The Cabin in the Woods

94
By Mark Ramsey | 2012/04/21

As I write this, The Cabin in the Woods has a 92% “Fresh” rating over at RottenTomatoes which suggests to me most critics are smoking their fresh tomatoes rather than squeezing them.

Seriously, are you kidding?

“It’s meta!” they say.

More like meh-ta.

Does it upend every horror convention?  Yes, but in doing so it fails to appeal to anyone who wouldn’t be caught dead at a horror convention.

The Cabin in the Woods is overwhelmed by its far-fetched desire to be clever (not that I would know anything about that), and it includes the kinds of absurd twists that bend sense into nonsense and nonsense into meta-nonsense.  At the heart of this movie is the idea of human sacrifice, and no human will sacrifice more than the one who plunks down ten bucks for this flick.

Could it be that this movie is from fanboy wunderkind Joss Whedon, he of Buffy the Vampire Slayer and a variety of other shows that don’t last nearly as long and are chocked full of pretty young people delivering quirky, witty dialogue past each other because it looks great on paper or in a bikini?

Or even in a bikini on paper?

Why yes, yes it could!

Whedon routinely populates his projects with great actors alongside the truly wretched.  Amber Benson, anyone?  Eliza Dushku?  The great Richard Jenkins opposite the guy who plays Thor?  I’ve seen better acting in the audience for Judge Judy.

Normally I save my Bradley Whitford and Richard Jenkins movies for the Lifetime channel where they belong.  But Whedon has infused this multidimensional mess with Whitford, Jenkins, and enough unemployed characters from his failed series Dollhouse to staff every Abercrombie & Fitch in Beverly Hills.

Cabin has been on the shelf for three years maturing like a cask of balsamic vinegar, and with the same bitter aftertaste.  Maybe the thinking was this movie would play better in cobwebs.  Well, I’m here to tell you:  More cobwebs!

Cabin in the Woods has enough six-packs and hooters to earn an up-thumb from Roger Corman.

Into the cellar go the characters where they play with deadly antiques and discover an evil Latin spell, an REO Speedwagon song, and a character with a face made of teeth.  ”Maybe we should have saved the teeth for the script,” said a pensive Whedon to no one in particular, which is exactly who will be in the audience for this movie.

Watch for stoner Fran Kranz who plays high like he’s Mr. Potter closing down the Bailey Building and Loan.

But high.

And Sigourney Weaver makes a cameo here proving that the desire to put food on the table can make almost any project look worthy.

This is the point where we learn this movie is all about “the ancient ones.”

“What, Sarah Michelle Gellar and David Boreanaz?” asked stoner Fran.

“The very same,” said Sigourney. ”Now take off that ‘Every Time a Bell Rings, and Angel gets his Medical Marijuana Card’ tee shirt and help me cash this check before the studio changes its mind!

I have much higher hopes for Whedon’s upcoming The Avengers.  But first, he evidently needed to clean this Cabin out of his closet.

Jesse Williams … Holden
Richard Jenkins … Sitterson
94

94 Responses to “The Cabin in the Woods”

  1. Natasha says:

    Please, try to be more smug. I dare you.

    [Reply]

    Mark Ramsey Reply:

    It’s easy to be smug when I’m not to blame for this ridiculous movie.

    But that said, I will try to be more smug in the future. Thanks for the dare!

    [Reply]

  2. Moviewatcher says:

    Uh-huh? I liked it.

    [Reply]

    Mark Ramsey Reply:

    Listen, Whedon, how many times do I have to tell you not to post here!

    [Reply]

    jgs007 Reply:

    good review. I agree. movie was terrible. I was intrigued by the talk about the movie. horrible.

    [Reply]

    jgs007 Reply:

    there were three people in the theater.

    Mark Ramsey Reply:

    Hopefully they were all either blind or deaf.

    Before the movie, I mean.

    Mark Ramsey Reply:

    Hence the expression “talk is cheap”

  3. Jackson says:

    Mark states that the movie is bad because it has bad acting and has good looking people in it. I am not sure if he knows how horror movies are made.

    [Reply]

    Mark Ramsey Reply:

    Point taken!

    But those reasons only scratch the surface of the badness here, I’m afraid.

    [Reply]

    Jackson Reply:

    Then write a review about why the movie is bad, not a review about how you don’t like horror movies. Anyway, I’m surprised, and delighted that you, the author himself, are taking the time to reply to every single comment on your review.

    [Reply]

    Mark Ramsey Reply:

    Not this one.

