Cabin in the Woods: Trying Too Hard and Hardly Satisfying

Last Friday, after years of delays and secrecy, Joss Whedon and Drew Goddard’s highly anticipated Cabin in the Woods was released in theaters.

Delayed due to financial issues at its original home, MGM, the film had an uphill battle making it to multiplexes. MGM originally pushed the release back, citing that they wanted to convert the film to 3D – Whedon and Goddard were vocal in not wanting the conversion to be done. Then, when the studio filed for bankruptcy and the film was shelved. Finally, last year Lionsgate picked up the film and firmly set an April 2012 release date.

What was unleashed on audiences is more a send up of the old cabin in the woods horror films like The Evil Dead and Cabin Fever than a straight out horror film. Whedon, who co-wrote with Goddard -- the film's director, is no doubt one of the marquee names attached to the film thanks to his rabid fanbase. The writers have taken the basic premise that has been seen time and again – a group of friends, all very much horror movie archetypes, visit the titular cabin for a weekend of fun and debauchery. What they didn’t plan on is being attacked by a family of torturous zombies (they aren’t just regular zombies, you see). Acting as a group of voyeurs with the ability to pull the strings on the co-eds is a shadow underground group who are working to stop the end of the world from happening.

“Cabin” has a promising set up; take a well tread horror subgenre and turn it on its head. There’s even plenty of good execution here. But you are going to know what’s happening before it does, thanks to the film’s less than subtle filmmaking. Had the film ended about 15 minutes earlier it would have actually left a better taste in my mouth. Once the surviving characters discover the shadow organization, things quickly go downhill devolving into an all-out shit show (WARNING: minor spoilers) as various mythical creatures and monsters go on a rampage against the group that has controlled them. A surprise cameo by Sigourney Weaver, however, is a welcome inclusion – though she seems to be taking a page from Blair Brown’s wardrobe and acting on “Fringe.”

With a running time of just 95 minutes, the film is short even by horror film standards. Trying to pack in the additional punch of a shadow conspiracy, “Cabin” isn’t left with enough time to fully develop any of the characters past their well-known horror cliché. The only feeling the audience can except to gain for the characters is due to the well-cast actors, all virtual unknowns when filming occurred back in 2009. The delay in release will actually serve the film well with increased profiles by Chris Hemsworth (Thor, The Avengers) and Jesse Williams (TV’s Grey’s Anatomy).

But with any good film, regardless of the genre, in order to get audiences fully invested they need to be rooting for the characters. Even the stoner (played by Fran Kranz), who is supposed to serve as comic relief throughout, actually walks the line that could easily make him grating on some viewers. The stoner/fool character is usually a supporting or minor character (i.e. Randy in the Scream series) for a reason. Bringing them to the forefront can be a little too much of a good thing, as it were.

Speaking of the “Scream” series, which most critics have seemed unable to leave out of their reviews for “Cabin in the Woods.” The horror franchise made its name by examining the slasher film conventions, but when the latest entry, Scream 4, was released it was criticized for being too meta. The same can be said here, which doesn’t hide its meta-ness. The shadow organization, and more specifically the puppet masters played by Bradley Whitford and Richard Jenkins, is a not so subtle nod at the audience. The subtext is that they are giving us what we want to see. After all, films that are being targeted here wouldn’t be made if we didn’t buy tickets to see them right? Does “Cabin” actually give us what we want to see? That’s a question that is still to be answered.

“Cabin in the Woods” seems to want its cake and eat it too. It is marketed as a horror movie, but wants t0 be known as a comedy. Perhaps that is the film’s problem. It is unable to maintain a tone, whether it be a darkly comedic one or as a thriller. This is no doubt due, at least in part, to Whedon who has previously walked the line on TV’s Buffy, the Vampire Slayer among others.

When leaving a showing last night, I asked a friend whether she would have liked the film as much if Joss Whedon has been an uncredited co-writer. She refused to answer the question directly, rather suggesting that the film wouldn’t have turned out the same had he not been on the film. Many of those who are pre-disposed to the Whedon-verse will love the film, but is that enough to make it mainstream hit worthy of the hype and buzz that came prior to release?

