Participants: Phil, Bryan, Jon, Drew, Sean, Bobby, Joe, Shane
Initiator: Phil
“… And I feel fine.”
The Cabin in the Woods is a pretty tough movie to talk
about to anyone who hasn't seen it, as it’s definitely a movie you want to go into knowing as little as
possible. The initial setup of the movie
is a spoiler if you ask me. That said,
Drew Goddard and Joss Whedon manage to create a schlocky horror movie that
keeps us engaged with a clever premise and a surprising payoff while adding no
needless fluff to the events which transpire.
Right from the outset, this movie could have gone two
distinct directions. Rather than hiding
the big reveal for act 3, Goddard and Whedon actually start us in a sterile quasi-government
facility, offering no explanation of what we are about to see or how this
organization will affect the titular cabin.
Actually having the control organization a part of the movie from the
word go was a fantastic choice in my opinion.
The actual story of the five campers was a boring retread by
design. Goddard and Whedon clearly
wanted the campers’ story to feel like the bad horror movies we remember from
the 80’s, right down to the cheesy, over-the-top acting.
This decision puts the viewer in a decidedly different
mindset. Think about what this movie
would have been like without knowing about the controllers until an hour
in. Would you have even bothered? Odds are you would have gotten extremely bored
by “another crappy horror movie.”
However, the ever present controllers force you to almost ignore the
hacky store of the campers, instead forcing you to spend the bulk of the movie
trying to figure out just what the hell was going on. This really makes the movie dance the line of
several genres. I know it’s classified
as a horror, but calling it a suspense thriller is almost as appropriate.
Fortunately, we don’t have to wait long to get to the big
reveal that was skillfully teased throughout.
Would it have been crazy and entertaining to see everything about the controllers
revealed in just the last act? Probably. But would you have stuck with Thor & Co
for an hour? Probably not. There would have been too much to explain at
the end, and the method Goddard and Whedon used of explaining what was
happening as we went made for a far more enjoyable experience. Cabin also did a great job of explaining just enough while maintaining a torrid
pace to its conclusion. Do we ever learn
why this organization has an obscene amount of hellish creatures? Sure don’t.
Do we ever learn what these “ancient” creatures are? Barely.
Shit, I can’t even call the controllers by name because we never even
learn the organization’s name. While the
level of explanation was great, it did take away from the large reveal at the
end. The very end was probably the
weakest part of the movie as a result.
What The Cabin in the Woods ends up giving us is a “plausible”
explanation for why bad things happen to good people in all the horror movies
we’ve seen in the past, right down to the “horror” which befalls them and the
abysmal decision-making that comes with being pursued by any sort of horrors. Initially, the conclusion annoyed me as we didn't learn enough about Dana & Marty to know what they would do in this extreme situation, but
keeping it in the frame of mind that we were dealing with a stoner and
a girl who had been huffing whatever drugs were getting pumped into that
forest, it was at least believable in this movie’s universe.
Final note: There were some genuinely laugh-out-loud moments
in this movie. Richard Jenkins and
Bradley Whitford practically steal the movie.
The phone conversation with Mordecai and Whitford’s end were some of the
funniest moments in any movie in recent memory.
Summary:
+ Great
setup and premise
+ Wasted no
time
+ Way
funnier than it had any right to be
+ “Totally
plausible” way to explain why every horror movie ever would happen
- Ending
ends up suffering
Final Grade: A-
I don't enjoy many horror movies, and this is no exception. The moment the first character died the whole plot is over. There were two good scenes, The scene of the Japanese girls signing is funny and the guy jumping the cliff is so obvious it's moderately amusing and they show him falling, and falling, and falling.
ReplyDeleteIf they were going for so bad, it's good I guess the directors may have succeeded to some. I found myself pretty bored throughout. Is the lady from Alien low on funds? Two decent scenes and a semi-likable stoner earn Cabin a D.
It’s worth pointing out first that I really don’t like horror movies. I largely think they’re pointless, and are maybe the lowest form of cinema. I hear the pretension in that statement and I don’t care. I hate jump scares and screaming actresses. There are maybe a handful of horror movies that I appreciate, like Let Me In, The Thing, and 28 Days Later. Maybe The Shining and Silence of the Lambs qualify, but I’d put them more in the thriller category. Considering the trend in recent horror filmmaking, horror has only gotten more disgusting. I will not watch torture porn, or anything involving exploitative rape or sexual violence. That all said, in looking into Cabin in the Woods, Joss Whedon apparently feels the same way, though he’s more of a fan of horror in general. It struck me pretty early on that his and Goddard’s movie is largely a critical metaphor for the genre, so it was made specifically for me.
