Review CLIII - The Cabin in the Woods

Review 153
The Cabin in the Woods (2012)

Hey guys! It's been a while, hasn't it? The semester started and my attempts for staying on top of my game have been futile. I haven't even been watching a lot of movies, and when I did, I just didn't have time to write reviews. However, I can recommend The Warriors (with its obviously strong racial message) if you're looking for a funny film and Sicario if you're looking for something awesome. Anyway, I realised Halloween was approaching quickly, so I knew I had to try and get a horror movie in here while I still could. I have a few films lined up, and I'm hoping to write some reviews before Halloween passes, but we'll see given the intense school schedule. Regardless, I'm here today to talk about Drew Goddard's The Cabin in the Woods starring Kristen Connolly, Anna Hutchison, Jesse Williams, Chris Hemsworth, Fran Kranz, Richard Jenkins, and Bradley Whitford. Whew, that's quite a few names - you know we'll be seeing some people dying in this one. Let's review this (popular?) movie!

Five friends head off for the weekend to cabin in the woods (whoa, that was unexpected), hoping to get away from their daily routine. However, it seems that their trip will actually be a murderous rampage for a bigger cause.

Honestly, I'd be surprised if you hadn't heard of this movie - it seems like one of those films you would eventually watch if you watched horror movies. I'm usually not a fan of horror movies - my boyfriend even less - so I raised my eyebrow when he asked to watch this one. The reason? A scene with an elevator and a S.W.A.T. team. Yeah, if you watched the movie, you'll know what I'm talking about. If you haven't, let me actually review this.

The Cabin in the Woods pokes fun at other horror movies with its almost breaking-the-fourth-wall dynamic. You'll be sitting there thinking of a bunch of other horror movies while you watch this one, as early as when you see the cabin itself (The Evil Dead anyone?). For that, it breaks from the generic horror movie plot. However, that doesn't mean it's good and doesn't use stock horror jump scares to get your heart pumping. Honestly, I don't mind a clever jump scare - Insidious was not bad at all in this regard. It had some clever ones. But these typical ones where they're standing there, and it suddenly gets completely quiet, you're sitting there just waiting for the loud sound and sudden jump. It's such a cheap tactic and overly-used that it needs to change. I don't mind one every once in a while, but otherwise, I need an eeriness to the film that stays with me afterward.

I guess you could say the movie tries to do this, but... Okay, this will be a spoiler, so stop reading this paragraph if you actually care enough to want to watch this without spoiling it. All right, so, the movie is basically showing how these men are hired to kill people in a sacrificial way in order to give "blood to the blood god". They have a certain way these people have to die, and they set up the deaths as a horror movie set-up. It's trying to be self-aware, but let me tell you, this organisation is just bullshit. Not to sound like a conspiracy nut to the average Joe out there, but it's Baphomet all over the place. "Gods that used to rule us"? "Blood sacrifice in a gruesome manner"? One of the workers even comments at one point how it used to be easy when they could just throw people into a volcano. Now, all right, whatever, this is nothing new to me, but I was just sitting there wondering what the hell this dynamic of killing all the people in this particular order. I also don't understand why it had to be set up like this. Apparently it's to please the gods, but when they show Japan's failure (which is really hilarious - you'll get a good chuckle), they show a bunch of nine-year-old girls, not the dynamic set-up in the United States. So what the hell? Is it just based on horror movies from each country? Why would the gods care? And even then, why nine-year-old girls and not some guy after a hot chick? And what is with these shitty Gods? A bunch of people die horrifically in the process, but nope, it's not the designated people, so they fail. It's just bullshit. Not to mention the ending... The stoner (Fran Kanz) survives along with the "virgin" (Kristen Connolly), and the two decide they'd rather destroy all of humanity than sacrifice their lives. Which already means they buy into the bullshit story, but yeah, they don't care. They decide one last joint is all they need. And seriously, I would have preferred the stoner NOT giving us all these "premonitions" - why the hell would he guess that everyone is "watching them" and "alternating them". Sigh... The Cabin in the Woods is really just stupid even in its attempts to be above other horror movies. It fails. And the Baphomet/Illuminati bullshit is just bad writing. And let me say as well that the CGI was real cheap. Not good either.