Magic Mike: Who's the Joke Really On?

I interviewed Gina Gershon a handful of years ago and brought up the topic of Showgirls. Before I even asked my question, she knew what was happening and jokingly asked, “Don’t do it. Just don’t.” The actress said that even a decade after the infamous film was released; every interview ends up coming back to it. Is Hollywood about to release its second cult favorite stripper movie?

The idea sounded like an off the cuff comment that would never go anywhere. Channing Tatum turning his time as a stripper into a film titled Magic Mike. Tatum isn’t exactly the shyest, most buttoned up actor. He is who he is and doesn’t have a problem letting fans know where his roots lay. But things got really interested when the up and coming actor got some pedigree behind him. Steven Soderbergh signed on to direct and a who’s who’s of male hotties agreed to strip down. An all-star male lineup that includes Matthew McConaughey, Matt Bomer, Joe Manganiello, Alex Pettyfer, and Adam Rodriguez will be dropping trou and shaking what their mama’s gave them.

So, regardless what anyone might think this movie is happening. Not only is it happening, but it is being released at the high of the summer movie season. Warner Bros. announced in the last week that Magic Mike will be unspooled to theaters on June 29th. This shows that Warner Bros. also has confidence that this could be a huge hit. Maybe, they are looking to get bachelorette parties coming to theaters instead of actual strip clubs during the summer wedding season. This could also be one of the biggest unintentionally gay films ever made!

Filming is now done and by January there will probably be a trailer available. But it’s still hard to take this seriously as happening. I’m waiting for Soderbergh to admit in an interview that we’re all being punk’d. His track record shows that this probably won’t be the case. This is the director who has gone against normal convention with films like Bubble and The Girlfriend Experiment.

Magic Mike has tons of buzz and hype, but will that translate into box office? Movies like Snakes on a Plane have shown that buzz can be deceptive, especially since a lot of Magic Mike's buzz has been about how much of the guys', um, talent will be on display. Ultimately, it will depend on the tone of the film. Have Tatum and Soderbergh gone the dramatic route or is it going to be a comedy, as listed on IMDB? Depending on what sound bite you listen, it could go either way.

You know what would really make the film shine? A sex scene set in a pool. Perhaps even a winking cameo by Gina Gershon warning the guys that stripping will follow them for the rest of their lives -- at least for the next decade or so, anyway.

Scream 4: What Went Wrong?

This year has not been kind to the box office. Theater revenues have been down for most of the year. Even though the summer receipts increased, it was the lowest attended summer season since 1997. Once of the most unexplainable disappoints of the year was “Scream 4.” It was released with high expectations and hype, but upon release the film landed with a thud. Its domestic gross was less than half the previous film and, at $38 million, it didn’t even cover the production budget.

While “Scream 4” wasn’t as well received critically as its predecessors, it didn’t get trashed either. There was also some behind-the-scenes drama with writer Kevin Williamson leaving the film that had people questioning the quality of the film. But when the celluloid hit the screen it received mostly favorable reviews from fans.

It’s the best of the sequels, but “Scream 4” does have its faults. With the film being released in DVD this past week, I am taking a more critical look at the film’s shortcomings.

Know the Rules, Don’t Be Cynical About Them

The original film laid out the rules to successfully survive a horror movie. That was 15 years ago. The characters in the film are savvier and have grown up in a world where everyone knows how to make it into the last reel. But most of the characters, from Jenny in the opening scene to Robbie and Olivia, they are not just aware of what to do, but are now also completely cynical about the rules that have been seen again and again in movies.

When the murders started happening, the characters aren’t actually scared to be mutilated. If the characters don’t have a fear of being killed, then how is the audience supposed to be frightened? In the opening scene alone, Jenny gets a call from the killer. When she realizes it’s not a friend playing a joke, you would think the terror might have set in. Instead, she retorts to him, “I have a 4.0 GPA and 135 IQ, asshole.” As of doing well on her geometry test will keep her alive. Less than two minutes later she is hiding behind a door that opens outward and gets stabbed in the back – literally.

