Entry 11: RE: "Avengers" - Apples and Oranges

Posted by: Chad Van Alstin

Before I begin, I must confess that I spaced out during your Galaga post. I'm sorry that one line -- one single line -- in the film made you that upset. It's almost as if your taking very tiny things and attempting to make them into something much larger.

I'm going to put this criticism next to your Power Rangers comparison. For shame! However, your "GalaGag" pun was excellent. I will give you props for that.

I'd like to clarify that my original message about The Avengers being the best Marvel movie was only meant to include the films that were part of its series. I'm not necessarily willing to compare The Avengers to Spider-Man 2 because, like I said, they're very different films. At the time I was just curious if you enjoyed it as much as Spider-Man 2, since I know you're very fond of the film.

I also meant no offense to Mr. Obama -- I just think that's the dumbest Spider-Man cover ever, and the image fit in with my argument of the Spider-Man films being all about cheese. The character exploration in Spider-Man is quite superficial, and done in slight tongue-in-cheek, as tends to be Sam Raimi's style.  Again, this is not a complaint -- it's an excellent style choice for a film series about a high school superhero.

The scene you mention with Spider-Man losing his mask on the train is an brilliant scene, and it's made even better by the steady hand of Sam Raimi. The Avengers contains no scenes like this because, again, it lacks a single protagonist.

Comparing the Spider-Man films to The Avengers, pointing out what Whedon's film lacks by making comparisons to the plot of the Spider-Man films, is disingenuous for a couple of reasons. First, because The Avengers has a completely different tone, and lacks that single focus. Spider-Man 2 is a character study about a single person; The Avengers is about putting already developed characters together.

Whedon makes a choice not to focus on drama, growth, or in-depth character development. Where you may see this as somehow lazy, I don't agree at all. I don't have a problem with Whedon going straight for pure entertainment. It was a damn good choice.

Also, thank you for making me aware of Underdog. I spent hours watching the cartoons, and hope to receive the DVD movie in the mail soon. It looks like quite the adventure. He's a very cute puppy.

Look, everyone already knows that the heroes will win in every superhero movie they see. James Bond never dies, and neither do superheroes. So, your "underdog" point is moot. However, I will address it for the sake of fairness -- what the hell are you talking about!?

Did you miss the part of the film where Iron Man lost power in space and began falling to the earth like a rock? How about the scene where a nuke was about to land on New York? I was really enjoying the suspense from these moments. I even had a small sigh of relief when Iron Man ended up being alive.

I have a question for you: are the scenes I mentioned somehow less significant than Magneto's mutant-creating ball of-energy device that is about to hit the United Nations building (as seen in X-Men (2000))? Did the scene in Spider-Man 2 where Doctor Octopus captures Mary Jane really affect you more than scenes from The Avengers?

Crazy. They are all on the same scale -- we know how it will turn out, but audiences enjoy suspending their disbelief in order to enjoy the experience. You need to learn do the same -- consistently.

With such a well-crafted film like The Avengers, you should be able to watch it with the same suspension of disbelief you had when you saw Iron Man; unless you were really more convinced that Iron Monger was going to crush Tony Stark into dust.

I just want to drive this home once more -- The Avengers is superbly well directed and photographed. This is a gorgeous film to look at. It's fun; it's funny; it evokes emotions from the part of me that always loved the larger-than-life grandness of superheroes. That's exactly what it was going for, and it sold that package perfectly. If Avengers was trying to be something that it's not, I would share a lot of your distaste for the film.  

Entry 8: RE: "Avengers" - He's a menace!

Posted by: Chad Van Alstin

While I am a huge fan of the Sam Raimi Spider-Man movies, they are quite different from The Avengers. I'll also agree that Spider-Man 2 is an incredible film, and definitely one of the greatest comic book movies ever made.

The Spider-Man films are fun, especially if you enjoy all the campy humor. Before you freak out -- I don't think this is a bad thing. The approach Raimi took was to play into the expectation of the audience. He gave the audience exactly what they think of when Spider-Man comes to mind.

All those sequences of people looking up and shouting Spider-Man's name, or those times Spider-Man stops for a second in front of an American flag -- It's camp! It's all fairly cheesy, but that's what those films were about. The Spider-Man films embrace super hero cliches, and they aren't ashamed to admit it.

