I disagree. "Shaun of the Dead" for example, while being mostly a [romantic] comedy with zombies, still got few pretty scary moments (although one should define what "scary" really means, because I haven't ever seen a horror movie that would sincerely scared me and left me with wet pants or screaming in terror). The whole "Winchester Bar" sequence near the end of the movie was tense and definitely belongs to a horror genre (mostly because at that point I actually cared about the characters, something I can't say about 99% of horror movies that fails at creating sympathetic characters instead of just cannon fodder).
Hmm yeah, I can't really do that. I have a lot of empathy and love getting immersed in movies so too many over the top jokes can really kill it for me. It's also why horror is my favourite genre, especially when they use camera footage (Cloverfield, Blairwitch Project, Paranormal Activity, [REC], ...).
The reason I was a little annoyed after watching this is because I was led to believe that it was gonna be a great horror flick. These days, good horror is just so rare so after seeing "Best horror film in years?" in the thread title, then people saying that they didn't see the ending coming and loved the plot twists, along with it being a true horror movie (as in, scary) got me very excited to see it. I just hate it when I watch a horror movie expecting it to be a proper one and then it turns out to be a horror comedy...
Don't get me wrong, I can definitely appreciate a horror comedy, Slither is actually one of my favourite movies. I just wish people wouldn't pull shit like that and be honest about the genre. I bet this would've been one of my favourite movies of the year if I knew from the start it was going to be a comedy and not a genuinely scary movie. Same with Drag me to Hell, people were hyping that up, I thought the trailer was a bit funny but was still hoping it would be a proper horror movie since IMDB only lists "Horror/Thriller" as the genre. Man, was I disappointed... I'm sure I would have loved it if I didn't expect a horror movie though, because the entire movie I was just thinking "man, this sucks, what's up with all the lame jokes? not scary at all :/" and then the goat showed up haha. That killed it for me.
Don't get me wrong, I can definitely appreciate a horror comedy, Slither is actually one of my favourite movies. I just wish people wouldn't pull shit like that and be honest about the genre. I bet this would've been one of my favourite movies of the year if I knew from the start it was going to be a comedy and not a genuinely scary movie. Same with Drag me to Hell, people were hyping that up, I thought the trailer was a bit funny but was still hoping it would be a proper horror movie since IMDB only lists "Horror/Thriller" as the genre. Man, was I disappointed... I'm sure I would have loved it if I didn't expect a horror movie though, because the entire movie I was just thinking "man, this sucks, what's up with all the lame jokes? not scary at all :/" and then the goat showed up haha. That killed it for me.
I actually ended up liking being lied to about the "best horror movie". I went to the movie with two expectation: it will either be a good horror movie (after all, GAF wouldn't lie to me, right?) or a shitty generic slasher (it looked like that in the TV ad - the only promotional material I saw). A horror-comedy that
plays with all the cliches that always make me roll my eyes
was the last thing I would expect. And although I was disappointed about it not being a true horror movie (in the flood of slasher and American "remakes" of European/Asian horrors, the genre is really lacking nowadays) I love the movie for what it is and for the surprise.
Eh? Of course I got it, I even said that the movie is
just one big parody, using all the cliches of past horror movies. I know that it's intended to be satire and to make fun of all the overdone stereotypical stuff that happens in horror movies. Hawkian said "it's fascinating to me how clear this stuff all seems after having it spelled out for you" and that took me by surprise since it was actually all very obvious to me what the movie was referring to. That's also why I think it'd be weird for someone to rewatch those movies: you already know how much they cling to stereotypes. Would be cool to notice them on a first watch I guess, but that kinda takes away from the actual horror, it would make you look for the stereotypes and laugh them off and you'll end up not enjoying it as much.
the metaphorical meaning of the movie was extremely obvious too. I've actually been surprised at how many haven't gotten it. I guess what we disagree on, then, is whether that message via the metaphor is of any value. We'll just have to differ on it.
The thing is, with rewatching the other movies, that we already know about these tropes. Before I had seen HALLOWEEN, for example, I knew so many of those tropes. Which meant I saw scares coming that I hadn't seen. Didn't mean they weren't scary. In fact, the sense of anticipation and familiarity with the formula can be good, as long as the film is not overdependent on it.
Even the stereotypes can be enjoyable; I knew all of the traditional archetypes of a "cabin" movie like this before seeing Friday the 13th or Evil Dead. But those archetypes can still be revealing.
Watching older horror since Cabin has been good, actually. Recognizing cliches and tropes doesn't always take you out of a film or force you to laugh at the events.