ReplyDeleteBefore getting into what that metaphor meant for me, just taking the movie straight is pretty successful for someone who’s not a fan of the genre. Instead of one horror movie, Cabin in the Woods is several of them packed together. It offers a lot of possibilities, both imaginatively with the white board in the first act, and then viscerally in the third act after everything gets released. Did anyone else pause on the white board, so they could see everything? I sure did. This is a big negative on the movie for me, because the Hillbilly Zombies are completely generic and uninteresting as villains. What would the movie have looked like if the Angry Molesting Tree had been picked, or the Ballerina?
I’m completely with Phil about the slow parceling out of plot. Instead of one big reveal, the movie starts with parallel stories and then slowly turns its cards over. I’d imagine Whedon and Goddard deeply considered the best way to make this work, and I think they made the right choice. Phil, have you ever heard of H.P. Lovecraft and Cthulu? That’s where the old gods came from at the end, a reveal I was pretty happy about. If the viewer didn’t read anything else into this movie, it could be viewed as a solid spoof, Scary Movie with a brain.
Into what I took as the deeper meaning of the movie. So, the victims are the cast in a horror movie, real people maneuvered into contrived roles. The underground organization is the director/producers of a horror movie. The old gods are the film-going public. To the directors, the old gods demand sacrifices in a specific way that exists beyond reason. They just like what they like, and what they like is sexual women being punished and chaste women being at best, spared. They really like death, death without purpose or meaning, just grisly, gory pain and suffering. The directors work to force complex people into roles the gods want, molding them with chemicals and traps. If the old gods don’t get what they want, they destroy everything.
How does that translate into the real world? Well, studio heads see that they can make artless horror movies that play to the lowest common denominator for barely any money, but people will see them in droves and turn them into 1000% ROI’s. They don’t ask about why the public has this perverted virgin/whore complex, they just know that people turn out for it. The scene in which the ‘whore’ dies is a perfect example of this. Horror movies just tick off boxes on a pre-ordained list of clichés that has been around for decades, and a lot of it is anti-feminist garbage about sexual women getting what they deserve i.e. death. The rest of it is taking pleasure in new and innovative ways to reduce a bad actor into his composite parts. For a financial example, Let Me In and Saw 3D were both released in October 2010. Let Me In was strongly-reviewed, well-acted, had real characters, and was one of my favorite movies from that year. Saw 3D was Saw 3D, so the opposite of that. Both had the same budgets, but Saw made more than 850% of its budget, while Let Me In barely made its money back. The broad horror-appreciating public doesn’t want new things, they want garbage like torture porn.
ReplyDeleteWhedon is the perfect person to critique this trend, as he’s made all these TV shows and movies with strong, complete female characters. For most of the film, he spells all this out clearly. The dumb blonde is exposed as a trope that ‘directors’ perpetuate by putting them in their movies. The characters are introduced as multi-faceted people who don’t fit into boxes, but the ‘directors’ force them into confining roles, because it’s really not about character. It’s about meat. The security head character has no interest in taking bets on how these people are going to die, because despite the dark humor that’s developed amongst the directors, it still feels wrong to root for brutality. The ‘jock’ starts referring to the ‘whore’ as an object only when he’s chemically forced to, because that’s what people want to see. For me, all this was like a personal checkbox, ticking off reason after reason why I don’t like the genre.
That said, once the ‘cast’ escapes from the ‘movie,’ things both get awesome and terrible. The different monster designs and variety are all very impressive. The first time I watched it around a year ago, even though it’s played for laughs, some of those things kept me up that night. I’m probably most afraid of home invasion, and those doll-masked, Strangers-style murderers really creeped me out. The terrible side comes from the lengths the movie has to go to to get the monsters out into the facility. In the cabin, everyone was chemically altered, so their dumb actions made sense. There’s no excuse in the facility. Why was there a Purge button in the first place? Why did only one guard greet the ‘virgin’ and the ‘stoner’ when they exit the elevator? If the stakes are so high, why does Sigourney Weaver bother monologuing to them both at the end? Shoot the ‘stoner’ in the face, save billions of people. The stakes for failure are so high, it’s near-impossible to root for the ‘cast,’ and the abrupt ending reinforces this. It left me pretty unsatisfied, whereas I think the ‘stoner’ sacrificing himself would’ve left me feeling better. Maybe it’s just because that character annoyed the shit out of me.
