Martha Plimpton and Ann Dowd in MASS. Courtesy of Bleecker Street.
Is there anything harder for a parent than the loss of a child? That heartbreak is at the center of the drama MASS, in which one couple who suffered such a loss meets years later with the couple whose child was responsible for that loss. Jason Isaacs and Martha Plimpton play one of the two couples, Gail and Jay. who have agreed to meet with the other parents, Linda and Richard (Ann Dowd and Reed Birney). The meeting is to take place in around a table in a small room of an Episcopal church, in a town in a Western state. The meeting has been arranged by a therapist who has been working with Gail and Jay. It has the look of a “truth and reconciliation” meeting to help both couples get past what happened.
That is not giving away any more than is in the film’s trailer. Exactly what did happen, and even which son is the killer and which the victim, is not clear at the film’s start, a deliberate choice by first-time director, but long-time actor, Fran Kranz. The carefully written script, also by Kranz, slowly brings out details of the events, as the actors develop and reveal aspects of their characters, giving the drama much more suspense than if the film had laid all cards on the table to start. The therapist and the couples know the facts but the audience does not. The meeting of the two couples is tense, even wary, and a sense of anger and sorrow permeates the room.
Eventually it is revealed that the killing happened during a school shooting six years earlier. The four parents have dealt with the aftermath in differing ways, and one couple, Richard and Linda, have divorced, although they are still cordial to each other. Most of the drama takes place in the church meeting room with a lead-in sequence, in which the therapist inspects the room while a hovering church worker makes too many helpful suggestions, which serves to pique our curiosity.
Of course, it is hard to avoid the sense of a stage play with a drama set largely in a single room. What makes for searing drama on stage does not always translate to the big screen. But director Franz deals with this problem first by shifting angles and moving the characters about the space, but largely by revealing the information, about what happened and who these people are, in carefully paced bits. The drama also rests heavily on the skill of the cast, who exceed expectations as each slowly reveals their characters. Who they seem to be in the scene where they first meet changes over the course of the shifting drama, as new facts are revealed.
Martha Plimpton’s Gail is seething with barely suppressed anger even before the meeting, anger we glimpse in a scene with her and Jay before the two couples meet face-to-face in the church room. It looks at one point as if she will back out at the last minute, and the couple have an exchange about something she has come to say. By contrast, Ann Dowd’s Linda seems more open, even eager to reach out, offering Gail flower arrangement as a gift. It leads to the first of many awkward moments as Gail politely thanks her but does not reach out to accept them, a fore taste of the back-and-forth emotional dance to come.
The scene also illustrates the careful construction of each moment in the film and the skill of the performers. Eventually, the ice breaks and bit by bit, facts and feelings come out, as one side seeks to know if there were a hints that could have prevented what happened and the other struggles with the answers.
Richard seems the most wary and reserved at the beginning, speaking about agreed to contracts and seeking to avoid acknowledging anything or sharing details that could lead to legal action. By contrast, the more open Jay has devoted his life to activism on school shootings. As the meeting goes into deeper emotional depths, Richard’s surface gradually cracks a bit, exposing raw unspoken feelings, and Jay begins questioning what his work really has accomplished in the ensuing years. Questioning and self-doubt, admissions and denial all swirl through the charged atmosphere.
Outstanding performances are the key to MASS, which it has in abundant. All the actors are excellent but Ann Dowd is the standout. The discussions thoughtfully explore the variety of issues that have been raised by school shootings, such as debates over guns, violent video games, and the political aspects that have grow up around them. At the same time, these characters grapple with their own complex, sometimes conflicting emotions – anger, regret, guilt, grief – all of which are on both sides in some fashion, leading slowly towards forgiveness and acceptance.
The subject matter, and the film’s structure as a drama built around discussion, means there is a limit on the kind of audience MASS will draw. But the drama offers much, with its thoughtful, complex discussion of difficult subjects, its delving into human nature and the human heart, and its stellar, multi-layered performances. There are no easy answers and there are no uncomplicated people nor personal stories in MASS.
MASS opens Friday, Oct. 22, at Landmark’s Plaza Frontenac Cinema and other theaters.