Hmm? If you can't guess/predict something right at the start of a movie, that doesn't mean it's a plot twist. A plot twist guides you, tries to push you towards a certain perception and then completely blows your mind by revealing something you'd never think of.
I think it was very clear that they needed to sacrifice them for ancient gods and was really hoping that the ancients would appear (I'm always hoping for a bad ending though) and they did.. They also hint several times that they needed to sacrifice the youngsters or else something terrible would happen (all the other countries failed, it was up to America's team to prevent something horrible). I never saw the trailer so I did like the force field though, but was hardly a plot twist. I do wonder what you mean by "the huge amount of stuff that happened" though, care to elaborate on that? And I do mean plot twists], not just cool stuff that happens like the elevator scene.
It was clear that they needed to sacrifice the people, but it's not at all obvious that it is to some gods. I had a lot of options in my head for the first half hour or so: maybe they were actually MAKING a movie. Maybe the "upstairs" folk were making money off of this somehow. Who knows. The film gradually reveals that we're dealing with actual gods.
And that's the point I tried (and admittedly failed) to make in my other post. The term "plot twist" has been sort of bastardized, and it's thought of as a shock moment now. But the real definition, a change in the expected plot direction, is what happens in Cabin. Because when the possibilities are many, and then narrowed down, that's a change in direction. So when the kids go into the facility and release monsters, that's a change in plot direction.
It doesn't really matter how many scary moments there are. When you have this many funny moments in your movie, it really takes away from true horror and really helps to lighten the mood. Something pretty bad happens and that's alleviated by something funny happening, this carries on throughout the entire movie.
Oh the humor definitely alleviates the horror. The horror still exists, and the scares still exist. And so does the comedy. You said the film never became scary and was only a comedy, I'm saying there are horror elements.
Hmm yeah, I can't really do that. I have a lot of empathy and love getting immersed in movies so too many over the top jokes can really kill it for me. It's also why horror is my favourite genre, especially when they use camera footage (Cloverfield, Blairwitch Project, Paranormal Activity, [REC], ...).
This isn't something I disagree with either. In fact, I'm pretty sure ANYONE loves to immerse themselves into a film. It depends on whether or not certain elements hurt that immersion. The humor in Shaun of the Dead is amazing and involves me even further. It fleshes out the characters and makes them more likable, so when they're in danger I care a lot. It was the same idea in Cabin for me. The humor was energetic and quick, mostly, so the thrill factor was raised.
WTF i just found out that it's basically getting released straight to dvd here in Australia. It has a short run in just 2 cinemas in the whole country come June 14. I'm thankful one of those cinemas is in Sydney (even if it's a fair bit out of my way), but i'm still pissed for all the other cities that aren't so lucky.
I enjoyed the film well enough, but for me the scares weren't there - the most alarming moment was when
the titles slam up on the screen right at the start
, and while the scene where
Thor tries to jump the gorge
elicited shock from most of the audience, me and my friend just burst out laughing. I thought it was well written and funny, engaging throughout, with some really inventive and clever ideas, but a lot of that detracted from the tension and sense of unease that the film only managed to achieve on one or two occasions.
I think the thing that I love most about this film is how it just keeps getting
bigger and bigger. It starts with a few teenagers going to the woods where they're inevitably going to get stabbed and shit. It ends with the world ending.
Just saw it and really enjoyed it. I can barely sit through most horror movies so I was thankful that the first half of the movie never got too fucked up, or had too many jump scares.
I've read the whole thread except the last page or two.
After thinking about it for a bit, I don't really buy the interpretation that the Old Gods are the movie execs. I think:
The Old Gods are the audience. They are the one that everyone else involved in the operation is trying to please. I think the comments by the two guys in the control room imply this. The line one of them has, "remember when you could just throw a girl into a volcano?" was trying to drive home the movies point that horror movies have eschewed becoming more creative, and instead have just focused on making movies that are increasingly more violent and convoluted, resulting in the pretty ridiculous scenario the movie shows. I believe at some point one of the control room guys says something like, "we've got to keep the customers(or the audience, I forget what word he used) happy."
"The People upstairs" or Signourney Weaver's character are the studio executives. They don't ever seem to get involved in the proceedings, or care what the staff does, unless things go wrong(i.e. the horror movie loses the studio a ton of money). I think this is shown when Sigourney Weaver shows up literally in the last 2 minutes of the movie and tries to clean up the mess, as well as through a couple of the offhand comments from the staff. Such as when the new guy asks whether the bosses know they bet on the outcomes, they say something along the lines of "they don't give a shit, as long as the job gets done."