There are so many other positive and negative things to mention. The Japanese are weird. Ha, that unicorn killed that guy. What was up with the sabotage thread running through the facility? Was this movie too darkly lit or was it just my TV? I deeply respect the metaphor, but there are too many things I have a problem with to get it into the B range. Because of the mental collapse of the third act, the annoying stoner, and the lack of imagination in the hillbilly zombies, I’m going with a C+. As high as a movie can get while annoying me as much as this one did.
Saw 1 and 2 are really good- you can look away for the torture porn aspects but great Psychological Thriller aspects. Stopped watching when they had the VH1 show Scream Queens and no talent bitches had a competition for a 3 minute part in a future Saw movie.
DeleteThe Strangers was a freaking terrifying movie. When the girl answers why they're doing this with "Because you were home" I wanted to relock all my doors and windows charge my cell phone and change my pants.
I've seen pieces of Saw 2 and thought it was pretty gross. The original does have a good reputation, and I could see watching it someday. It's just not high on the priority list.
DeleteI will never watch The Strangers. Just the previews are bad enough.
I've watched 5 of the Saw movies, and have always wanted to finish it up. There's a lot more story development/reveal in the middle movies. I'd definitely recommend the original Saw... I'd say it'd be a nice choice here, but i'm nearly certain it'd be vetoed.
DeleteWell now. That was something. Going into this, I thought it was a new version of Friday the 13th but then there was the beginning. Then it turned into some silly game. "The old gods must get a sacrifice" was over the top. It was too much like Assassin's Creed, which actually makes sense. This one, however, did not.
ReplyDeleteThe women were hot and the "whore" showed her tits so there's a plus. Chris Hemsworth was in the movie and I thought that would be cool but it was his worse movie - yes, worse than Red Dawn. Then Bradley Whitford was in it and he was one of my favorite characters in my all time favorite TV show (Josh Lyman - The West Wing) but still, no. Then I saw Sigourney Weaver and that was way little, too late.
This movie is Joss Whedon's worst. I am a fan of his work but this was out there. I'm sure Phil has a great defense as to why he thought of it as an A- but I cannot think of it. It was a sorry excuse for a horror movie - ironically enough is redundant.
Grade: C-
At first watch I was solidly in the D range because through the lens of crappy horror movie it was a pretty crappy horror movie. The monsters were barely visible because the screen was so damn dark, there wasn't any tension or any characters worth rooting for their survival. The only saving grace of the movie was of course the controllers. Bradley Whitford and Richard Jenkins were born to play those parts.
ReplyDeleteForgive me but I didn't get the metaphor thing while I watched it but Kissel's points raised the movie several notches for me. I attempted to rewatch last night and jot down a few notes but only made it to the scene when she first read the diary and realized I had way too many notes already.
Notes time:
Why don't more hot chicks hang out in their underwear in a room with windows on all sides?
How have none of you mentioned the kickass collapsible coffee mug bong? I googled it immediately and found that 1-demand is super high for this and 2-it doesn't exist- any of you have skills necessary to make it happen can make some serious cash.
Stoner issues- Nobody smokes joins if they have a bong at the ready. Nobody rolls dozens of joints, joints are fragile they're made on demand so they don't break. He sucked balls at rolling and I didn't see a dollar bill anywhere near his rolling station.
If I were in a situation where I was trying to get with a girl who was behind a two way mirror and switched rooms with her to show what a good guy I was, she would definitely be getting tickets to the DONG SHOW once we were in our new rooms. Good job guy who isn't Thor or Stoner!
I feel like the scene where Mordecai calls the controllers on speaker phone was added after the fact like they screened the movie realized the controllers were the best part and added that in- throw away scene but funny.
They should've gone the extra mile during the celebration scene after they thought they pulled it off- I really wanted to see Chem Dept boobs there.
Back to the review:
Once viewed through the lens of a metaphor to represent the braindead viewing public and crappy horror movies in general it does become a much better movie. This however hurts it from a traditional horror standpoint and even hurt the payoffs in Act 3 because as mentioned by both Kissel and Phil- we don't know much about these characters or care about them. The insertion of the world beneath the cabin detracted from the creation of the world on the surface and the characters being sacrificed. Where did Sigourney Weaver come from? Does she live down in that pit and give BJs to the ancient ones in between cabin visits? She sucked bad and her introduction hurt the final scene.