  4. Patricia says:

    Someone’s bitter, and it ain’t me. It sure ain’t Joss.

    [Reply]

    Mark Ramsey Reply:

    I don’t know about bitter – but I do know I’m looking for better.

    [Reply]

  5. Shecky says:

    Just saw it. Completely Insipid.

    [Reply]

    Mark Ramsey Reply:

    Yep! I know, right?

    [Reply]

  6. Peter says:

    Hehehe when the critic upstages the movie!!

    Mark that line, ” has infused this ..mess …with enough unemployed characters … to staff every Abercrombie & Fitch in Beverly Hills.”

    My hat’s off to you. That is the best, dead on review I’ve read this far!

    [Reply]

    Mark Ramsey Reply:

    Thanks Peter. But some movies are easier to upstage than others! I appreciate the note!

    [Reply]

    Jason Reply:

    Hi Peter,

    Why didn’t you straight out ask Mark if he’s gay and would like a date. Easier than all that ass kissing!

    [Reply]

    Mark Ramsey Reply:

    Here’s the problem with men, ladies: We confuse a compliment with a proposition.

    [Reply]

    Jason's Mom Reply:

    Jason leave Peter alone I think he’s great.

    [Reply]

  7. Peter says:

    ..but I did like it. We walked out not wondering… what the heck was that but somehow I found it enjoyable. Would I recommend it to someone who was really financially strapped, heck no, but to kill some time it had moments… and the only know death of ex-presidential aide by Merman.

    [Reply]

    Mark Ramsey Reply:

    That should be the tagline:

    “The Cabin in the Woods – Not for the Financially Strapped – only for the Affluent with Time on their Hands and a Distinctly High Threshold for Pain”

    [Reply]

    Steve C. Reply:

    “Finally, the 1% have their ‘Evil Dead II’” – Bloomberg News

    [Reply]

    Mark Ramsey Reply:

    This movie will never EVER reach that level of cult status.

    Still, I get the joke :-)

  8. WhedonSucks says:

    It’s nothing more than pretentious peddling of unintelligent sarcasm by that pretentious man-child known as Joss Whedon.

    [Reply]

    Mark Ramsey Reply:

    I just wish that didn’t also describe my rant :-)

    [Reply]

    WhedonsucksSucks Reply:

    Really? I got no sense of pretension here. It felt like an honest homage to the horror film and the horror buffs out there. But, guess if your name is Whedonsucks it is hard not to think it sucks.

    [Reply]

    Mark Ramsey Reply:

    What are the odds that someone would be named Whedonsucks in the first place, let alone that they would actually think Whedon does suck?

    [Reply]

  9. Simon says:

    Classic attention-seeking review. You’re like the one guy who gave Toy STory 3 a bad review so he’d get tons of hits on his site, and you don’t even give any concrete reasons for why you didn’t enjoy the film beyond “it’s whedon” and “the characters are too good looking”… Come on, really?! You seem to imply it’s predictable and trite, but there is no way you could have predicted the plot.

    Get over yourself!

    [Reply]

    Mark Ramsey Reply:

    Yes, there’s no way I could have predicted the plot, but surprise for its own sake rather than to further a coherent story should be rewarded with nothing but scorn.

    Oops, I’m getting too serious. Sorry!

    By the way, there’s no such thing as characters who are too good looking.

    PS Thanks for calling this rant “classic”!

    [Reply]

  10. Sam says:

    Interesting review. I liked the movie. You chide it for being unclever, but I disagree. It may not be an overly intelligent movie, but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t have some cleverness to it. I think it’s a worthy take on modern horror movies without being overdrawn.

    [Reply]

    Mark Ramsey Reply:

    If I were to reveal the alleged “twist” in one sentence there’s nobody who wouldn’t consider that “overdrawn,” I’m afraid. I just wish it had been overthought, overwritten, and overplayed.

    [Reply]

  11. Chantal says:

    Hmm… would you still consider it awful in comparison to any other slasher flick though? I mean, at least it brings a little life to a dead genre.

    [Reply]

    Mark Ramsey Reply:

    I love the genre! The genre’s not dead, just some of its main illustrations recently.

    Go buy or rent The Innkeepers (new) from Ti West. Really enjoyed that one. Small and effective.

    [Reply]

    DJ Reply:

    The Inn Keepers? That movie sucked and was all build with no finale. Boring as they come. Your worthless bashing review that tries so hard to me smart has more in common with The Cabin In The Woods that you realize. Keep practicing.

