Cabin In The Woods: Waiting In The Theater

We've seen Cabin In The Woods receiving glowing, gushing, gooey reviews left and right.

And now, we've seen Cabin In The Woods.

And we're wondering why - on both accounts.

To say that it has a slow start is an understatement rarely surpassed.

To say that it is an homage to other "kids go on trip into woods only to be butchered by freaks" movies is a gross misstatement.  It IS a "kids go on trip into woods only to be butchered by freaks" movie.

Granted, it has an extra plot point that adds to this hackneyed story line.

The fatal flaw of this new wrinkle is that it doesn't truly get underway until the final reel.

GETTING to that point in the flick is agonizingly, annoyingly, all-too-familiarly long in coming.

And once it finally does arrive, we can only guess that the vast majority of folks will be as equally disappointed as were we.

One cannot dangle a carrot in front of a mule for the duration of plowing the back 40 and expect said mule to be overjoyed upon discovering that it is, in fact, a baby carrot behind a magnifying glass.

Even if the carrot were the most delicious vegetable on the face of the earth, the mule would still be pretty pissed off that it was forced to work so hard for it.

Such is the case with Cabin In The Woods.

The "payoff" of the movie's twist, while visually impressive, happens so quickly, and is over so very soon that we would equate it to waiting for several hours in blistering heat for a thrill ride that lasts for about two minutes.

To heck with that, we say.  We'll be over at Storybook Land.

But for the moment, we'll trudge back to Cabin In The Woods... if we haaaaave to...

The purpose behind the BRAND NEW, SUPER-EXCITING, BLOWIN' YER  MIND plot point (heavy sarcasm) is a flagrant ripoff of an author whose work, in our opinion, has never been done justice by any filmmaker.  ANY.

Were we to name the author, it might spoil the experience for anyone willing to sit through the first 17 hours of this rehashing of a cinematic dead horse that has been kicked so many times, it is now nothing more than a stain in dusty, hard-packed earth.

If you are absolutely COMPELLED to see Cabin In The Woods, don't blame us.  We warned you.

Worthy to note, the Rubik's Cube illustration of a creepy cabin shown in the advertising materials is the most inventive visual connected with this movie (see below).

Feisty Media Critic's review:  WASTE OF CELLULOID

[ROLL CREDITS]

The Most Sought-After Cabin In The Woods

The Cabin In The Woods

Horror • Thriller

95 mins.

"Five friends go for a break at a remote cabin in the woods, where they get more than they bargained for. Together, they must discover the truth behind the cabin in the woods."

Ohhhhhhh, boy...

SOUNDS like THE most hackneyed over-kicked dead horse of a plot in the history of the genre, yet research would indicate it could tear the roof off the suckah.

I think I want to see it.  But I've yet to make a final decision.

At the moment, I am doing my best to remind myself that MARKETING puts together things like "official movie websites."

Why would this be so important to bear in mind?

Take a look and tell me what you think...

Something is fishy in this state of Denmark, and it's NOT the danishes.

Is someone trying to justify a large budget for actors' fees?

Are we to be convinced that mountains were moved to assemble a cast that would ordinarily garner a lukewarm and polite round of applause?

I don't know.

What I do know is that I find it more than a bit disquieting when a movie's official website cribs from itself for actors' references.

I will keep an eye out for this movie, and am hoping that my expectations will be met, if not exceeded.

But so help me, if it turns out to be the type of film that MUST CONSTANTLY REMIND ME HOW TALENTED ITS ACTORS ARE on its website in order to show me a taste of its quality, I'm gonna be one seriously ticked-off media critic.

[ROLL CREDITS]

(By the way, if you picked up on references to The Bard here, it is because virtually every cast member's bio is padded liberally with any appearances they made in Shakespeare's plays.  But, these are, after all, highly sought-after roles.  A-hem.)

Getting On My Wick

"The wicked man flees though no one pursues, but the righteous are as bold as a lion."

- Proverbs 28:1 (NIV ©1984) 

The Wicker Man (1973), on the other hand, just stood there until he had work to do.  And by golly, he did a splendid and entertaining job of it, too.

The Wicker TREE (2010), on the OTHER other hand:

• pissed away 96 minutes of my life which I cannot get back
• has the audacity to even MENTION Christopher Lee's name in the credits, when his role consisted of seconds of dialogue...IN A FLASHBACK, for corn's sake
• contains nothing even remotely as hot as Britt Ekland's performance in The Wicker Man, despite having a gigantic flame-engulfed version of the titular tree (you thought of Britt when you read "titular," didn'tcha? >:^D) and was released THIRTY-SEVEN YEARS AFTER The Wicker Man

And so, to writer/director Robin Hardy, of both Wicker Man AND Wicker Tree, I say I firmly believe it is time that you become reacquainted with The Wicker Man.

Intimately.

Permanently.

In summation:

The Wicker Man - a spookyweirdwickedfun film.

The Wicker Tree - WASTE OF CELLULOID.

[ROLL CREDITS]

Achilles' Heels

Vol. 1 • Iss. 2

Last week, Feisty Media Critic mentioned they'd share with you which are their Achilles' heels.  Which actors and directors will nearly always appeal to FMC?  This is important because, feisty or not, even media critics are only human and are, therefore, inclined to biases.  Nature of the beast.

Absolute truth.

In regard to any media, we have favorites.  It's not a good or bad thing, it simply is.

Were we a feisty food critic, we might put it this way: if one detests Roquefort cheese, the likelihood that they can somehow teach themselves to enjoy it is virtually nil.  (Unless extenuating circumstances existed--and they would have to be incredibly bizarre--we would go so far as to say it would be inane if they even made the attempt.)

But we're not a feisty food critic.  So tonight, let's talk movies.  Well, not so much talk as simply list.  No, we're not leaning to one side.  Sheesh.

Following are lists of actors and directors (in no particular order) whose bodies of work tend to appeal to FMC and are apt to sway (okay, NOW we're leaning) us towards favorable opinions of their films:

Actors	Directors
Forest Whitaker Hugh Jackman Kevin Spacey Morgan Freeman Benicio Del Toro Stephen McHattie Stephen Fry	David Fincher Terry Gilliam Frank Capra Kevin Smith Roger Corman

Now, do bear in mind that this list is absurdly incomplete.  As films, movies, flicks, and the occasional wastes of celluloid are critiqued, if any actors or directors are favorites, FMC will make that clear in advance, lest you be led astray by our leanings.  Yes, leanings.

"No actresses!" you say.  Well, maybe you said it.  "WE CAN'T HEAR YOU!", we reply.  At time of posting, we honestly couldn't hear you say it.  FMC loves women.  FMC is also exceedingly critical of women in media and thus, has very few favorites--so few, in fact, that none spring to mind as of this writing.

Well, dinner awaits.  Roquefort may be involved.  Here's a ten-spot, kid.  Go watch a movie.  Even a Feisty Media Critic's gotta eat now and then.

Next week, we'll dig in and start rating some cinema!

[ROLL CREDITS]