My D was upgraded to a C+ by Kissel's interpretation.
Fellow Ancient Ones, it seems some of you are not appeased!
DeleteI've been wanting to watch this for a while now. I've heard good thing, and knew it was a satire. For the most part, my thoughts are pretty on par with Phil's, but I also caught the on to what the satire was pretty quickly... in that the people at the camp were acted as the movie/horror genre, the controllers were the directors/movie business, and the ancient ones represent us/the viewers. Glad Kissel pointed that out.. otherwise it would have been a major point in my review. I think the way this was done gave the movie a sizable boost from the start.
Now... how those parts were given to us, is what really matters, I suppose.
The camp... was good enough. It represented the stereotypes of the genre really well. It has the 5 common characters that we often see it old horror/slasher films, it has the same cliche set up... with the gas station guy. I don't think the phone call was a throw away scene, either. It was a really big hint at what the movie was trying to do with it's satire... the KNOW the gas station guy is cliche, and yet he's there, and works anyway. I will say, I sort of expected Mordecai to do the saving at the end... the creepy guy redeeming himself and all that. Oh well. Anyway, it all works. The setup, the nods to other horror movies, the monsters (which were really well done, visually, and all... it wasn't too dark looking for me), and the intentional sketchy acting. It wasn't great, but it worked.
The control room was fantastic. As a few of you have pointed out, Bradley Whitford and Richard Jenkins nailed their rolls. They were exactly what this movie needed to keep us interested. Phil's right in that we all probably would have stopped watching if they saved them for later.. starting with them and revealing the entire plot early was definitely the right choice. It gave us a reason to watch and gave us the most entertaining moments of the film. I'm guessing we all got a few laughs out of them.
The Ancient Ones... failed for me. We didn't get to know anything about them... and more so, didn't get to see them. All those fantastically done monsters, and we don't even get a glimpse of the biggest ones. More so, the general masses are very easy to appease. The sad truth is even the worst of horror movies do well enough, and I think the movie should have touched on that. Let us in on what they think of the torture porn movement taking over, and how it's some how keeping the genre afloat. Is there no disagreement among the Ancient Ones? Use viewers disagree often... always. I guess, I just don't feel the Ancient Ones did a good job of representing their portion of the satire.
With that... I feel like the moment leading up to the boobs... would have been better suited if it somehow pleased the Ancient ones. I mean, that's what the gratuitous nudity is for right... it's not thrown in to please the directors/studio. The ancient ones want shitty horror movie deaths... and tits. I sort of wish there was something that let the control room know how the gods were reacting to the situation in real time. Did they like how the 'whore' died? The jock? Did the like the boobs? Were they amused with how stupid people can be? Were they pissed off when something didn't go right? Who knows!?
ReplyDeleteOtherwise, I agree with Kissel on a lot about this interpretation. It's how I saw the movie, which definitely made it easier to get through and enjoy.
I feel like the reasons Drew and Bryan really disliked the movie were intentional and part of what made The Cabin In the Woods enjoyable. While it's technically a horror movie, it purposefully turned it around and mocked the genre and essentially told us... "studios can give give the masses shit, and they will be pleased!"
In the end, I'm landing on a B+. I couldn't give it an A- because the ending was a let down, and the Ancient Ones needed more for me. I teetered on a B grade, but I really did enjoy watching it and laughing at the control room, and being amused at the portrayal of the genre. Solid pick, Phil... glad I had to watch!
If this was a normal horror movie, it'd be a firm C-. No doubt. It was corny, violent and definitely wouldn't have passed the Bechdel Test. A horror movie, in my mind, probably won't ever receive an grade because they just aren't remotely probable and the actions of the bad guys most often vary between believable (gets you sucked in) and ridiculous, while the actions of the good guys are generally smart pople making dumb decisions, making an inconsistent mess that does nothing more than raise your heart rate. I'd rather drink a Red Bull and run a lap and I hate running.
ReplyDeleteHowever, this movie isn't a horror movie. It's a suspense movie with a horror movie inside that's built in a unique universe. It takes an interesting (mocking?) view on the horror genre and then scares us and makes us laugh at the same time. In the end, it did suffer from some bad scenes, mediocre acting and ridiculously convenient plot twists towards the end that prevent this movie from reaching full potential.