The Avengers takes a completely different approach. While The Avengers is also very entertaining, the tone it goes for is much different. The Avengers wants re-design superheroes into the Hollywood action movie formula. Whedon wants these heroes to be cool, slick, and absolutely badass.

While both approaches are perfectly acceptable and work for their respected films, comparing the two is rather difficult. It's true that Whedon doesn't put in all the family death, quotes about heroism, and puberty that we get in the Spider-Man films. Again, just because it doesn't contain those elements doesn't mean the film is lacking them. You need to explain why Avengers needs these elements -- it seems to work fine without them.

If The Avengers focused too much on one character, one person's growth, then it wouldn't be about The Avengers. This movie is about all the heroes -- all the team members -- and how they came to work together. It doesn't need all the campy drama -- tug at you heart -- moments of Spider-Man 2. In fact, the result of that may have been disastrous.

And the Galaga joke...Yeah, that seemed to bother you a whole lot. My issue with the scene was that it didn't cut together correctly. My initial reaction was to think that Captain America was the one playing Galaga. This would have been much funnier, since he was frozen in ice and didn't get to experience video games. The scene was rather confusing, and it still didn't make sense to me the second time I saw the movie.

So, I agree that it isn't the funniest joke. Since you already admitted that most of the humor worked for you -- let's try and move past it. Together, if necessary. I'm here for you if you need me. I'm really sorry you have to experience it. To be fair, it was just one mediocre joke.

One more thing I have to point out, as evidenced for just how well-crafted this movie is on a technical level, is the continual shot that covers all the heroes as they battle in New York City. Granted, it's not a "real" camera shot -- definitely a digitally created shot. However, it's still quite an amazing sequence.

In one continuous shot the camera is able to move through New York and capture each of the Avengers doing battle. It's moments like this that solidify the purpose of this film -- to give the Avengers an origin story. To bring the team together, and to sell them to an audience as a single package that audiences will love. The Avengers moves the inherent "nerdyness" of a super hero team-up into the realm of something cool that  movie fans won't be ashamed to embrace. 

Entry 4: RE: "Avengers" - That Pesky F-Word

Posted by: Bradley Redder

Ack! Pthu! Ptui! (cough) (cough)... Aw, Chad, your words taste awful! Could you take them out of my mouth, please? If you're going to insist on inserting them in the future, at least have the courtesy to dip them in barbecue first. I never said that the Chitauri look exactly like a Power Rangers villain; what I said was they look like scrapped Power Rangers concept art. Much different. Much more belittling. And to be perfectly honest, I can't tell if you're being sarcastic with those pictures and claims or not, because it looks to me that if you take Goldar's chest armor off, you've got at least an Uncle of the Chitauri. And take a look at this guy...

If you animate this guy with CGI, he's a Chitauri. In all seriousness, this image is a Richard Linklater rotoscoping away from being that shot of a Chitauri that you posted. The leader on the mind-meld Transformers 2 planet even wore a goofy headdress like this one, so even if he and the Chitauri aren't exactly the same, they at least run in the same circles and buy from the same eBay seller. If you like them so much, I suggest you check out "gOoFyLoOkInGbUlLsHiT069's" eBay store immediately for some more cool stuff before Ivan and his Chitauri poker buddies snag it all up.

As for this fun you're so obsessed with, I wasn't having much of it. Yes, the characters are funny, but didn't it get tiresome? Didn't it start to get in the way? And is that all it takes for you to love someone, a laugh? I'm sure Saddam Hussein used to have some pithy one-liners; does that mean you love him too?

Okay. Invoking Saddam is maybe a little bit extreme, but I do so to add at least one formidable opponent to this discussion of a good-vs.-evil superhero film. The Avengers lacks a legitimate sense of danger, partially because its designated threat resembles baddies from a silly 90s after school toy advertisement. But what also holds it back is the fact that Whedon is afraid to go five lines of dialogue without a gut-buster. Yes, a lot of the jokes are actually funny, and the comedic timing of his actors is pretty remarkable, but unfortunately Whedon's own timing is off, inserting witty comments where they don't belong and ruining any tension he accidentally builds up when a few consecutive jokes miss the mark.

