REVIEW - THE CABIN IN THE WOODS

Bringing something “new” to the horror genre is pretty tough these days. Everything’s been done and most of that stuff had already been done before it was ever done in the first place.

Does that make any sense? It made sense in my head.

In any case, it’s a rare and wonderful thing when a horror film comes along that dares to break the mold, even just a teensy bit. It just so happens that The Cabin In the Woods is one of those movies. Written by Joss Whedon (Avengers, Serenity) and Drew Goddard (Cloverfield) and directed by Goddard, the movie tells the age-old story of a group of kids who head to the mountains for a weekend of relaxation, liquor, and some youthful teenage nakedness. (Which really is the best kind of nakedness.) Not long after the teens arrive they’re attacked by some creepy stuff and a lot of blood is spilled.

Wait, no…that’s not at all what it’s about.

Well, I guess it is…sort of.

Does that make any sense? Probably not.

From the opening scene of The Cabin in the Woods it’s pretty obvious there’s a hell of a lot more going on than my standard two-sentence retelling of the synopsis of almost every American horror film of the last thirty years might suggest. The Cabin in the Woods is a deceptively smart flick. It’s fresh and it’s different, and manages to be fresh and different while remaining wholly aware of audience expectations. The movie zigs when it’s supposed to zag. Midway through the zig it does a little jig, and before it finishes the jig it does something else that rhymes with both zig and jig.  

Munches on a fig?

No, it doesn’t munch on a fig. That’s stupid. It’s very lazy writing on my part. Amateur hour. I shouldn’t have typed it and I certainly shouldn’t be calling attention to it like I am. If The Cabin in the Woods did munch on a fig though, it would munch on a fig pretty awesomely.

For the most part the cast is solid. Hemsworth is good. Fran Kranz is good. Anna Hutchison’s booty shorts and accompanying booty are, of course, highlights. The ensemble seems completely on board with the wonderful absurdity of it all, moving from cheeky humor to hysterical confusion with relative ease.

As far as sophomore efforts go, this is a pretty decent outing for Goddard. While I certainly appreciated the strength of the visuals in Cloverfield the story left me mostly underwhelmed and ultimately seemed like a mish-mash of decent moments than a complete film. With The Cabin in the Woods the man has something to work with story-wise and it’s heightened his game.

The real star of the film is the script. It’s fun, and it’s interesting, and it’s unexpected in a genre where unexpected is a rarity these days. I know it sounds corny as hell, but it’s a breath of fresh air. I’m not getting any younger. These eyes of mine have seen a lot of horror films over the years. I’ve watched human beings get mangled and disfigured in just about every way a human being can get mangled and disfigured. I’ve seen a lot of boobs and nearly 100% of them were splattered with blood at some point. Basically it takes an awful lot to really surprise me.

The Cabin in the Woods surprised me.

Sure, it’s not Citizen Kane or The 400 Blows. It’s not going to make you take a long hard look at your life and the people around you, or reconsider your place in the universe. It’s not exactly an art house flick, but at the same time it sort of it. It’s art house without the curly mustache. It’ll make you smile. In fact, if you’ve seen as many mangled bodies and blood-splattered boobs as I have it’ll make you smile even more. You’ll get the references, you’ll understand the jokes, and you’ll see the point of the wonderful insanity of it all.

If you haven’t done so already, this one is worth checking out.

-STEVEN

REVIEW - THE HUNGER GAMES

Before I get into this I feel like I should make it clear that I’ve never read any of the Hunger Games trilogy from Suzanne Collins, and honestly, I don’t have any plans to in the future. Maybe those books are awesome. Maybe they answer every nitpicky thing I found annoying about the movie in a way that would blow my damn mind. Maybe they have everything I felt the movie was lacking and then some. Maybe they’re the absolute greatest books in the history of books. I dunno. It’s possible. I guess? This isn’t a review of the books. Nor is it a review of the fantastic multi-media book/movie experience. It’s just a review of the movie. That’s all. Nothing more.

Basically what I’m saying is don’t come back at me with the “well, if you’d read the books you would know…” thing. I hate that thing. The movie should stand on it’s own as an experience. Tossing that line my way will get you stitches, sucka.  It’ll get you a sandwich of the knuckle variety. It’ll get you a Katniss arrow in the butt cheek. It’ll get you a magic fireball in the face. It’ll get you a Peeta…

Um…

Actually it won’t get you anything Peeta related because Peeta is basically an ineffectual doofus.