The Pros:
I'm really happy to see Eric from Billy Madison land on his feet. He was a bad guy, but he was probably good at his job. This position doesn't require any business ethics, so good for him.
Yes, the control guys were pretty fantastic in their roles. I liked the entire corporation scene, down to the intern's couple of one-liners. I can't recall who in the Side Piece article on disappointing movies mentioned how well Mike Judge captured the mundane, but I feel like they did well in grabbing that aura and applying to this job. It goes to the point, that no matter how cool or important your job is, ultimately it just becomes a job. It becomes a place to slack off and to joke around. Fantastic. Up until the end, the corporation scenes made sense and were well done.
I hated how they set up the campers into little roles until I learned that it was all intentional. Fuck me, I do love some self-aware movies (as anyone who ever watched one of my Musical Madness skits can attest to). I think it was fantastic and for them to admit that "they work with what they got" was pretty awesome as well. The stoner dude was pretty funny, though at times too much so. The ladies played their roles well, as did the fellas. I liked that they all showed that they were more than the one-dimensional characters they were supposed to be.
The monsters at the end were pretty awesome. It was hilarious seeing them all in one place. But, you'd think they would have been fighting each other. It was a great opportunity to see a Freddy-like character take on a Jason-like character. Regardless, the chaos was a bit amusing since it wasn't painfully gory except for a few parts.
Sigourney Weaver ftw!
The bad:
The plot suffered in the end. The utter lack of security issues were silly. The lack of organization was dumb. No way, even with a party, they leave all of those things unmanned. Ugh.
Dumb decisions by smart people... Why didn't Weaver have a gun? WTF?
Why did every place across the world run their events at the same time? Wouldn't it make more sense to do them sequentially? They're old gods, they're not generally omnipotent. No way they could watch all of that at once.
While I loved the Harbinger on the phone scene, it really did nothing to add to the movie other than to make me laugh. I thought it was going to mean something.
Also, why the fuck was her relationship with her professor ever mentioned? Did I miss something? Was that just a nod to classic horror movies that she's a forlorn lover?
In the end, this is probably a B- movie. Loved the premise and 2/3rds of the movie were well done. With a better, more consistent ending, this is a B+.
I think Sigourney Weaver was the boss upstairs that was mentioned a few times by Whitford and Jennings. It's just stunt casting for a goddess of science fiction to show up at the end. She was cast in the exact same way in Paul, a Simon Pegg/Nick Frost comedy from 2011.
ReplyDeleteGlad Bobby and Shane pointed out the half-assedness of the premise. There's so many holes in this million dollar idea that we've all got different questions. So much of the movie is contrived to get to the end with the giant hand coming out of the ground. It's like Whedon and Goddard dreamed up the ending first and worked backwards.
My guess on the 'virgin's' relationship with the professor was just to set up the eventual line of 'We work with what we have.' Maybe that character was a virgin when this group was initially selected and then had sex with the professor between then and the now of the movie.
It's a little counter-intuitive that most of us have such problems with the thrid act when that part is, I think, by far the most fun part. That little girl turning around slowly with her lamprey-face is such a great reveal, as is the Lord of Pain slowly coming out of the shadows. If Whedon and Goddard had been able to arrive at the same place more organically, that would have vastly improved the movie. What if instead, the saboteur was an actual character that had been possessed by the old gods and was ruining things on purpose? What if he released the monsters instead of that god-awful Purge button? The aftermath of the stupid events come so close to overcoming the stupid events themselves, but I just can't overlook them.
Yay, Bechdel test shout-out.
Kissel, keep in mind to fill those "holes" would require more time. I thought one of the big strengths of this movie was that it was barely 90 minutes. If I would've spent 120 minutes with this movie, I think I would've been in the B- range.
ReplyDeleteI was surprised how polarizing this movie was. I think a big part of all of our reviews depend on how we classified it. I don't think Bryan & Drew could break it out of horror, which is fine. I feel like Shane had the most similar experience to me, considering it a suspense. And I think Kissel gave the most fair review of the non-glowing reviews, conceding that it was a good premise, but just being annoyed by it.
I feel like all of us also thought the "reveal" of the ancients was a huge letdown. I don't know about you all, but I think I'm more conditioned for it to be something a little more interesting and down-to-earth. For a movie whose greatest strength was its clever premise, the ancients reveal seemed weak and tacked on.