I'm all for fun, especially in a $220 million superhero team-up movie, but not at the expense of my taking any moment of it seriously. Fun here, as in Whedon's writing project, The Cabin in the Woods, only cheapens the experience as a whole, like when S.H.I.E.L.D. agents are playing fucking Galaga in the middle of a world-threatening crisis... Ugh. To relegate the responsibility of character development to the individual films leading up to this one, as you say Whedon does, only strengthens my case for its emptiness. Due simply to enthusiasm, your argument comes off as an endorsement for the film, but is essentially as condescending as my Power Rangers remark. Are you sure you don't agree with me that The Avengers is simply bloated and shallow? It sounds an awful lot like you do, especially now that I have you on my side about the goofy Chitauri.

Entry 3: RE: "Avengers" - The resemblance is uncanny.

Posted by: Chad Van Alstin

Separated at birth?

    

I now officially concede that the Chitauri look exactly like Goldar from Power Rangers. I guess I will have to try my very best to argue against your other equally well thought out positions.

At first I assumed you were just writing crazy, baseless, statements in order to make your review more entertaining to read. After doing my Mighty Morphin Power Rangers research, I now understand your position completely.

I will also agree with your point that Whedon uses humor to re-aquaint the audience with the characters. Yes, a lot of this is quite funny and entertaining. I can see how being entertained and laughing at this re-introduction would deserve your criticism.

Another tally for you, good sir!

Whedon spends a lot of time getting the audience acquainted with the characters -- helping them to love each character -- for a number of reasons, including to benefit those brand new to the series. While Avengers is connected to previous Marvel films, it's still a stand-alone experience.

I'll agree that most people who see The Avengers have probably seen all the preceding films. However, what if someone didn't like a particular film? What if someone really hated Thor, or thought Captain America was a terrible movie?

Some audience members could have a jaded view of the characters walking in; in which case it's Whedon's job to sell those characters to the audience. There's really no better way to do that than with laughter. The bickering between the heroes is quite entertaining, and it makes you love them all over again.

I understand your position that there is no real full story arc present here. There's also not a whole lot of growth for each hero emotionally. Again, I don't think that's a problem. The character study is for the individual films to take on. The purpose of The Avengers is to appeal to audience's sense of fun by making a really entertaining movie. The Avengers is not a place for all the drama of comic books; this is a place for the fun in comic books.

That sense of adventure I had as a kid -- loving superheroes because they seem so epic -- was brought back to me. I think that's Whedon's goal entirely; he wanted to create a film that focused the fun factor of superheroes. I think he accomplished his mission.

Entry 2: RE: "Avengers" - No Assembly Required

Posted by: Bradley Redder

Well to start, I too find no basis for saying that Whedon "claims the characters as his own," because I never said that, nor did I think it. And that is exactly the problem... He does nothing with them that we haven't seen before, aside from giving Tony Stark a new way to put on and take off his Iron Man suit. You say that each actor brings to the screen the character they developed in previous films, and Whedon's film simply brings them together; is that all you wanted from this film? Is that the "brainy" superhero film that everybody seems to be trumping this up to be? Snooze. I'd rather just buy the action figures from the separate films and put together the toy playsets to create my own world-saving scenarios.

I say these characters need an arc. If not individually, then at least as a group. The first act serves as a refresher into who that characters are, a very long time to spend on something you assume the audience is already familiar with, which is why I say this is an awkward experience. The Avengers is the first of its kind... How much can you assume people will know about these characters? And at the same time, given how much the film isn't actually about them individually, is using the first act to re-establish them one by one really an efficient way to open a two and a half hour film? I don't necessarily blame Whedon for not being able to handle it gracefully, but I can't just give him a pass on it, either, simply because there is no precedent informing how such a venture should be approached.

I'll also stand by my claim that Whedon uses humor as his instant character developer. Luckily a lot of the jokes are actually funny, or else this would go from bothersome to downright infuriating, but in lieu of giving these characters anything to actually do or figure out about themselves, he simply turns them into the Brat Pack and gives them a bunch of funny dialogue to gloss over how shallow they actually appear in this film. With the exception of Tony Stark, who is the perfect combination of wit and energy that Whedon seems to wish all of his characters could be, do you think you could come up with an adjective to describe any of these characters as portrayed in this film? I know they've been developed in other films, but do they actually embody what was conveyed in those films? (And if you say Bruce Banner is always angry I'm going to dropkick you in the face the next time I see you.) It looked to me like he was just trying to write six Tony Starks, giving all of the superheroes impeccable comedic timing, rather than something to really say, or even stand for. But more on the humor in another post.