The two guys in the control room(forgot their names, if they were given) are the creatives. Director, writer, creator, whatever. They create the scenarios, handle the moment to moment stuff, and seem to be the ones in charge in the trenches. I think someone even posted an interview a while back in the thread where Whedon flat out says that he and the director are the two in the control room.
Also, just a minor nitpick, but
Am I overthinking it if I wondered what would have happened if any monster/killer other than the Zombie Redneck Torture Family had been selected down in the basement? It's pretty heavily implied that any of the monsters that were down in the elevator room could have been picked to kill the five people, but everything about the setting seemed like it was designed for the zombie family. For example, the guy at the gas station referred to the house as the "Buckner place", which was the last name of the zombie family, their graves were already right there, and there were even rooms inside the cabin that were referenced in the diary. This is probably a dumb complaint, but if the puzzle sphere guy, or the ballerina girl had been selected, it would have just been that same exact environment with a villain/kill that seemed much more out of place? The only thing I could think of that would explain this would be if the choice was somehow rigged. The new guy in the control room raises that question when he sees the betting. Or at the very least the two guys in the control room know the outcome, but just pretend not to so everyone can have some fun with the betting. This would also make some sense, because they might have know that both Holden and the redhead were able to read latin, so maybe they there was a good chance that would be the thing that was selected.
That's just one of a few minor complaints though, none of them really diminished my enjoyment of the movie.
I went to seeing this without expecting anything... and I couldn't have been more disappointed.
The weed. What's the fucking point? It was constantly brought forth, yet it didn't amuse me even once.
The usual teenage US take. I'm actually glad I grew up before this vile shit. The original Evil Dead was thousand times more fun than this carbage.
The only fucking thing that actually made me laugh was
the unicorn
If it was about the ancient ones, why the hand instead of tentacles?
Totally disappointing.
EDIT:
In the old horror movies you actually cared about the people involved, whereas in this I just hoped that someone would please kill them off as soon as possible. Preferably in some excruciating manner. They were that annoying.
Am I overthinking it if I wondered what would have happened if any monster/killer other than the Zombie Redneck Torture Family had been selected down in the basement? It's pretty heavily implied that any of the monsters that were down in the elevator room could have been picked to kill the five people, but everything about the setting seemed like it was designed for the zombie family. For example, the guy at the gas station referred to the house as the "Buckner place", which was the last name of the zombie family, their graves were already right there, and there were even rooms inside the cabin that were referenced in the diary. This is probably a dumb complaint, but if the puzzle sphere guy, or the ballerina girl had been selected, it would have just been that same exact environment with a villain/kill that seemed much more out of place? The only thing I could think of that would explain this would be if the choice was somehow rigged. The new guy in the control room raises that question when he sees the betting. Or at the very least the two guys in the control room know the outcome, but just pretend not to so everyone can have some fun with the betting. This would also make some sense, because they might have know that both Holden and the redhead were able to read latin, so maybe they there was a good chance that would be the thing that was selected.
That's just one of a few minor complaints though, none of them really diminished my enjoyment of the movie.
Maybe certain monsters were a better fit than others, but there were plenty of choices that would have fit perfectly. The merman, the angry molesting tree, the werewolf, vampires, zombies, blob, giant snake, ghost, alien, Kevin, the mask family, scarecrows, etc. The cabin is SO generic that almost any of the choices would have fit perfectly. And there's no saying that the puzzleshphere guy couldn't have zapped the group into his own hellish dimension.
Also, I keep seeing a LOT of confusion from people about Marty and his vital signs. Here is the explanation:
Marty is dragged back into the Buckner tomb. When he falls down, he stops screaming and there's a squirt of blood. His lever is pulled IMMEDIATELY after they see this in the control room, and the blood offering is made before they actually confirm his kill. When his lever is pulled, he stops being monitored by their system. But the Gods know that Marty isn't actually dead because as soon as The Fool's offering is made without him actually being dead, there is a huge earthquake that everyone just shrugs off. We can assume that once Marty is taken into the grave he falls into the area below with the elevator where he kills the zombie. But as soon as his lever is pulled the computers stop monitoring his vitals.
The reason they never see him on their many cameras is that they all assume him dead so they're no longer looking for him, they are focusing on not just the whereabouts of the teens who are still alive, but also the near-miss with the tunnel not being closed.
It's like this: If I break into your house with two other people, and you are watching us on your security system, and I fall into a hole, you're going to assume I'm trapped in that hole and you're going to stop looking for me and instead focus on the two other people still inside your house. Why continue monitoring the hole when you could use that screen to monitor your living room instead?