However, you will laugh a few times during the film. When Chris Hemsworth's character dies, my boyfriend had a good laugh. But honestly, I'd rather watch Dead Alive for a comedic horror movie than a mediocre film about everyone being a designated, stock role.

The Cabin in the Woods is not the worst, but its pathetic CGI, bad writing, and annoying ending just make it a meh ride. While there are humorous parts, I'd only check it out if you're not into actual scary movies and want to play something in the background.

Review CXLV - Ghostbusters

Review 145
Ghostbusters (2016)

I debated writing this review for a couple of reasons. Number one, everyone under the sun has reviewed it, so my measly review really doesn't stand by it. Number two, it didn't get a great rating, unlike Zootopia, which needs to burn in hell and know its place. But nonetheless, I read/heard some reviews saying Paul Fieg's Ghostbusters was just okay and not bad, so I figure I might as well put my two cents in.

Now, before I begin, I did review the old Ghostbusters a while back and said it was just okay and I didn't have much to say, but given the wisdom I have accumulated over four years (cough), I can say that I give Ivan Reitman's Ghostbusters a little more credit now than I did originally. So if you're sitting here saying, "Hey, man, you didn't like the original!" that would be an exaggerated claim and my old review was bad (as are all of them, sigh).

To be honest, I didn't even finish the 2016 rendition. It was so painful and ridiculous and lowbrow that I made it about an hour in and, realising I still had about an hour left, I dropped it. But I still think I can say what I need to say. I know the ending is very "anti-man" with its penis attacking or something, but honestly, the film has it from the beginning. So let's start from the beginning, mmkay?

We start off with Erin Gilbert, played by Kristen Wiig, claiming she has found the formula to connect quantum laws and relativity. I'm glad they chose the easiest possible thing for her to display her "smartness". I'm guessing the whole thing is a joke and she was day-dreaming or something, but whatever. We then find out she wrote a book with her friend, Abby Yates, played by Melissa McCarthy, a while back and her friend had re-published it against her will. And we find out that one of the people reviewing her case for tenure is an evil man who doesn't believe she can accomplish anything. He also criticises her wardrobe. Now, I can only talk from my experience in physics, but I'm guessing it's a pretty universal thing in general. Every teacher I have met in my degree so far has been very, very friendly. They are serious about their work, but trust me when I say that I had bigger run-ins with teachers in psychology than I have in physics. And the one teacher who I met who was flimsy was sexist - toward men. That's right. He was a man who was always encouraging his female students and would disagree and disregard his male students. In particular, I recall a male peer of mine commenting that he had difficulty reading the board, and the teacher told him to move closer if he couldn't see. I, who was sitting the same distance away, defended the student saying it was a bit small, and the teacher, with no argument, said he would write bigger. So really, this brings me to a second point - people in academia aren't going to be sexist in general. You might have the one teacher who makes a comment about women, but university students and professors are some of the most liberal people around. Sure, science, mathematics, engineering, economics fields probably have more conservative students than, say, art students, but I have yet to meet a guy tell me he thought I wasn't as smart as a man. And especially in physics, where most of the guys are slightly socially awkward, they would never say this. Even if they aren't, are you going to hate on a student when they show prospect and possibly answers to your questions? I don't care that this teacher was an older man - he wouldn't be a complete dick. And to add one other thing, he criticises her attire, yet in my experience, I have dressed more professionally than my teachers. Granted, this is Columbia University, but nonetheless, this guy was so passive aggressive about the whole thing, it came off as super feminine. Women say, "No, nevermind," when you ask them what. No? Whatever. We'll have more to say on this.