I don’t hate The Hunger Games.

There’s a sentence I never expected to write.

Actually, I think it’s a pretty decent flick.

There’s another one.

It’s not the greatest movie I’ve ever seen. There are still a few frustrating plot holes and there are things that bugged me. It doesn’t have the conviction to really sink its teeth into any of the ideas it brings up, and instead settles for a glossed over, obvious, and mostly silly solution, but it’s certainly nowhere near what I would call a bad movie.

Set in a future where a single boy and girl from twelve “districts” are chosen to battle to the death on live television, the film tells the story of a girl named Katniss Everdeen who takes her sisters spot in the latest version of the “Hunger Games” and does her damndest to not only make it out alive, but shake up the system as well. It’s fairly straightforward. The class warfare stuff is laid on pretty thick. The voyeuristic reality television stuff is even thicker. I don’t mind any of that. In fact, I was really sort of digging the movie early on. Sure, it’s obvious, but so what? Obvious doesn’t have to be a bad thing. It’s corny, but at least it has a point. I actually enjoyed that the wealthy elite all looked like they’d been digging through Lady Gaga’s wardrobe. It makes sense.

In fact, now that I think about it an obviously talented, yet oversimplified and unfortunately polished for mass consumption mess of a performer like Gaga has a lot in common with this movie.  But I’ll get to that later.

I’ve read some complaints about the way Gary Ross directed this thing, and honestly, I don’t understand them. Truthfully, I think he might have been the only thing keeping the movie together. If nothing else the man understands pacing – mostly. He does an adequate job of building tension where tension needs to be built and despite a few notable flubs and eye-rollingly poor CGI sequences here and there, visually the movie looks solid. Jennifer Lawrence is decent in the lead as well.

She’s a puffy-faced dynamo that one.

I can’t really say the same about the rest of the cast. I’m looking at you Liam Hemsworth. Bigger role in the sequel? That’s gonna be rough.

The character of Peeta was not only a letdown, but might be the most worthless, wimpy sack of nothing in the history of the movies. Dude was essentially a futuristic version of Mr. Magoo. His biggest win was confusingly convincing some of the other contestants to “wait her out” when Katniss was up in a tree for the fifteenth time. Good job, kiddo. Ten minutes later he’s about to chug back some poison berries with an idiotic grin, literally turning himself into a rock in order to hide, and falling ass-backward in love with a girl that is mostly into him because the situation calls for it. If future movies decide to take the “love triangle” route I’ll be sad. Enough with the love triangles, people. I’d rather have seen the hapless dork chug back those berries and choke on a mouth full of poison.

The magic fireballs, super mosquitoes, and hologram dogs didn’t exactly fall into the column of “awesome stuff” either, but whatever. They were goofy, the whole thing was goofy, so what? Even if it was difficult to take the technology or the…ug…training sequences seriously at least they worked within the framework of the film. 

At it’s most basic I suppose my biggest issue with The Hunger Games is one of missed opportunities. It’s a hodgepodge of ideas that have been done before and done better. It’s watered down. It’s simple. It tackles significantly complex issues through the eyes of a twelve year old. That doesn’t make it a bad movie though. It is what it is and it’s not really anything more. Which is fine. I guess.

I’d love to have seen an adult version of The Hunger Games. I won’t get to, but it would have been nice. As it stands this is a kid’s movie. Everything is delivered in easily digestible bites. It’s a gateway drug for youngsters who might one day, hopefully, be interested in seeking out films with similar themes that also have a bit more depth to them.

I actually think the world needs more movies like The Hunger Games.

This movie is certainly a hell of a lot better than the other big thing the kids and the soccer moms galore seem to be drooling over these days. Twilight is a movie for dunderhead, boy-obsessed nincompoops who want to leave their brain in the car when they head into the theater. You’ll need your brain for The Hunger Games. You don’t necessarily have to bring put it in your head, but you’ll have to buy it a ticket and you’ll need to bring it in with you. You can keep it on you lap.

Maybe you can set your drink on it.

-STEVEN

For a second opinion check out John's HUNGER GAMES REVIEW