Shakespeare’s classic comedy is given a contemporary spin in Joss Whedon’s film, “Much Ado About Nothing”. Shot in just 12 days (and using the original text), the story of sparring lovers Beatrice and Benedick offers a dark, sexy and occasionally absurd view of the intricate game that is love.
Joss Whedon, along with stars Amy Acker, Alexis Denisof, Nathan Fillion, and Clark Gregg sat down recently at an LA press conference to talk about the film, as well as their experiences in the Whedonverse. I was there, and I must say that things got pretty silly, as you can expect. It was, by far, the best (and most entertaining) press conference that I’ve attended to date. Check it out below.
Joss, this is absolutely beautiful in black and white. What considerations did you and D.P. Jay Hunter have in doing this in black and white, and why types of challenges did it present to you – shooting the beautiful palette and tonal bandwidth that you have?
WHEDON: Well, black and white was my contribution. Beautiful was Jay’s. I felt very strongly that it if fit the narrative. It’s a noir comedy. The dramatic and the comedic elements are very much a mix, and that it had an old-fashioned feel to it that I wanted to capture. And I couldn’t afford costumes, so it seemed like black and white was the way to go. And then, Jay was very influenced by French and Italian new wave cinema, and also the older stuff. So, even though it was a very light lighting package, he made sure he used the sun and what little we had to give it that old-fashioned kind of glamour, besides the fact that it makes everything pretty and takes away a lot of problems. Anything that doesn’t fit the palette, you don’t know about it. If someone shows up in an aquamarine dress in the background and you didn’t see it in time, it’s fine. You’ll never know. It gives the movie a little bit of a remove. It’s very casual and it’s very intimate, but at the same time, it’s film. That allows for the language to settle in, in a way that, if it had just looked like a home movie, it wouldn’t have.
You shot this before the monochrome came out, correct?
WHEDON: Yes. We shot in color. We just turned the color off on the monitors.
Mr. Whedon, of all of Shakespeare’s plays that you could have chosen, what attracted you to this one.? Also, for the actors, you’ve all worked with Mr. Whedon before. In some way his work is very Shakespearian – his words. Could you compare working on his projects, with his words to working with the words of Shakespeare?
WHEDON: [To cast] I see a lot of opportunities for you guys to piss me off. [laughs] I love Much Ado. It’s hilarious and it’s accessible, but it’s also very dark and it has a lot to say about love, not all of it good, and how we behave. It poses a lot of interesting questions. It doesn’t resolve all of them, even though it has a happy ending. It’s this open debate about the way we behave and the way we’re expected to. It’s fascinating to me. But, the short answer is [Alexis Denisof and Amy Acker]. That’s why I wanted to do it.
FILLION: I don’t want to say that Joss Whedon is the Shakespeare of our generation. It’s true, but I don’t want to say it.
DENISOF: I’ve been saying that Shakespeare is the Joss Whedon of his generation. [laughs] I’m trying to let people know. They’re confused on that point.
FILLION: I think there’s a real poetry to Joss’ words. In the same way that you do not paraphrase Shakespeare, you do not paraphrase Joss Whedon.
WHEDON: I’m just gonna sit here. [laughs]
ACKER: Also, what Joss was just saying about this play has that perfect blend of comedy and tragedy, and Joss does that so well. That’s what makes being in his stuff so much fun, as an actor. He’s not afraid to take it in different places that you don’t expect it to go.
DENISOF: In the same way that Shakespeare was writing very much for his time, he was also unearthing observations that would last for generations beyond him. I hope I’m here to see that happen with Joss’ work. It’s true that he has got his finger on the contemporary pulse of American youth, but his finger is going a lot deeper than that. [laughs]
WHEDON: That is the one that’s gonna get quoted!
What was your gateway drug into Shakespeare, the particular time in your life, and that drew you in?
WHEDON: There are a couple of specific moments for me. Much Ado really was the gateway drug. I saw a beautiful production at the Open Air Theatre at Regent’s Park in London. They just nailed it, and it was hilarious. I was stunned by not just how funny, but also how contemporary and accessible it was. I had read Shakespeare and I was interested in Shakespeare, but it had never just opened itself to me, in that way. In that moment when Benedick says, “This can be no trick!,” with such authority, after the most obvious trick that’s ever been played, I was just like, “Really?! Shakespeare will do that? He’ll go that far?!” Something just clicked. I saw that production three times. Also, there was the Derek Jacobi Hamlet on the BBC. He is the Hamlet by which they’re all compared, for me.