    [Reply]

    DJ Reply:

    Your worthless bashing review that tries so hard to *be smart has more in common with The Cabin In The Woods *than you realize.

    Mark Ramsey Reply:

    So bored you had to write it twice.

    Mark Ramsey Reply:

    To each their own. Keep practicing.

  12. JD says:

    Spot on review, i am disapointed at rotten critics. I watched it with a bunch of friends we all agreed this could be one of the worst movies ever.

    [Reply]

    Mark Ramsey Reply:

    I know, it’s like they saw a completely different movie, huh?

    And for their sake, I hope they did.

    [Reply]

  13. Alan says:

    “…enough unemployed characters from his failed series Dollhouse to staff every Abercrombie & Fitch in Beverly Hills.”

    I counted two people from Dollhouse…

    [Reply]

    Mark Ramsey Reply:

    Well I think there’s only one A&F in Beverly Hills. So I stand by my statement.

    [Reply]

    Billy Reply:

    Pretty sure you meant “actors” and not “characters”. The “characters” are dead, and thus not looking for work…

    [Reply]

    Mark Ramsey Reply:

    At least the “characters” and the “actors” have that much in common.

  14. B T Brandt says:

    I honestly bookmarked this website, because I could not agree more. The 90% on Rottentomatoes.com absolutely inspired me to see this movie. As a true horror fan, I was not the least bit entertained. Once I realized the movie was a “watch the kids take turns getting slaughtered” fest ala Friday the 13th, I totally lost interest. Actually, I did read “meta” on a several reviews beforehand. In fact, this twist was not remotely clever and was itself totally uninspired. I was neither scared nor drawn in to any psychodrama.

    [Reply]

    Mark Ramsey Reply:

    I must rally to the defense of Friday the 13th (especially the original), but I do agree that a twist can be clever and propel a coherent story – or it can be a “twist” for its own sake. This was certainly the latter. Thanks for the note!

    [Reply]

  15. John says:

    All your negativity will twist from being an easy way to gain attention into true bitterness. It will consume you and you will become it isolating those who cared for you and dying a bitter old man.

    …or if I were turning your blog into a made for TV movie it would go something like that.

    [Reply]

    Mark Ramsey Reply:

    This has Oscar written all over it. Please call my agent – stat!

    [Reply]

  16. Ralph Bourne says:

    YOU’RE MISSING THE WHOLE POINT OF THE FILM. YOU NEVER REALLY STATED WHY YOU THINK THE FILM’S BAD, JUST THINGS YOU DON’T LIKE ABOUT THE FILM. AND ALL THE THINGS YOU SEEM TO NOT LIKE SEEM PERSONAL. I GUESS YOU DON’T LIKE PEOPLE THAT ARE PRETTIER THAN YOU. OR MAYBE YOU’RE NOT A FAN OF WHEDON’S NUANCE. YOU SHOULD PROBABLY REVIEW TWILIGHT FILMS

    [Reply]

  17. Mike Lep says:

    I’m relieved to see a handful of reviewers felt the same way about this film that I did.

    I am a true blue horrror fan and I wanted so badly to love this movie. Part of the problem, I think, was that ACITW was wildly mismarketed as a horror film (check out the tone of the TV trailers) when it’s really not. The other part of the problem is that it doesn’t do anything we really haven’t seen in many other genre deconstructions, including the vastly superior Funny Games. That, and the fact that the explanation is preposterously stupid and full of plot holes. Overall it felt like a critique of horror movies written by people who don’t like or understanding horror movies.

    Finally, I’ve had it up to here with these cheap meta-gimmicks that are designed mostly as a way to pre-empt criticism. There’s a difference between recycling horror tropes and actually having something intelligent to say about them. Just because you intended your movie to be full of clichés doesn’t mean they’re no longer clichés.

    You know what would be really clever and take true creativity and balls? Actually making a really, honest to god HORROR MOVIE that’s original and scary. For all of its flaws and lack of budget I’ll take a sincere, low-budget gem like Phantasm over this brand of cynical hipster irony every day of the week (and twice on Sundays).

    Thanks for letting me vent.

    [Reply]

    Mark Ramsey Reply:

    I’m with you 100%. Maybe not quite 100% as I’m not much of a Fan-tasm, but still.

    “Preposterously stupid” – now there’s a blurb!

    [Reply]

  18. [...] Now, I can’t say the same about the movie I saw a couple of days later in the theater called Cabin in the Woods. [...]