Finally, Kissel, I wanted to call out something in your review. How do you knock the movie for being lazy with hillbilly zombies when the movie calls itself out for how unimaginative it is? Remember the betting scene - when the bettor asked who maintenance took, Whitford showed him, and the bettor responded that they always picked that. Whitford remarked that they have no imagination and that's why they're in maintenance. And sure enough, maintenance won the pool for which monster was summoned. You should have to move your grade up to a B- for this egregious error.
There should be a direct relationship between how long a movie is and how much material it has. If anything, I think Cabin in the Woods was too short, based on how much material it had. It's a good thing when a movie leaves you wanting more, but based on some of our complaints, this movie established a world with too much in it to be addressed.
DeleteOn the hillbilly zombies, I did forget about maintenance being lazy with its picks. I guess that's a reference to stuff like Texas Chainsaw Massacre and Hills Have Eyes, though I'm sure Phil could come up with something more accurate. However, is the value of that reference greater than seeing an Angry Molesting Tree in action or whatever Kevin was? I think no. Also, something that just occurred to me, it seemed like the Cabin was the actual home of the Buckners. How does that fit with everything else? Did the Cabin exist before the facility? Did every monster have some connection to the Cabin? Is this lake the Merman's ancestral home? This is what I'm talking about when I say the premise is too big for the movie.
Do we need to talk about Kevin? Anyway, bad joke only Kissel will get.
DeleteDo you really care about the answers to those questions? B/c I sure as shit do not. This actually could have been a ridiculous TV series set up, but I don't know how many people would have cared. And yes, not seeing the angry molesting tree was a real letdown.
Have you ever watched one of those Red Letter Media youtube videos about a movie with a bunch of plotholes? It's these two guys just asking each other a bunch of why questions. The answer is less important than the fact that those questions exist in the first place. This is going to get really nerdy, but The Sopranos got me started in thinking about the auteur theory, part of which states that anything in a movie or TV show was put there on purpose. Not every director thinks like that, but it's generally how I watch movies. If something that seems important or purposeful is in a movie, I'm going to notice it and expect something to come of it. Sometimes, this makes movies better. and other times, like with Cabin in the Woods, it makes them worse.
DeleteWhy would Kissel be the only one... that's actually the first thing I thought of when I saw the name. :-p
DeleteI have no clue how some of you think so deeply about this movie, makes me feel small.
ReplyDeleteShane, I thought for sure the monsters would fight each other. Huge letdown when they didn't.
Also, in your opinion, what separates horror from suspense?
ReplyDeleteI've got to really think about this. I started with horror takes place in a supernatural world, but that leaves out torture porn and home invasion types, which are very much horror. Maybe suspense aims higher, but that doesn't sound right, either. The Exorcism and The Shining are both horror, and widely regarded as masterpieces. Maybe horror is primarily aiming for scares, but there's no way Se7en is a horror movie and it still has pretty scary stuff in it. Looking at you, Sloth victim. Gotta really mull this over.
DeleteI feel like suspense is more about a payoff than a scare. While a horror film is more about more instant reactions to gore, scare tactics, etc.
DeleteI more or less agree with Bobby on this. Suspense is trying to make you tense, to relate to what's going on screen and make you nervous. It's suspending your emotions over a period of time.
DeleteHorror movies are purely about tapping into to fear. Fear isn't a sustainable emotion. It's what elicits fight or flight. So quick bursts of up and downs are the name of the game.
I agree with Kissel that the shortcomings could have been tightened up a bit with a little more time. Had they been able to build up the campers more and improved on their actual attacks and built a decent horror movie within the satire they would've knocked it out of the park.
ReplyDeleteI also agree that they had two options to go with the monsters at the end- since they're all in different cages they need to fight each other at the purge- if they're going to ignore each other and attack the controllers only then maybe instead of cages we see all the monsters hanging out in cafeteria like in the ending scene of Blazing Saddles with the great pie fight.
I don't think it was ever their intention to build a decent horror movie. Could they have? Probably - Joss Whedon has the track record to make one think he can write a "good" movie. But, I still thought it was bad by design, which is a risky move to take. As we can see in the reviews, it worked for some of us, and not so much for others.
DeleteSo you're saying they could have made it good but chose not to because their concept didn't require it. That's lazy filmmaking.
DeleteAnd as silly as that last part sounds you can't tell me seeing Merman and The Giant Molesting Tree playing cards with Kevin and a werewolf wouldn't be amazing
ReplyDelete