Too Many Characters, Too Little Time

In movies like the “Scream” series, having extra characters serve as red herrings are necessary to keep the audience guessing. But when you have 6 victims in the opening, 6 teenaged friends, 3 returning characters, and 5 adult characters that need to have screen time in a film that runs 111 minutes, it’s going to get tight. Williamson and ghostwriter Ehren Kruger do their best to deliver personality to the characters, but that’s a lot to serve. Sure, it also gives the film a body count of 15 – a series record. But there is too much going on in the film.

Survivors Keep Surviving

Gale, Sidney and Dewey are the “Scream” series. Having survived 15 years and multiple attacks, they are all survivors. But how much suspense is there when there is an underlying, unspoken rule that none of them will be killed. It has long been known that Sidney wouldn’t get killed since she is “the last girl.” But the filmmakers have painted them into the corner with a trio of last girls.

For a film series that is known for breaking the rules, what better way to prove that than by killing the last girl?

Despite its faults, “Scream 4” is a fun film and has some good scares in it. While in development Williamson said that he was looking forward to making another trilogy for the series. Word from the Weinstein Company is that they are interested in continuing the series. Hopefully for the next film, they will lock the script in before the cameras begin to roll.

Scream of the Day: Elise Neal

When Elise Neal was cast in the high profile sequel to Scream, she hit the acting equivalent of winning the lottery. By getting cast as Sidney’s best friend Hallie, Neal immediately got an elevated profile in Hollywood. It was a film that every starlet was (no pun intended) dying to get a role.

For Neal, Scream 2 was just one of the four roles that she in 1997. Despite getting the additional exposure, the actress took a turn to the small screen the following year with a leading role as D.L. Hughley’s sitcom, The Hughley’s. The show was not a huge hit, lasting for four years. Once it ended she rebounded with another sitcom, All of Us, produced by Will Smith and Elise’s Scream 2 co-star Jada Pinkett-Smith.

Moving on from her sitcom roles, Neal has worked steadily jumping between supporting roles in films like Hustle and Flow and, more recently, The Love Ranch. She also recently appeared on the NBC show The Cape.

Branching out from just acting, Elise Neal also helped to create the R&B group Assorted Flavors. Last year, she also gave an interview to TV One claiming that the Pussycat Dolls’ song “Don’t Cha” was originally hers, which was performed in Neal’s cabaret act, until lead PCD singer Nicole Schrezinger stole it. Schrezinger hasn’t responded to the claims.

Scream of the Day: Matt Keeslar

The most maligned of the Scream trilogy, Scream 3 took more of a comedic tone than outright trying to scare the audience. Part of the problem was the high bar standard set by the previous films, and the introduction of new writer Ehren Kruger to the series because creator Kevin Williamson was unable to return.

Though uneven at times, Scream 3 does have some fun characters to add to the stable from the previous films. Taking on the role of Tom Prinze, indie actor Matt Keeslar helped close out the trilogy. Tom was playing the role of Dewey in the latest Stab sequel and was also the most ambivalent about the happenings surrounding the cast as they begin to get picked off one by one.

Keeslar moved from Adrian, Michigan to New York City to attend the prestigious Juilliard School. Though Juilliard frowns upon working as an actor while in school, Keeslar began to quickly rack up roles in movies like Quiz Show and Renaissance Man. Eventually he was forced to drop out of Juilliard after his third year due to the demand for him.

Keeslar, who had already garnered indie cred with roles in Waiting for Guffman, Last Days of Disco, and Psycho Beach Party, has leading man good looks that made him a perfect fit for the role of Hollywood star Prinze. He scored a one-two punch in 2000 with the release of Scream 3 and the television remake of Dune. With the exception of the occasional big role like his starring role on ABC FAmily's The Middleman or Stephen’s King’s Rose Red, Keeslar has been taking guest appearances on hit shows and using his good looks to star in made-for-TV romantic comedies. He most recently appeared on TNT’s Leverage.