So if this was really just bringing everyone together as you say, I still need something more. Though they do come together in the end, the group doesn't really grow in any way... They're pretty much the same going out as they were coming in. They bicker and fight each other along the way, which was very dull, and then are brought together by what was probably the cheapest, most cynical moment I've seen in a film this year (more on this, also, in another post), but it doesn't reflect any actual shift in perspective.

As for the Chitauri... Yes, I found them to be that silly. I wish I could find a picture from the sequence in which Loki does a mind-meld transportation to the Chitauri kingdom, so that I could put a picture of the remarkably similar sequences of The Fallen from Transformers 2, and to show how closely the character design and outfits resemble Power Rangers villains. I Googled them, and yes, they do look very similar. In the end, the army of Chitauri is a little bit different, but after that ridiculous introduction to them, there was no way I was ever going to take them seriously. Also, the very concept of this film, bringing together six distinct heroes into one ultimate fighting machine... Is it not another parallel to Power Rangers? Is the shot in which we finally see the Avengers assembled not essentially the same thing as the Rangers forming into the Megazord? Perhaps Joss Whedon is more firmly rooted in television than I thought. And perhaps you could elaborate on that "distinct visual style" you were talking about too, because all I saw was blah, meh, and so what.

Entry 1: RE: "Avengers" - You have got to be kidding me.

Posted by: Chad Van Alstin

Well, I don't know where to begin. I guess I'm not surprised by your rating; however, I am a little surprised by the way you tear the movie apart. It's actually a little bit difficult to take you seriously when you compare the villains in The Avengers to Power Rangers concept art -- really? Do you really believe they are that silly looking?

The Power Rangers featured terrible actors in terrible rubber suits. Even for its era it looked like total crap. While I may agree that the Chitauri are not the coolest looking alien race, it's hard for me to take your hyperbolic statement seriously. It's ridiculous.

I'm also baffled by your following comment: "Whedon wants these characters to be his, to belong to his film, yet he doesn't develop them in any way, instead relying on what five other films have done, and using funny dialogue as an instant character developer"

What does that mean? Whedon definitely wanted The Avengers film to have its own unique look -- his look -- but I don't find any basis for saying he wants to 'claim the characters as his own.' Each actor brings to the screen the character they played in the previous films. That's completely fine with me. Where the other films served to help develop the characters, this movie serves to bring them all together. 

I actually really respect that. The director of each individual film got to keep the character they wanted -- Whedon just brings it all together into a perfect package that he designed. Like it or not The Avengers is a product of a lot of other movies, it's not just Whedon's baby. Yet, he's able to give this film a distinct visual style and tone -- that's incredible! It's an incredible achievement. 

One area we can agree upon is that Tom Hiddleston does an excellent job playing Loki. It's his creditably as a villain that really helps sell the story for me. I'm glad we can find common ground there.

Chad's Take: "The Avengers" (2012) - 4 Stars

When Iron Man came to theatres in 2008, audiences were given a surprise. Those who were patient enough to wait until the credits finished rolling were treated to an additional scene, which served to hype a film featuring a Marvel superhero team-up. Five films and four years later, The Avengers (2012) has final arrived. While it may seem impossible to live up to such an extraordinary level of hype, Marvel's The Avengers completely exceeds all expectations, and may very well be the greatest superhero film ever made.

Tying many of the Marvel film franchises together is quite an ambitious project; one that I admit I had my doubts about. I wasn't originally a fan of the hidden "Easter egg" scenes that served as promotional ploys for The Avengers film -- which at the time seemed only like a fantasy. I felt as though connecting all the film franchises together cheapened each movie's unique experience, and in the event that The Avengers was terrible, it would taint those films completely.

While each Marvel film leading up to The Avengers had its own stand-alone value, I still can't help but feel as though each was made with future installments in mind. Through end credit scenes and some crossover characters, each film is linked together -- often in ways that came off as a little silly. 

Brad's Take: The Avengers - **

Well after waiting four years and watching five feature-length trailers, The Avengers lands with a thud not unlike Thor's hammer hitting the ground. Okay, it's not quite that bad, but it's not all that good, either. And like Thor without his hammer, it just doesn't hit with the power it has the potential to. At two and a half hours, half-cocked just doesn't cut it, especially when much of the most impressive set-piece looks as though it was cobbled together with unused footage from Transformers 3, with an extra-terrestrial menace flying in through a sky-portal opening from another world and attacking a metropolitan area.