  19. Hummis says:

    I’m masturbating violently

    [Reply]

    Mark Ramsey Reply:

    I’ll alert the media.

    [Reply]

    TommyB Reply:

    Is there another way to do it?

    [Reply]

    Mark Ramsey Reply:

    Let’s hope nobody figures one out.

    [Reply]

  20. Will says:

    I thought this film was scary, was horrific and was kinda funny in places, but generally horrific. It was horrific because although there was the matter of fact people in the lab, it was clear the zombies were real and the killing was real and so there was some real evil. I just didn’t like the ending. Okay, once you realise there’s some sort of sacrifice and it’s not gonna happen, and the monsters they are appeasing are gonna come out, that’s a seriously cool idea. But I’d still have liked a traditional happy ending, where they take on the Old Gods and emerge victorious. Somehow. I was dismayed when the stoner died as he seemed like the hero, and pleasantly surprised when he returned, I just wished they could’ve taken on the real foes rather than cop out.

    [Reply]

    Mark Ramsey Reply:

    Watch out for spoilers in that one! Although if I save you from wasting your time, does that really count as “spoiling” something?

    Joss Whedon’s imagination has been circling the Hellmouth for years. What can I say? But if Charlie Sheen couldn’t trigger the end of the world, then I don’t see how Joss Whedon can.

    [Reply]

  21. Staci says:

    Great review! (Even greater comment responses)

    [Reply]

    Mark Ramsey Reply:

    Beware….you’re onto me!

    Thanks!

    [Reply]

  22. Michelle says:

    Huge horror buff here – and I didn’t hate it. I don’t think it deserves the hype that it’s getting, and I agree with a lot of what you’re saying. But hey, I thought the stoner was funny. He legitimately made me laugh. Out loud. In the theater. On a few different occasions. Genre deconstructions are a tricky thing to pull off, and while I don’t think Whedon knocked it out of the park, I also don’t feel like he struck out… Maybe he got walked? Too much baseball analogy. Anyway – I would much rather see a more worthy film make it into theaters – like Behind the Mask. Check out that one if you get the chance, it isn’t scary, but it is something special.

    [Reply]

    Mark Ramsey Reply:

    I’d like to knock Whedon out of a park.

    [Reply]

  23. Mark says:

    I’m not going to troll you, but I will say to anyone who might be taking your review too seriously “Go see the movie and make your own judgment.” No, it’s not some brilliant cinematic masterpiece, but it IS a hell of a lot of fun to watch if you aren’t the jaded type. I tend to dislike most of Joss Whedon’s work, but I have to give credit where credit is do. This is one movie that is complimented by his hit-or-miss style.

    [Reply]

    Mark Reply:

    *where credit is DUE*

    [Reply]

    Mark Ramsey Reply:

    And on behalf of jaded types everywhere…

    BLAH.

    Thanks for the note!

    [Reply]

  24. MARKRAMSEYLIKEZSOUP says:

    Dude, if you don’t like horror movies, don’t go to see them! I really hope you didn’t get paid for this article because your sentence structure and arguments are lacking. Pathetic writing, you’re out of your element and you know nothing about the horror genre or what the film had to say.

    [Reply]

    Mark Ramsey Reply:

    If you enjoyed this movie then you are obviously a master of pathetic writing, so all I can say is thanks for noticing!

    [Reply]

  25. Mike says:

    Mark-

    I understand that you hated this movie- but most people didn’t.

    Why the hell did you spoil Sigourney Weaver’s excellent cameo? Or that we learn (late in the second act!) that the “ancient ones” are involved. Lame. You’re ruining great surprises for the majority of your readers, who will see this and love it.

    [Reply]

    Mark Ramsey Reply:

    Well I mean Sigourney was in the cast list on IMDB, so as secrets go, that’s not one of the bigger ones. And I think references to “ancient ones” are vague enough to allow anyone likely to enjoy this to enjoy it, after they get done playing with their crayons and blocks.

    [Reply]

    Mike Reply:

    Mark-

    Kudos to your for hashing it out with your readers in the comments section. Most writers stay far, far away.

    Re: IMDB- You’re a film critic, you visit it all the time. I’m a film nerd, I visit it occasionally… I didn’t know that Weaver was in the film before seeing it, and was delighted by her cameo. I’d read a few reviews, one of them mentioned a big cameo appearance but didn’t spoil it.