GREGG: Much Ado was my gateway to the whole thing, the whole shebang. I was playing soccer at a small school in Ohio. I was a goalie and I dislocated my thumb, and they banned me from practice. I was walking past the theater and I saw some very attractive students walking in. [laughs] I followed them, and there was an audition for Much Ado About Nothing. They fool-heartedly gave me the role of Benedick, and I delivered them a legendary Christmas ham. [laugh] But I was hooked, so I immediately dropped out of that school and moved to New York, just ‘cause I loved it so much.
Joss, how difficult was it to make a film as huge as The Avengers, and then switch gears and do such a small film as Much Ado? Coming off of THE AVENGERS and everything that came with it, and then coming back to something so straight forward as this, did you ever have to hit reset on the brain?
WHEDON: It’s all the same job. It’s about, “Why is everybody here? What is the most emotionality and the most humor I can get out of this moment?” You’re in the moment you’re in, and then you’re in the next one. Trying to adapt Shakespeare is certainly as daunting as trying to make a superhero movie, but for different reasons. But for me, the level at which things are working doesn’t matter. It’s only about right now and, “Is this the most I can get out of this?” There isn’t really a difference. Although god knows it was lovely doing this after The Avengers, just because it was all so compressed. We accomplished so much, so quickly that you were fed back. It wasn’t like, “Oh, I’ll spend three weeks on one-third of a shot, and then give it to a house for six months, who will send it back complete.” With this, it was like “BOOM”, and we just did it. It was like theater.
Nathan, last summer at the LA Times Hero Complex Film Festival you talked to the crowd about how scared you were to do this. You had asked Joss if there was someone else who could replace you. I was wondering if you could elaborate on that. Why the fears, what did it take you to get over them, and did rest of you had any of those types of fears?
FILLION: I was afraid to do this project for much the same reason that I’m afraid to watch Shakespeare, which is that I will not understand it. That was stopping me from literally learning my lines. I didn’t understand what I was saying, until I sat down and studied, like back in school, what was being said, and what the pictures were that he was painting, was I able to comprehend what I was supposed to be doing. In much the same way as when I watch Shakespeare being done well – I’m gesturing to these people down here – I got it. It’s so easy. I get it. [laughs]
WHEDON: – and I have my finger deep in the youth of America. [laughs]
DENISOF: The pulse.
Why do you think Shakespeare is or should be relevant to today’s audiences?
WHEDON: The stuff he’s talking about is universal. I relate to it, as much as anything I’ve ever seen or read. The poetry of the thing is extraordinary, and it’s lovely to be able to interpret through that. What we’re talking about is love, identity, jealousy, pain and all the things that we still need to talk about. And, you know, Amy [Acker] falling down the stairs, so it’s a win-win.
What was your rehearsal process like for this?
ACKER: Some of us more than others.
GREGG: I came in a bit late. They had these Shakespeare brunches that I heard about. I came in quite late because of an issue with my schedule that then beautifully cleared up. I don’t know. I was quite daunted by the process. I had remembered, in that production that I was in, that this was not a big part, but I was wrong. I had a lot of lines to learn quickly. At the same time, it felt perfect to me, that way. If I had had time to think about it, I probably would have over-thought it. There was something about the way things were just getting out of control for poor Leonato that really was served by just standing there. I also felt that the words are so magnificent. Not just because they’re pretty, because that misses the point, but they’re so active. You say them, and stuff starts to happen. I wasn’t really prepared for any of that, or where it was going. In film, a lot of people don’t want to rehearse too much. I wouldn’t have normally approached Shakespeare that way, even in a film, but I’m really glad it worked out that way.
DENISOF: The last thing Joss said to me when he proposed this crazy idea was, “You’d better know your lines.” That seems like simple advice, but it was fantastic advice. Looking back on it, I wouldn’t have wanted to waste any takes on not knowing my lines because we didn’t have very many takes. And he afforded us the opportunity to play these scenes from the beginning to the end, all in one take, which is such a rare treat on film. Anyone will tell you that you shoot a master, maybe, but who uses it? It gets chopped up with various angles and close-ups. The rehearsal process was about getting together in the same place, at the same time, for long enough to make it worthwhile. If you could get two people, then there was a rehearsal. If Joss could be there, great. If he couldn’t, he would give you permission to carry on the process, and then he would meet with you, individually. And then, there was a lot of stuff being worked out on the fly, right before shooting it. But, it’s his home and he had a vision of what he wanted to achieve. We all have complete trust in him. You could try something out, knowing that if it didn’t work, Joss would fix it.