So then Erin goes to confront Abby about the whole ordeal and we meet Jilian Holtzmann (Kate McKinnon), who pissed me off. I know a lot of people were like, "Man, Holtzmann was awesome!" and maybe because all the other characters are so bland, this is why. But she's insane. She's supposed to be an engineer for Christ's sake. If she behaved like that, she would lose her license, point final. It's possible that this is different in the United States, but to me, there is a certain licensing and educational system that goes on to actually be considered an engineer. She has nothing. She's also super catty with Abby about Erin, which made me sit there shaking my head. What are we in, high school? Thanks, movie, for portraying men AND WOMEN in a derogatory way. Honestly, my balls are busted - I've heard everyone talk about the sexism toward men, and it really is disgusting. I hate it. But for the few who say, "These women are empowered and you just hate the film because they're women!" I say, no they are not, and yes, I hate them because they're women. Because they make these women the MOST STEREOTYPICAL SHITS. These are the women I meet on the street and turn away from because they bring my sex down. Honestly, I was going to call Erin the "brainy" woman, but she isn't. She is so emotionally strung and STUPID, I wanted to kill myself. Abby? She and Holtzmann are super catty for no reason. Then when everyone is friends, it's like, "Okay, ghosts are real, we have evidence, so it's okay c:" Why even have that cattiness from the beginning? It was completely useless. Otherwise, really, Abby has nothing going on with her. I really don't get why she is there. Holtzmann is there for laughs, oh whoooa, man, but instead she comes across just as idiotic with setting shit on fire. Jesus H. Christ. So yeah, in the end, they discover ghosts, they STEAL SHIT FROM SOME UNIVERSITY (kleptomaniacs), and they open their "Ghostbusters" centre. They hire some guy, Kevin (Chris Hemsworth) who, while hot, is completely incompetent. I don't get how people said this guy carried some substance because he was not funny. I know the film is trying to be sexist again with men, but it shows just how much of an idiot Erin is. She wants to go with this guy because he is so "dreamy" and it is so awkward to see them together, but maybe they should be showing her actually going for an intelligent man with SUBSTANCE. She is literally behaving like a man going for the sexy bimbo. It's not funny, it's pathetic. Kevin is not hot - he's a you-know-what boy. Women behave on a different scale than men - while having Megan Fox should attract (young) male viewers based on appearance, I don't think women generally go for men just based on looks, especially not a woman who is FREAKIN' APPLYING FOR A TENURE POSITION AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY IN PHYSICS. People are stupid, but I would hope this woman has standards of some sort. But given divorce rates and freakin' society, I think I'm wrong.

So what else do I have to say? Oh, right, Leslie Jones as Patty Tolan. People beat on her for being stereotypically black, but honestly, she didn't come across as a complete racist dolt in my opinion. Granted, I didn't watch until the end, so maybe it got worse, but from the minimal screen time, she was fine. I don't really have much to comment on. Consider this character lucky for only jumping into the film a short time before I stopped watching.

I pretty much stopped at the part where Bill Murray's character - WHY, BILL MURRAY, WHY - an evil man, gets attacked by a ghost after Erin acts as an irrational woman, and they go to city hall because there's some ominous guy in the back. And the mayor is a man, with a woman by his side. But whatever, I can't say anything about the scene because I stopped watching. I just couldn't take it anymore. The film was less about bustin' ghosts than it was about stupid melodrama and little jokes. The title really should have been changed. I mean, in the original, every character was just pure and existed as they did and busted ghosts. You had Dr. Peter Venkman who was denying ghosts and trying to get the girl, but it was Bill Murray, so it was cool. And Dr. Raymond Stantz (Dan Aykroyd) and Dr. Egon Spengler (Harold Ramis) were cool, man. I liked their duo because they were not complete IDIOTS LIKE FREAKIN' ESTI DE HOLTZMANN... *breathes* And Winston Zeddmore (Ernie Hudson) was fine, man. JUST FINE. ... How did they screw this up so royally? By adding women and making this film an agenda. I watched this film, what, a week ago? And I still feel dirty from trying to watch it. I tried at it alone while trying to finish a birthday gift for someone, and I was so disappointed. This is entertainment? Maybe for a young kid, but I'd tell my kids to watch the original.

Guys, Ghostbusters is shit. The reason it can't be okay is because it holds the title of a classic, a film which actually had humour for all ages. I refuse to take it as, "Well, it was doing its own thing c:" A remake can be different, but this is literally just pure Hollywood regurgitated shit that marketing has tried to give to you as a three-star-Michelin meal. I tried my best not to compare it to the original, but I couldn't. When I remember all the humour I got out of the original, all the cheesy special effects, I can't help but feel so, so disappointed. I hate this feminist angle everything has to take. I hate that they're shitting on themselves and calling it funny. We can't support this shit anymore and call it "empowering". Just because a woman is a protagonist does not mean it has to be about this woman defeating a male society. Why can't we have it as coinciding, living as one?

Eff 2016 Ghostbusters. You will perish in flames!