The Avengers was directed by Joss Whedon, who is most known for his television work as creator of Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Firefly, and at times it feels like he never left TV behind. It almost feels small, though it's smallness on a very grand scale. That's not a thought I initially had walking out of the theater, given that it ends with a forty minute action sequence that is for the most part well-done, despite the comparisons to Transformers 3. But thinking back on it, there really isn't much there. The bulk of it takes place on a flying aircraft carrier which, aside from the awesome ridiculousness it provides at first sight, is actually pretty bland on the inside. Every room on the ship is either incredibly bright or incredibly dark, and not in a stylistic, moody way. It even comes complete with a command center stocked with faceless young people in one-piece uniforms who monitor a bunch of graphs and stuff on fancy touch-screens... What I wouldn't give to never have to see another one of these in a movie again.

And the writing reflects this feeling of smallness. It's plot is about as loose as it gets... S.H.I.E.L.D., the agency controlled by Nick Fury, who will assemble the Avengers, possesses an energy cube that can open a portal to another world. The film opens as Loki, the brother of and villain from Thor comes through it to Earth, steals it, and intends to use it to transport an alien race that will destroy the planet for some reason that, like the alien race itself, is never explored in any way. That's it. The rest is the heroes on the ship trying to track Loki and the cube down. A loose plot is acceptable, but it also fails to give any of the characters a story arc, barely even giving one to the group as a whole. They spend the middle of the movie not getting along; two of the four action set-pieces involve the heroes fighting each other. It feels as though these pieces were tacked on because Whedon and co. had a lot of extra money lying around and had to quickly come up with a way to spend it, as do some other unnecessarily show-offy moments. And if we've learned anything from previous Marvel films, it's that good guys fighting good guys is not at all interesting. There are no stakes involved; we know nothing will come of it. Watching these sequences is like sifting through all of the Bit-O-Honeys and Mary Janes in your Halloween haul while looking for the Snickers and Kit-Kats. The team doesn't actually assemble until the end of the film, and only after an almost offensively cynical turn of plot that I won't reveal.

It's a strange experience to watch The Avengers. It's sort of the first of its kind, being at once the first film in its series and also a pseudo-sequel to several others, and I wasn't sure exactly how to take it, nor am I sure Whedon knew exactly how to navigate it. After a cheap opening action sequence, Whedon spends the first act refreshing us on all of the characters, even though we've seen half of them as recently as nine months ago. Though it's a mostly solid forty minutes, it doesn't really tell us much that we don't know already, and that's my biggest issue with this film... Either through an inherent limitation in its concept or lack of imagination, it builds nothing of its own. Whedon wants these characters to be his, to belong to his film, yet he doesn't develop them in any way, instead relying on what five other films have done, and using funny dialogue as an instant character developer. Worst of all: he misses the opportunity to show us anything at all about Hawkeye and Black Widow, the two non-super heroes belonging to the Avengers who have what I am estimating to be a combined eleven minutes of screen time in the films leading to this one. Beyond the assumption I made based on his name and the bow-and-arrows he carries, I knew nothing of Hawkeye going into this film, and coming out of it I still know nothing. I can offer no adjective, no description of his character outside of saying he is a good shot (and even that is not always accurate).

As much of it as I found disagreeable, The Avengers is far from unbearable. Tom Hiddleston as Loki is nothing short of brilliant. In the few scenes in which he really gets to come out and play, he is fantastic, a perfect villainous turn... menacing enough to hate the character, but entertaining enough to love that he is in the film. Unfortunately he gets a little lost in the shuffle throughout the third act's nonstop action and his philosophical reasoning for his actions, that he is trying to free people of the burden of freedom, is left undeveloped. And Whedon is able to inject humor into almost any scene, and his writing style is perfectly suited to Robert Downey Jr.'s cocky, fast-talking Tony Stark. In the stretches when it does take off, The Avengers can be very fun, if you just let the action and humor wash over you without really thinking about it too closely. It is pretty entertaining to watch six characters show off their respective unique powers and talents in a large scale battle with aliens... If only the whole movie could have delivered this.

Whedon's humor keeps the film's tone light, though a little too light for my taste. I find myself surprised to say that most of the jokes land, but some of them in very awkward places. Whedon co-wrote The Cabin in the Woods, which I felt suffered from its abundance of wit, and The Avengers is no different, with the humor sometimes stumbling over itself in an attempt to build on a joke, and always blocking any kind of tension or legitimate sense of danger from developing. It certainly doesn't help that the villainous alien race looks like it was inspired by discarded Power Rangers concept art, but even if I could take them seriously, Whedon never lets me think for a second that they are a worthy opponent to his Avengers, and two and a half hours is a long time to spend stomping on ants.