WHEDON: And publicly humiliate you.
Was it more difficult to use an American accent reading Shakespearian English, and not falling back into a pseudo British accent –
DENISOF: Who has one of THOSE, may I ask? [laughs]
FILLION: Ridiculous!
DENISOF: How dare you!
FILLION: How dare YOU sir!
– and also Joss, did you your house go on lockdown after having complete cast and crew (in your house)? Did you just completely shut people out for, like, a month afterwards?
WHEDON: You know what, no – more and more people were coming. We were rehearsing. On an afternoon, we’d get four or five people and go to where we were going to shoot. Block it. Figure it out. Talk about the characters. All that good stuff… Tech guys were coming in, figuring out how they were going to set up the lights. Then, you sort of have to clean it up afterwards. Before that, the house was designed for art to flow through it, all the time. You know, my stepmother coming over to paint, or someone coming over to use the pottery wheel, or dance, or whatever. That’s sort of how it works. It never shut down entirely, no. I may – at some point very soon.
What was it like working with Nick (Kocher) and Brian (McElhaney), and what was it like welcoming them into the Whedonverse family?
FILLION: I still don’t know who they are. [laughs] I have a couple of these friends in my life where – wherever they invite me, whoever they introduce me to – I know they’re going to be good people. They are the center – they are the hub of a wheel of amazing people. Anytime I’m coming to Tuc Watkins place, or Joss Whedon’s place, I know that whoever’s going to be there is going to be fantastic people and I’m going to walk away with some new friends. Case in point, Brian and Nick. I did another little project with them called Sexy Pool Party after this. There both wonderfully talented.
[Side Note from Melissa:] It’s so funny that I couldn’t resist. Check out “Sexy Pool Party” here:
Joss, how did you decide how much of Shakespeare you could trim, and did you do all of that ahead of time, or is there a complete version of the text somewhere?
WHEDON: Oh, I made all of those decisions before shooting. I think there are three lines that we cut. We did not have time to shoot anything we weren’t going to use. Also, I wanted to know the flow of the thing, as a film. I don’t like to create films in the editing room. Obviously, you learn something. That’s part of the process. But, I like to go in with very exact intent. It’s a very long play, and there’s a good deal of redundancy in the explanation of things. If I couldn’t find the heart of something, I would cut it out. For example, there’s Antonio, the brother of Leonato. I couldn’t find a reason to keep him in. He really would just come up and say, “So, here’s what’s happened so far, brother . . .”
DENISOF: Elizabethans must have been so noisy and had such terrible ADD because it’s repeated frequently.
WHEDON: “Look! People are just entering and they’re drunk. So, let’s talk again about what just happened!”
DENISOF: Prelap. Prelap. Prelap.
WHEDON: It’s like a Chinese menu. Everything is delicious, but you can’t use it all. It’s really, really long. It’s also very compartmental. You really can just lift whole bits. Obviously, you want to keep as much as possible of the stuff that’s the reason you showed up, and then only add, visually, what helps explain the emotionality of the thing. That’s what the very small, wordless scenes that I added were for.
Now that you’ve done Much Ado, if you ever have the chance to do another Shakespeare play, what would you want to do?
WHEDON: Most people don’t see Hamlet as an old bald guy, but – [laughs]
DENISOF: I pitched that this morning!
WHEDON: Hamlet is the text that I’ve studied the most. No alienated teen ever gets over thinking that he is, on some level, Hamlet. There are others. Twelfth Night is the first that comes to mind. Hamlet, much like Much Ado, has that unity of place, where you’re trapped.
How was it to do something where nobody died?
WHEDON: It was fucking weird! [laughs] I don’t know. I was like, “I don’t have any death. I’ll add sex!”
ACKER: Well, someone died and came back to life. You’re familiar with that.