That was the point. You already are thinking Lovecraft when you first hear it.
In the old horror movies you actually cared about the people involved, whereas in this I just hoped that someone would please kill them off as soon as possible. Preferably in some excruciating manner. They were that annoying.
In the old horror movies you actually cared about the people involved, whereas in this I just hoped that someone would please kill them off as soon as possible. Preferably in some excruciating manner. They were that annoying.
You did? I can't remember a single slasher when I actually cared about or even liked characters (ok, maybe besides Scream, but that's only because of Courteney Cox ). They were always morons.
You did? I can't remember a single slasher when I actually cared about or even liked characters (ok, maybe besides Scream, but that's only because of Courteney Cox ). They were always morons.
Pretty much. I'm trying to think of a *classic* slasher where the characters are very sympathetic...Halloween just has JLC, Friday the 13th has nobody, I guess Nancy was alright in Nightmare, Ash in Evil Dead is great. So basically, you normally have one character who's worth caring about. In my experience. I think Cabin had that for sure.
Just saw it and really enjoyed it. I can barely sit through most horror movies so I was thankful that the first half of the movie never got too fucked up, or had too many jump scares.
I've read the whole thread except the last page or two.
After thinking about it for a bit, I don't really buy the interpretation that the Old Gods are the movie execs. I think:
The Old Gods are the audience. They are the one that everyone else involved in the operation is trying to please. I think the comments by the two guys in the control room imply this. The line one of them has, "remember when you could just throw a girl into a volcano?" was trying to drive home the movies point that horror movies have eschewed becoming more creative, and instead have just focused on making movies that are increasingly more violent and convoluted, resulting in the pretty ridiculous scenario the movie shows. I believe at some point one of the control room guys says something like, "we've got to keep the customers(or the audience, I forget what word he used) happy."
"The People upstairs" or Signourney Weaver's character are the studio executives. They don't ever seem to get involved in the proceedings, or care what the staff does, unless things go wrong(i.e. the horror movie loses the studio a ton of money). I think this is shown when Sigourney Weaver shows up literally in the last 2 minutes of the movie and tries to clean up the mess, as well as through a couple of the offhand comments from the staff. Such as when the new guy asks whether the bosses know they bet on the outcomes, they say something along the lines of "they don't give a shit, as long as the job gets done."
The two guys in the control room(forgot their names, if they were given) are the creatives. Director, writer, creator, whatever. They create the scenarios, handle the moment to moment stuff, and seem to be the ones in charge in the trenches. I think someone even posted an interview a while back in the thread where Whedon flat out says that he and the director are the two in the control room.
Also, just a minor nitpick, but
Am I overthinking it if I wondered what would have happened if any monster/killer other than the Zombie Redneck Torture Family had been selected down in the basement? It's pretty heavily implied that any of the monsters that were down in the elevator room could have been picked to kill the five people, but everything about the setting seemed like it was designed for the zombie family. For example, the guy at the gas station referred to the house as the "Buckner place", which was the last name of the zombie family, their graves were already right there, and there were even rooms inside the cabin that were referenced in the diary. This is probably a dumb complaint, but if the puzzle sphere guy, or the ballerina girl had been selected, it would have just been that same exact environment with a villain/kill that seemed much more out of place? The only thing I could think of that would explain this would be if the choice was somehow rigged. The new guy in the control room raises that question when he sees the betting. Or at the very least the two guys in the control room know the outcome, but just pretend not to so everyone can have some fun with the betting. This would also make some sense, because they might have know that both Holden and the redhead were able to read latin, so maybe they there was a good chance that would be the thing that was selected.
That's just one of a few minor complaints though, none of them really diminished my enjoyment of the movie.
Sigourney Weaver's character is named "the Director."
There were lots of hooks for the other monster events that could have been picked; the Torture Family was one of the most common and most reliable though. What I really want to know is what object in that room summons the unicorn, and which monster you get from putting on the necklace...
Hands down, the creepiest thing in that entire movie was when Marty and the other girl were in the glass elevators, just staring at the Puzzle Sphere and the ballerina. It felt like they held that shot on that guy's face for 3 minutes. That entire scene from when the elevator starts moving until they arrive at the facility was just spine tingling.
This was one of the worst pieces of shit I have ever had to endure. How this junk gets so much praise is beyond me. Maybe I saw a different version. This movie was so fucking awful. Ughh.
