(Note: This is just a slightly modified version of my theatrical review…)
When this was first advertised, very few expected this to be any good. How many modern horror movies are? Even as you first watched the trailer, it’s just another silly teens-in-the-woods horror type. Then the second half of the trailer started… and there was something a little more to it. People became intrigued, myself included. And then the reviews started coming in, calling it one of the best horror films of the last few years, etc., and how you should go in as blind as possible. It soon became a must-see, and I went as soon as I possibly could have. But did it live up to the hype?
The Cabin in the Woods is about five friends–the ‘virgin’, Dana (Kristen Connelly); the slutty girl, Jules (Anna Hutchison); her buff boyfriend, Curt (Chris Hemsworth); his nice friend, Holden (Jesse Williams); and their stoner friend, Marty (Fran Kranz)–go to a remote cabin that Curt’s cousin recently bought. But something dangerous is going on behind the scenes with two men, Satterson (Richard Jenkins) and Hadley (Bradley Whitford), working for somebody that has seemingly a little too much power…
And that’s all I’m gonna say. I agree with the others: go into this one as blind as possible, if you haven’t already seen it at this point. To call this original is underselling it, I think. The story is intensely unique, and not since Scream has a movie taken its predecessors in the genre and lovingly kicked them in the balls (Well, maybe Leslie Vernon). It takes everything you know of the genre and turns it on its head, playing with tropes and ideas. It’s a smart film, a level of subtle meta that makes it more like an Easter Egg hunt of awesomeness than a “oh look how clever we are.” But it’s still pretty damn clever. And even upon re-watching it since it hit the shelves, I’ve caught even more that I missed in theater. There are so many intricacies to the writing. And the writer/director commentary with it is fascinating and fun and points out even more I hadn’t even picked up on.
The characters are a big part of this greatness, as well, taking what are basically the dumb teens in every horror film and making you root for them, making you hate when any of them die. They are well written, thanks in part to Joss Whedon and his fantastic ear for dialogue, as well as his character building. I mean, at first glance, nothing is overly complex about these characters (though listen to that commentary track and you’ll see things in a whole new light). You’re given enough to care, but not too much to the point where it feels forced. Let’s not forget the “management” characters, who are also a hoot. There’s a darkness to their actions, but it’s almost always a light mood, with just that hint of desperateness.
This movie goes places you can’t even begin to imagine, and the third act is just balls-to-the-wall insanity. (If excessive blood bugs you… you might want to steer clear.) The only downside is some CGI use, but it’s only quick glimpses usually, and only for… things… that need it. Otherwise, it’s practical all the way.
The movie is scary, intense, and really funny. It’s an edge-of-your-seat kinda flick, and you never know when something is going to happen. The build-up is crazy, with scenes that have you cringing and twisting in your seat because you’re expecting something, but most of the time it’s just… playing with preconceived notions again. It’s smart, clever, and amazingly original. If you’re a fan of horror films, The Cabin in the Woodsshould be at the top of your list. And this far in, it’s still my favorite movie of the year, as it’s only gotten better on rewatches.
Wayne (7)
Andrew (4)
John (4)
Steve (4)
Justin (3)
Lauren (3)
Nick (3)
Andy (2)
Dave Enkosky (2)
Emily (2)
Twitter: nevermindpop
September 22, 2012 10:42 pm
One of the most entertaining theatres experiences I’ve had in all of 2012.
Twitter: agracru
September 24, 2012 8:40 am
HERE THAR BE SPOILERS
The thing about Leslie Vernon– and I love the hell out of that movie– is that it’s all surface. Nothing about its deconstruction is especially subtle or nuanced; the film makes absolutely no effort to veil its intentions or disguise its approach to picking apart the mores of the sub-genre it’s focused on. Cabin isn’t all subtext, of course– you can’t call the last 20 minutes “subtle” by any stretch of the means– but Goddard and Whedon play much more coyly and sneak tons of subtext into a movie in which mermen, werewolves, unicorns, dismemberment goblins, evil doctors, scarecrow folk, and killer robots all play into the climax. And that’s one of the things I love about it.
The big question, at least from a deconstructive standpoint, is whether Cabin is a love letter to horror and an argument for why we need horror films, or an act of criticism. I tend to lean toward the latter, though there is merit to the former. Since the entire film basically ends with the destruction of an institution designed to protect us from the real horrors of the world (argument: horror films let us confront our fears, but they also let us suppress them by replacing our real-world fears with boogeymen, a’la redneck zombie torture families, hell lords, Kevin, angry molesting trees, and so on), it’s easy to see how Goddard and Whedon could have meant for us to take the film as a celebration of horror films.
But Cabin contains far too many sharp barbs directed at the genre to be a paean to the genre first and foremost. The way that the entire ritual is established very much points an accusatory finger at the studio system that perpetually recycles the same plots over and over again for quick financial gain at the cost of creativity and originality, and the very nature of Sitterson and Hadley’s work mocks the disingenuous nature of the standard horror film and essentially labels it as fake. Nobody takes action in horror because it makes sense; they do things because that’s just what they’re supposed to do because it’s a horror film and people are supposed to be stupid and reckless in horror films. I admit that that’s part of horror’s charm, and I like watching dumb teens do dumb teen things so that they can die horribly, but it’s also a big problem with horror since most hack filmmakers can’t see outside that formula or make it work/enjoyable.
The other aspect of the movie I loved is its morality. This might be one of the most moral horror movies I’ve ever seen, certainly one of the most moral horror movies I’ve seen in the last fifteen years or so. Who’s right at the end? Marty, or Dana? My own preference would be to err on the side of Marty, because Dana’s solution is antithetical to the idea of humanitarianism and I’m pretty sure that even utilitarians might balk at the idea of sacrificing countless people every year to preserve the human race. (Then again, maybe not, but it depends on how many people are dying every year/have died overall.) Nietzsche would very much be against the facility, and I’m very certain that even if Rabbis and Rabbinical scholars haven’t interpreted Jewish law with this sort of scenario in mind, they would still side with Marty. But that’s just my own take, and you could argue for or against either side using all kinds of different philosophical and theological bents.
And of course, there are monsters. I don’t know. I love the hell out of this movie. There are so many planes on which it satisfies.
Twitter: nevermindpop
September 24, 2012 3:22 pm
This is why I read ACVF.
Twitter: agracru
September 26, 2012 2:20 pm
It’s mostly Go, See, Talk! now, but I appreciate the kind words regardless. Thanks, Colin.