WHEDON: That’s true. Hero died, if you’re some of the characters.
Apart from the dialogue, how much did you have the scenes planned out ahead of time and how much did you have to just do on the fly?
WHEDON: Everything was pretty well locked in. The one great thing was that the sets were built way before. When we rehearsed, we’d read it through, and then we’d go rehearse in the space, exactly how the space was going to be. We knew, “Oh, he’ll run down and try to do a balcony scene with her,” and “We’ll go from here to here.” Some of the physicality, we dialed in very specifically. A lot of it happened on the day, and that all came from these guys. Obviously, Amy didn’t say, “I’m gonna try something,” and then throw herself down the stairs. [laughs] We did actually plan that one. We had the major parameters set up completely, and then within that space, we’d see what would happen with a shrub or a cupcake or a coat.
You mentioned earlier, Clark, that you joined this project later on. With casting, how much did you have planned out when you finally decided that you were going to do Much Ado?
WHEDON: Well, I started with my leads. They were deal-breakers. I called them, even before I had finished [the script]. I wasn’t going to do it without them. I called them before anything because I wasn’t going to do it without them. The next person I called was Nathan [Fillion]. I didn’t have a second choice on that one. I have this extraordinary stable of people. I wanted to make sure that I could find people who were available and who were right. I didn’t want to go to five guys and say, “Hey, you wanna play this part? Oh, you all do?! Shit!” It was a delicate process. There was a lot of me asking questions about where people were going to be for the next month, on specific dates. Clark [Gregg] was obviously the most torturous because we wanted to make it work, and it wasn’t going to work. I went through three other Leonato’s, and then two days before production, I was like, “Are you still busy?” In every case, I got the person that I wanted the most to play the part. Honestly, you could do a Woody Allen in September and re-film this with another troupe of extraordinary people. I wouldn’t. I don’t want to. But, it’s an embarrassment of riches. I just had to make sure I didn’t piss anybody off. There’s not one person where I was like, “Well, they’ll do.” I got my dream cast.
Nathan, what was it like to do your scenes with Tom Lenk? Towards the end of the film I felt like I wanted to see a buddy cop spinoff.
FILLION: What I’ve learned is that, if you want to be funny, stand next to Tom Lenk. I’m not a big prop actor, but if I could only have one prop for the rest of my career, it would be Tom Lenk.
DENISOF: I would watch that show. That spinoff you’re talking about.
What did you learn about yourself, or take away from making this particular project?
DENISOF: Maybe because of the short time we had, it was really an exercise of instinct. For me, it was a great chance to trust my instincts and hope for the best. I already trust Joss and Amy, and the rest of the cast, so in myself, that’s what I learned.
ACKER: It just reiterated how lucky we are that we have such great friends and we all got to do this together. We have this amazing friend (Joss Whedon) who has introduced us all and made it all possible.
GREGG: I have to say, I feel like it was a profound gift. I just went over to Joss’ house for dinner to see if he was okay, after shooting The Avengers. A couple of days later, it was, “Oh, you’re playing this guy.” To have someone not ask to see your Shakespeare license, or ask if you’d even done it in 20 years, it gives you a trust. I feel like the ripple effect that that caused made me go, “Well, I must be able to do it. He’s so smart. He wouldn’t ask me to do it, if he thought I was going to blow it, I don’t think.” It’s so deliciously empowering. You’re there and you’re like, “I don’t really know how to do this. There’s Amy. Look at what she’s doing. That’s just riveting and charismatic and simple. If I can just look at her, then I can do it.” I just felt like this whole organism was like a weird group hug, which was ironically the nickname that we had for The Avengers, on all of the secret documents. There was this weird Elizabethan group hug going, with this energy that was created. It was really magical. I feel like it’s a gift that stays with you and makes people want to do something like this for other people.
What was it like to work with this Shakespearian language? Can you share a warm and fuzzy story about taking to the language?
GREGG: Can they involve fingers? [laughs]
DENISOF: A lot of the stylistic approach had its roots in the Shakespeare readings that we were doing at Joss’ house, which were so relaxed and natural. Thank goodness he chose a play that’s primarily in prose. It’s not in iambic pentameter or rhyming couplets, so that allowed us to find our own rhythms and interpretations, and to have as much fun as possible and not feel that we were responsible for a poetry recital.