    Re: “Ancient Ones”- Sure, “ancient ones” sounds very vague on its own, but in the context of your review you describe a major third-act plot point, and explain exactly when it happens- right after Weaver’s appearance. Lame.

    Re: “Crayons and Blocks”- Like I said, it’s cool that you do battle with your commenters here, but taking shots at people’s intelligence for liking a film is a Rex Reed move. According to Rotten Tomatoes 90% of your peers, most of whom are more respected and widely-read, are “playing with crayons and blocks.” One Rex Reed is more than enough, leave the lame jokes and plot-spoiling to the king of horrible reviews.

    I read some more of your reviews and enjoyed them- you have a very personal reviewing style, making jokes and talking about your own tastes- which is fine. I just think that giving away things like that is lazy writing- you don’t have anything interesting to say about your take on this movie, so you just tell us that you hate it then start explaining the plot. I’ve read quite a few negative reviews via Rotten Tomatoes, none of them spoiled any plot points or anything. This review reads like an amateur’s movie blog in comparison.

    [Reply]

    Mark Ramsey Reply:

    The last time I was delighted by Sigourney Weaver, she was hypersleeping with a cat.

    TommyB Reply:

    If an actor or actresses name is on the cast list, his/her appearence is NOT a cameo.
    And if 90% of the (ugh) “respected” film critics liked it, there have to be 10% that didn’t. It’s just math.

    Mark Ramsey Reply:

    You mean like the math that dictates every Hollywood blockbuster loses money? Or different math? :-)

  26. Matt J says:

    An interesting premise, poorly executed. There is absolutely NO suspense. Every scare is telegraphed. The acting is truly awful, even by horror movie standards. Good call on Kranz’s uninspired stoner. The movie redeems itself a little with the third act payoff. And there are a handful of good scenes that make me believe this movie could have been something more. In the end it’s just not entertaining.

    [Reply]

    Mark Ramsey Reply:

    I agree completely. “Meta” is not a substitute for substance.

    [Reply]

  27. TheDude says:

    I am interested in how you would fix the film? And please, don’t give me a cynical “hipster,” glib – response. It feels like you already had your mind made-up going into the theatre. (And when did Hipsters get the patent on being cynical?)

    You offer what you don’t like about the film – fair enough – but I would like you to show how you know more than the filmmakers. I’d like to see you deconstruct the film.

    [Reply]

    Mark Ramsey Reply:

    I would start with some dermabrasion and then give it a deep tissue massage.

    [Reply]

  28. Andrew says:

    Felt the need to comment in support of this review.
    I personally am not a horror movie fan but I do get and understand the genre, because this movie got so many good reviews I actually convinced myself to see it earlier this week. What a mistake!

    This movie was indeed awful and waaaaay to up it’s own ass. Make the characters extremely over the top and go wink-wink at the stage the handlers are building.

    For a previous poster to say that the final reveal was not obvious half-way through the movie is so weird to me. The handlers start spilling the blood from the first victim onto the stone slab and talk about how they have to appease the “thing” downstairs. COME ON!

    It was obvious what was going on.

    Seriously I don’t get the massive percentage, it is mind-blowing and I feel that the field of critics really do a casual movie-goer a disservice by saying this movie is worth the time. I can honestly say it is one of the worst movies I have ever seen.

    [Reply]

    Mark Ramsey Reply:

    And the more time that passes since the movie came out, the more folks who agree with you and me.

    [Reply]

  29. jdio says:

    Managed the first twenty minutes of the movie before going to rotten tomatoes to figure out why the hell this was so well reviewed. So glad to see that not everyone was taken in. The film is, as you point out, only superficially thoughtful, and doesn’t being to address the real cliches of the genre. The miscast 30-year old actor/models who play the “regular” college students–is that subverted? How about the tiresome tropes of race and gender? That unsmiling African American quasi-security guard who functions as the films “moral center” is about as cinematically fresh as a trucker’s ass-crack. The film mistakes recognition of the conventions of the genre as rich comprehension of them, and that’s it’s main problem. It’s not “meta” at all–it merely rewards gratuitous self-consciousness of the most obvious of horror tropes. I also love that we’re supposed to believe that these “college” students are actually smart. Hemsworth? Really? Now that would take some acting.

    [Reply]

    Mark Ramsey Reply:

    Yes, 30-year-olds. Real college students are hard to find because they’re all auditioning for reality TV shows.

    [Reply]

  30. Robert says:

    Textbook example of a reviewer who judges something based on other people’s reactions, rather than formulating their own (and, in this case, reacts against them), for the sake of being contrary. I think the vernacular is “hipster.”