Entry 4: RE: "Cabin" - Chill Out.

Posted by: Chad Van Alstin

Settle down, Brad. There's no reason to be that upset over a film that doesn't present itself as anything more than mere entertainment. I don't see there being a buildup to anything beyond a promise that Cabin in the Woods will be a really strange movie -- and that promise was kept, even if I didn't always like it.

With a film like this, the fact that I laughed isn't enough to earn it a perfect rating, but it counts for something. This isn't on the same level as films like Scream or Drag Me To Hell, both of which are done with a sophisticated level of filmmaking not seen here.

This isn't to say that Cabin is poorly made -- that wouldn't be a fair statement. I just think that Cabin went for some cheap laughs, and other films in the genre take a much darker approach. Black comedy is present in Cabin in the Woods, but certainly not to the degree of the Evil Dead or Scream series.

I suppose your point about classifying this as "horror" is correct, but I don't think that's really important. I'm not a huge fan of genre classifications in general, and I use the 'horror-comedy' label only to set a point of reference. 

A film like Army of Darkness doesn't contain any scares, but most people will still classify it as a horror film. This is probably largely due to the supernatural subject matter. I follow suit only to give a point of reference, though I agree that most people won't find Cabin in the Woods to evoke any emotions normally associated with horror. Unless of course they are really made uneasy by gore, since Cabin has a ton of that.

Entry 2: RE: "Cabin" - We're all on the same side.

Posted by: Chad Van Alstin

I think you and I agree more thank you think, Brad. I'm just more willing to interpret my laughter as meaning I was entertained by the film -- I think you should do the same. Look, this is far from a perfect movie, but I really had enough fun to justify my 3 Star rating.

It's true that I love horror-comedy films. I am a huge fan of the Evil Dead series, and I think Cabin in the Woods has some of that charm. So, yes, I praise the film for its finer moments, but I do take issue with the total anarchy in the second half.

Your criticism of the final act is correct; I just didn't find it funny either. I think we are in agreement there.  The humor started moving in a direction more befitting of an episode of Aqua Teen Hunger Force. The laughs certainly slowed down for me when the gore and clever dialogue was replaced with  "dude, that's so random" stoner laughs.

For me the moment where I felt the movie really went downhill was the sequence where we find the characters riding in a magic elevator, heading to the HQ of their puppet masters. This sequence, and the scenes that follow, are what I was referring to when I said that I felt the writers wrote themselves into a corner.

What the hell was all of that about? It's after the elevator ride that all the random chaos started happening. It just feels like they had no idea how to tie the stories together, and really didn't have a clue how to end the film. It was all rather unnecessary and annoying.

So, let me be clear: my praise of the film comes packaged with complaints. There's a whole lot wrong with Cabin, but I still had fun while the good times lasted. I can't recall another movie this year that had me laughing in the theater.

My rating reflects my level of enjoyment -- I had fun watching this movie.
                        

Chad's Take: "The Cabin in the Woods" - 3 Stars

The tagline to The Cabin in the Woods implies a level of deception: “You think you know the story.” I can honestly say that this film did not meet my expectations, though I did really enjoy it. It’s true that the story of teenagers isolated in a woodland setting, only to picked off by evil beasties, isn’t exactly a new idea for the horror genre. Luckily, the film doesn’t follow any formula very closely.

There have been several recent releases in the horror-comedy genre, most of which are satirical representations of classic horror formulas. When I arrived at the theater I expected to see a parody film along the lines of Drag Me to Hell or Wes Craven’s Scream. While it’s true that I was treated to some bloody laughs, Cabin in the Woods is not done in the same vein as the films listed above.

I think it is fair to classify Cabin as a horror-comedy offshoot, but saying that doesn’t describe the unique approach fully. It’s really hard to describe Cabin in the Woods, but I think that’s exactly what the filmmakers were going for.

So, what’s it about? Well, it’s really hard to say. The narrative features a story riddled with conspiracy and murder, all of which is presented in an extremely light-hearted tone. On the surface it seems like this is all adding up to a shocking “twist” of an ending. Without spoiling anything, I can promise you that this isn’t the case.