ACKER: Once you’ve learned the words, then you get to chew on these amazing words and they bring out the emotion and take the scene to places that, when you’re reading it, you would never think it was going to go. But, as that dialogue comes out and the poetry comes out of it, it really influences the scene.
Joss, what are the pressures of doing pop culture TV versus the classics of literature?
WHEDON: The shooting schedules are very similar. Everything is the story. Everything is, “How much can I get- how much can I squeeze out of this?” They’re very similar because with TV, as soon as you’re locked in, you have a text, you have your sets, you have your cast. You know so much going in that you have the confidence to experiment in the structure of a very short shoot. That’s similar to this. Obviously, we all knew the text from various productions, and the actors knew it because they had learned it to say it. I had been studying it, so I felt very comfortable with it, and knowing that Shakespeare wrote it is a great comfort factor. At the same time, I knew the sets intimately and I knew that this cast was not only going to give me exactly what I needed, but they were all going to surprise me on the day, and make this thing alive in a way I couldn’t predict. It’s very easy- if you’re doing a TV show that goes on and on and on, or you’re doing a play so famous that it could easily be presented as a stately home- to forget that spark. The intent behind this, and the way I like to shoot anything, is to get the space ready, and then give it to the actors and let the electricity of a stage performance happen between them, in the moment. And that happened, all the time.
Is it true that you’re not an actor until you do Shakespeare?
GREGG: Sometimes you can do Shakespeare and you’re still not an actor. [laughs]
FILLION: I say you’re not an actor until you’ve done Whedon… and I mean DONE… [laughs]
GREGG: -until you’ve had your finger- [laughs]
WHEDON: I knew it was coming to that! [laughs]
GREGG: -deep in the Whedonverse. [laughs] Fuzzy feelings.
Amy and Alexis, what do each of you like most about working with the other?
ACKER: That’s awkward!
DENISOF: Well, the holy trinity for me is Joss, Amy and myself, in a scene, so to get the chance to work with them is always my favorite day at work. With Amy, all you have to do is watch and listen, and it’s the same with Joss. That’s my approach. They’re so good that I’m just happy to be there, really.
WHEDON: Okay, Ringo! [In Ringo voice] “I’m just happy to be here!” [laughs]
ACKER: I’m pretty sure that anyone who’s done a scene with Alexis feels like he’s their favorite person to work with. I don’t think I’m special, in that way. There’s such a trust. He’s so smart and handsome and nice. Should I go on?
DENISOF: Yes, please!
WHEDON: I don’t think I’m like Shakespeare. Can we please make sure that that’s very clear?! [laughs] Or if I am, it’s like he’s Frank Sinatra and I’m Frank Sinatra, Jr. That’s how we relate.
When five friends take a trip to a secluded cabin, they expected a weekend of fun. What they didn’t bargain for was a trip where they fight for their lives.
One of the best horror films I have seen in a long time, CABIN IN THE WOODS stars Kristen Connolly (THE HAPPENING), Chris Hemsworth (THE AVENGERS), Anna Hutchison (TV’s “Wendy Wu: Homecoming Warrior”), Fran Kranz (THE VILLAGE), Jesse Williams (TV’s “Grey’s Anatomy”), Richard Jenkins (THE VISITOR) and Bradley Whitford (TV’s “The West Wing”) as they set off on their adventure into the unknown.
Check out the trailer here:
A rambunctious group of five college friends steal away for a weekend of debauchery in an isolated country cabin, only to be attacked by horrific supernatural creatures in a night of endless terror and bloodshed. Sound familiar? Just wait. As the teens begin to exhibit standard horror movie behavior, a group of technicians in a control room are scrutinizing, and sometimes even controlling, every move the terrified kids make. With their efforts continually thwarted by the all-powerful eye in the sky, do they have any chance of escape?
At first glance, it starts off like any other horror film, including a creepy stranger they encounter on their way to the cabin that warns them of the dangers ahead. Typical horror stuff, right? Wrong! The film then takes some crazy twists and turns, bringing it to a level beyond the normal hack/slash film. It’s not since SCREAM that I have seen a movie try to outline the rules of horror (In a respectable way), and this film not only does that, but goes above and beyond. The film is innovative, smart, and includes some of that Joss Whedon humor that we all know and love. He and Drew Goddard knocked this one out of the park. It’s visually stunning, clever, and relies on wit rather than relying on cheap horror scares to make you jump a few times.