This was one of the worst pieces of shit I have ever had to endure. How this junk gets so much praise is beyond me. Maybe I saw a different version. This movie was so fucking awful. Ughh.
Evil Dead/Sam Raimi disagrees. A good director/writer can blend the genres and deliver a great movie, but it takes a rare director/writer who is able to mix the two without them clashing or confusing the viewer.
Whedon/Goddard bit off more than they could chew, not surprising but credit where it's due, it wasn't a complete mess and they did manage to deliver an above average movie with some nice twists on certain tropes.
I really do not understand all of the praise for this movie. It was a somewhat interesting concept, but I feel it could be so much better with the following two changes:
1. The audience should not be aware that it is all a set up by a larger organization until the two "sacrifices" make it into the building. Everything should unfold from that point on.
2. The reason behind why the organization is performing these sacrifices needs some work. I was expecting something so much more interesting than the "sacrifice to the gods" scenario.
I really do not understand all of the praise for this movie. It was a somewhat interesting concept, but I feel it could be so much better with the following two changes:
1. The audience should not be aware that it is all a set up by a larger organization until the two "sacrifices" make it into the building. Everything should unfold from that point on.
2. The reason behind why the organization is performing these sacrifices needs some work. I was expecting something so much more interesting than the "sacrifice to the gods" scenario.
Hate to be the one to ask, but did you get the overarching metaphor of the movie? Any more of a "reason" why they were doing things would have been ridiculous.
1. The audience should not be aware that it is all a set up by a larger organization until the two "sacrifices" make it into the building. Everything should unfold from that point on.
That would be goddamn horrible and defeat the entire purpose of the movie. Pacing-wise alone, it would be completely stupid. How would you cram the story into the final fifteen minutes? Plus, if you did that, the movie would be an utter piece of shit.
comedy and horror are not opposites and thinking they are demonstrates a lack of understanding of genre
also the movie was intentionally funny at parts. a man had an extendo-coffee mug bong
I don't like to say movies went "over" someone's head, but it sounds like it kinda went off to the side of your head. If you're not sure whether most of the movie was supposed to be intentionally funny, the movie and your brain were definitely not on the same wavelength.
Also, American Werewolf In London is considered one of the best horror movies ever made by most genre fans and it's half a comedy. It can go terribly wrong but horror and comedy most assuredly work together.
The makeup job on the ballerina was awful. Probably my only gripe with the film is that at times you could tell that it wasn't a big budget production. It took me out of the movie.
Hate to be the one to ask, but did you get the overarching metaphor of the movie? Any more of a "reason" why they were doing things would have been ridiculous.
That would be goddamn horrible and defeat the entire purpose of the movie. Pacing-wise alone, it would be completely stupid. How would you cram the story into the final fifteen minutes? Plus, if you did that, the movie would be an utter piece of shit.
Wow I don't know how I didn't see it from that point of view. I was treating it as just another horror movie like all the others. I really did not see the fact that it was poking fun at all the common occurrences throughout the genre.
It's critiquing the genre as a whole and especially poking fun at audiences.
The "old gods" could be considered movie audiences who demand to see certain things happen in certain ways over and over and over again in horror movies.
The movie's minor stroke of genius is incorporating everyone who doesn't like it into the movie.
Wow I don't know how I didn't see it from that point of view. I was treating it as just another horror movie like all the others. I really did not see the fact that it was poking fun at all the common occurrences throughout the genre.
It's critiquing the genre as a whole and especially poking fun at audiences.
The "old gods" could be considered movie audiences who demand to see certain things happen in certain ways over and over and over again in horror movies.
The movie's minor stroke of genius is incorporating everyone who doesn't like it into the movie.
guys in the control room making sure everything goes according to plan are the producers and movie studio execs- think about the betting on which horror scenario will be the most successful
And Sigourney Weaver's character, the one ostensibly running the show from downstairs is named... "The Director." Subtle, I know. Hehe.
Then there's the fact that tons of the individual monsters were flat-out spoofs or references to other horror movies or movie patterns. I didn't even catch that the puzzle-sphere guy was supposed to be Hellraiser until somebody mentioned it in this thread.
There are tons of little touches that really stand out if you watch it through this lens. I definitely suggested rewatching with an open mind!
the one female dyes her hair blonde just before going on the trip. It's like they brainwashed her to dye her hair (and then put slut producing chemicals in the hair dye) because there had to a blonde slut in the group.
the one female dyes her hair blonde just before going on the trip. It's like they brainwashed her to dye her hair (and then put slut producing chemicals in the hair dye) because there had to a blonde slut in the group.