    [Reply]

    Mark Ramsey Reply:

    I love that. You’re criticizing me for judging the movie on other people’s reactions, when most people LIKED this movie and I did not. That sure ain’t hipster logic!

    [Reply]

    Wes4Les Reply:

    I think the term you meant was “contrarion,” which is a term hipsters use to describe the views of people that run contrary to their own, such as failing to understand why anyone w/ half a brain cannot see what a silly, forgettable film “Cabin” is.

    If this is “intelligent” and “entertaining” to a lot of people, I want to know exactly who these people are and where they hang out, so I can avoid their suspect and shallow company in the future. This is an “okay” film at best; “okay” because that red-head was cute and the make-out scene involving the blonde and the stuffed-head of a moose (sorry, a platypus…wait, maybe I’m smoking pot from a coffee container, too) was suspenseful, in that I kept waiting for it to bite that dumb broad on the nose. Which would’ve been cliche’d, but somehow unexpected due to it’s very cliche’d-ness.

    I think the only well-known cliche Whedon & Co. didn’t throw in this turgid kitchen-sink of a film is the “silver flying brain sucking ball” from Phantasm, but there may have been one in that cellar, next to the Blu-Ray copy of “Prometheus” (w/ the deleted scenes that explain everything, squee!!!) that bores discerning movie-goers to tears.

    Hipster logic, a new oxymoron if I’ve ever heard one.

    [Reply]

    Mark Ramsey Reply:

    I wish all logic could be hipster logic, but then again that’s a contradiction in terms.

    [Reply]

  31. Fernando says:

    I’m wondering if you’re a troll or an actual reviewer who just has nothing else to do with his life so he reads and replies to every single comment on his review. If the former than well played, you have me fuming. If the latter, then develop a sense of humor and take things more lightly and maybe real people will start to like you. The movie was meant to be fun. I’m not surprised you didn’t like it.

    [Reply]

    Mark Ramsey Reply:

    I’d rather watch you fume.

    [Reply]

  32. Adam says:

    Old chinese proverb. Reads :- “Haters gonna hate”.

    [Reply]

    Mark Ramsey Reply:

    The word “gonna” is English slang and does not translate into Chinese.

    [Reply]

  33. Jaycee says:

    Cabin in the Woods was one of the best movies I have ever seen. I would rank it up there with No Country for Old Men, Reservoir Dogs, and ET.
    I will never listen to Roll With The Changes the same way again. Also the Merman should get his / its own movie. What a fantastic film! I will buy the DVD – I only rented it, and I want to see it again.
    Your review is off the mark.

    [Reply]

    Mark Ramsey Reply:

    Most experts agree that Cabin in the Woods are Reservoir Dogs are pretty much the same movie….except for the script and stuff.

    [Reply]

  34. Wes4Les says:

    I understand that this movie is poking fun at various horror-movie stereotypes by including many of them in here (from the title itself, to the diabolical creatures shown, to the easy-to-spot “archetypes,” and situations such as “splitting up” vs. “staying together,” which was manipulated here by a nefarious organization orchestrating this whole deal, which is in itself, a cliche in films by now.)

    What I don’t understand, is why it’s garnering such rave reviews. The film starts off curiously, then becomes a bore and a chore to sit through. As has been pointed out, whenever things become the least bit tense, the camera cuts away to that corn-ball control room. “Hey, those little Japanese girls are winning, BOO!” as if we’re supposed to cheer their destruction (which must happen around the world in similar events to what’s happening in Da Cabin, in order to “save the world” from destruction.) Destruction by whom, you ask? Well, I won’t spoil that, but when you see one of the Destructors at the end, ask yourself why it and it’s comrades were so easily contained by a few rivulets of blood. If I’d been one, I’d be stomping around up here a long, long time ago.

    Some interesting effects, but Big Whoop. For $30,000,000 you can draw up all kinds of silliness on a computer for the Big Screen. “Baghead” was far cheaper and funnier and more suspenseful than this silly, oafish snooze-fest. This is a film for people who jump at loud flatulence, or scenes of young women leaning up against glass windows to peer into the gloom to see…to see…Justin Bieber, eek! A nightmare!

    [Reply]

    Mark Ramsey Reply:

    Honestly, Wes, you got me!

    [Reply]

Leave a Reply

Enter your own funny caption

caption this

“This is where we would kiss if I was attracted to girls”