THE BLU-RAY
At first glance, I was kind of mad at the blu-ray for its hologram. Holy spoiler alert! The beauty of this film is that the audience doesn’t really know what’s unfolding until the right moment. The film is full of surprises. The sad part is that they put the biggest surprise on the cover! If I bought this, and had yet to see the movie, I would be furious! They may want to rethink that.
AUDIO: The English 7.1 DTS HD Master Audio is incredible. Once the creepy music creeps in, you will be in horror movie heaven! The sound is crisp, clear, and brings out the best in every blood curdling scream.
VIDEO: The 1080p High Definition16×9 Widescreen transfer (2.40:1) is stunning. The film is made to have some rather murky/dark scenes, but it still is clean and precise.
BONUS FEATURES:
Audio commentary with Writer/Director Drew Goddard and Writer/Producer Joss Whedon : This not only gives great information, but it’s also rather funny and witty. They go into production difficulties, working with the cast, and even their thoughts on the final film. One of the better commentaries I’ve listened to in a while.
“We Are Not Who We Are: Making The Cabin in the Woods” featurette : This mini documentary is filled with great behind the scenes footage and Joss Whedon goodness, this covers everything from where they wrote the script to production details.
“The Secret Secret Stash” feature: This section includes :
“Marty’s Stash”: A look at Marty’s smoking tools as shown by actor Fran Kranz
“My name is Joss and I’ll be your guide” : A guided tour of the interior and exterior of the cabin set by Joss Whedon.
Wonder-Con Q&A with Joss and Drew : A fun Q&A session after a screening of the film with the audience.
“An Army of Nightmares: Make-Up & Animatronic Effects” featurette : If you have not watched the movie yet, do not watch this. A close look at the effects needed for the film. It’s really cool, especially if you are into special effects. Still, there are spoilers in this section.
“Primal Terror: Visual Effects” featurette : Again, if you have not watched the movie yet, you might not want to watch this. It has spoilers as well, and is another glance into the visual effects world.
“It’s Not What You Think: The Cabin in the Woods” Bonus View Mode (Blu-ray Exclusive) : Although the viewing screen is extremely small, it’s still interesting to hear the cast and crew talk about the film. Still, they could have made the screen a bit bigger so we can make out what is going on in the box.
Theatrical Trailer
Drew Goddard and Joss Whedon haven’t really ventured into full-blown horror until now. Sure, they have tv shows with horror tones, but nothing like this. Growing up as fans of horror, they have created a movie that goes above and beyond what is being produced in modern horror today. CABIN IN THE WOODS is fun, different, and exciting. Aside from the spoiler hologram box art and the small viewing window in the Bonus View Mode, I am very pleased with the Blu-Ray.
OVERALL RATING: 4.5
CABIN IN THE WOODS is out on Blu-ray Disc (plus Digital Copy), DVD (plus Digital Copy) and On Demand today From Lionsgate
“You think you know the story…” so true are those words, it makes writing this review a critical hell, a nightmare of favorably frustrating proportions. The reason for this being, THE CABIN IN THE WOODS is one of those films that requires I not slip up and divulge any of it’s many wonderful details that would spoil the geektastically all-encompassing awesomeness of the film. If you are thinking, “Wow, this guy is selling the film rather hard,” you would be partially correct. Partially, because I’m not trying to “sell” the film at all, but on that rare occasion that a film has such a massive impact on my “happy” endorphins on this level, well… I just simply can’t help myself.
The basic story: Five college friends decide to take a break from their studies and spend a weekend in a, yes, you got it… a cabin in the woods. Curt (Chris Hemsworth, THOR) is the jock, but an unconventionally smart one. Jules (Anna Hutchison) is Curt’s “girl next door” girlfriend and her best friend Dana (Kristen Connelly, REVOLUTIONARY ROAD) is a book smart, semi-virginal good girl reluctantly along for the ride. Jules surprises Dana by inviting yet another — single — intellectual jock named Holden (Jesse Williams, BROOKLYN’S FINEST) with the hopes the two will hook up during their cabin retreat. Finally, Marty (Fran Kranz, THE VILLAGE) is the wise, but paranoid stoner and fifth-wheel on this wilderness trip. These five young men and women willingly enter into a seemingly harmless cabin in the woods, unsuspecting of the true and necessary horrors that await them… all for 105 perfectly pleasurable minutes of thrills, frights and laughs.
THE CABIN IN THE WOODS comes from the mind(s) of a genius — to some, many — co-written by Joss Whedon (SERENITY) and Drew Goddard (CLOVERFIELD) whom, with this film, also makes his directorial debut. Many fans obviously know of Joss Whedon from popular TV series including Firefly, Dollhouse, and Buffy. Perhaps less known, but equally talented is Drew Goddard, whom also has had his writing hands in the popular TV series cookie jar with Buffy, as well as Angel, Lost, and Alias. Putting these two minds together was shear brilliance, but unfortunately the recent troubles which befell the house of MGM held this film on the shelf, a film completed way back in 2011. With that said, we now get to enjoy not only this film, but THE AVENGERS, also directed by Joss Whedon, both opening this summer. (I may giggle like a school girl now. Don’t judge me.)
What is the secret of THE CABIN IN THE WOODS? You know I can’t tell you that, or else… I’d have to kill you. Seriously. If I told you that, someone would surely kill me as well. What I can tell you is that all the beautifully cheeky, sarcastic humor Joss Whedon is so well known for is alive and well. Whedon and Goddard mostly give Fran Kranz free reign over comic relief, serving up a hilariously witty performance as Marty, stoned nearly the entire film, constantly the ignored voice of reason. Marty is sort of a combination of SCREAM’s Randy, but with the personality of Alan Tudyk. I love Alan Tudyk, but that’s irrelevant.
The film opens with anything but the most logical, predictable scene for a horror film set in a cabin… in the woods. We meet two middle-aged men — Sitterson and Hadley — dressed in white, short-sleeve dress shirts and pocket protectors. No, these aren’t an updated, live-action, nerdy version of The Muppets’ Statler and Waldorf… actually, in a way I guess they could be. Sitterson (Richard Jenkins, THE VISITOR) and Hadley (Bradley Whitford, BOTTLE SHOCK) run a mysterious laboratory in a large, sterile facility staffed with equally laboratory-esque types. The opening scene, a quirky quick-witted exchange between Sitterson and Hadley, could quite possibly be one of the funniest moments in the film, setting the tone and calibrating the audience laugh-o-meter for heavy usage.
Following this scientifically silly exchange, we’re introduced to our five college friends and the journey begins. You’ll laugh, you’ll cry (from all the laughter) and then — in due time — you’ll shriek at the craziness of the building carnage that Whedon and Goddard conjure up as they slowly unveil the truth of THE CABIN IN THE WOODS. Now, while I cannot divulge any specific details, I can say with relative safety that the general gist of the “big” secret will become apparent somewhere around the halfway point, or at the very least, you should begin the suspect. However, as they say… “the devil’s in the details.” In other words, PAY ATTENTION! I believe it’s literally impossible for anyone to fall asleep during this film, unless shot with a tranquilizer, but watch closely to catch all the finer, even subtle little Easter eggs planted within the film, including film homages, insider gags, familiar knock-off characters, and even, perhaps… maybe… a secret cameo, or two? Hmm… I’m not saying anymore.
THE CABIN IN THE WOODS is smart, witty, fast-paced, comedic, horrific fun… the most refreshing, perfectly executed horror movie experience I’ve seen since James Gunn’s SLITHER (2006). The special effects are splendidly rendered, CGI done well — sparingly (well, till the end when the proverbial sh*t hits the fan) but effective — and monster fans may or may not be in for one helluva treat as well. There’s action, there’s romance (loosley defined) and tragedy, there’s conservatively utilized bloody and gory violence, suspense, of course there’s mystery, and even a touch of science-fiction mixed with a dash of folklore. (Oh, no. I’ve said too much. I’ve said enough. — Michael Stipe)
My Promise: Go, run to see CABIN IN THE WOODS! You will not see another horror film this good all year, well… not until sometime (maybe) in October, but that’s not confirmed yet. If you don’t enjoy this film, you’re demented.
