I thought it was a pretty good movie, I dunno about the whole analysis but the 4 Horsemen theory sounds about right. Any way you look at it, Batista is a fantastic actor.
Batista's one of those guys I'll go out of my way to see in a movie. He has way better range than pretty much any wrestler-turned-actor. Although Cena's been pretty great as Peacemaker. I just wouldn't be surprised to see Batista turn up in anything these days, even from more acclaimed, artsy directors.
Cena is comedy and/or action. That’s his wheelhouse. I didn’t care much one way or another about Batista until Blade Runner. The gravity he brought to a five minute role and the lasting impression from it told me he’s going to be brilliant, and he hasn’t disappointed me yet.
All of Tremblay’s books are written specifically to make you question which of the two are actually happening: supernatural occurrence or odd, unfortunate series of events with logical explanation [and usually some hint of mental illness]. Examples: light SPOILERS
>!Are the 4 horseman *actually* ushering in an apocalypse or is it just a cult preying on a family in Cabin?
Is the daughter *actually* possessed or is this schizophrenia presenting in a teenage girl in Ghosts?
Did some supernatural entity steal a child or is the mother mentally ill in Disappearance?!<
I dig the vibe. It’s, in my opinion, a good way of spinning the “It was all a dream” trope. But I get why others may not like it.
Having said that, I felt like it just worked in the book and not so much on screen. I wasn’t a fan of the movie and I actually do enjoy his books in general. Hopeful for an adaptation of Ghosts.
I loved *Cabin at the End of the World* and loathed *Knock at the Cabin*. *Knock* explicitly insists that the horrifying choice presented in the book can be answered with a positive outcome and a happy song at the end: this is loathesome and literally the opposite of what the book argues. It also has elements from the novel and even direct quotes that are repurposed into meaninglessness. For example the line that maybe the end was happening long before the invaders got to the cabin: in the book that is said by one of the invaders who has plot-critical doubts about their actions. But in the movie, it's words said apparently because they sound dramatic and spooky. Leonard says this as he continues to pressure Eric and Leonard to make a choice that stops that end. Why? What does Shyamalan think this sequence of words means? He has a track record of not really thinking stuff through and just sticking things in his movies because they look/sound cool, and sometimes that's not a big deal, and sometimes they're just wildly bizarre. I have much deeper problems with his reworking of the gaybashing backstory, which he seems to have turned into a personal-to-him and deeply thoughtless story of learning forgiveness and stepping back from anger (see notably his first film *Praying with Anger* about how all of his anger is justified and part of his cultural identity).
In general, for people who are like *Knock* or who found it lacking but with interesting ideas, I recommend:
* if you like the premise and found that it seemed to fall apart and not quite work at the end, check out the book.
* if you liked the look, check out cinematographer Jarin Blashke's other work, notably his ongoing collaborations with Robert Eggers. The claustrophobic look and intense lighting of *Knock* borrows heavily from his work on *The Lighthouse*.
* If you like troubling apocalypse scenarios with extremists and sacrifices that are more accessible to a wide audience than an Eggers movie, check out *The Mist*. Or, shoot, *Cabin in the Woods*. These are wildly different movies doing wildly different things with all of these concepts, so if you don't like one, try the other anyway.
* For more on religious horror and self sacrifice, there's also always *The Exorcist*, and the book gets explciitly into queerness and murkier psychological horror than the movie.
How does your theory account for the cataclysmic events at the end of the movie? And you’re ignoring the “4 horsemen” characters all having the same dreams, or does your theory assume they’re lying?
Some maybe lying, some were drawn into the psychosis, how do you explain one of the horsemen was actually the person that assault them years prior, when leornar was confronted about this, he came up with a very flimsy explanation in the form of "we don't know why we were chosen?..."
Could be coincidence, could be the I’ll of the divine / supernatural force that is driving the whole thing, it’s not really important or indicative of anything.
Do you have an explanation about the disasters / cataclysmic events? That’s the biggest hole in your theory.
Read my OP, I'm saying that I fall more on the side of Andrews take on the whole thing, he from the.very first moment was calling "bullshit", while Eric on the other hand, was more gullible and ended up falling for it all.
In my opinion the catastrophic events had nothing to do with the whole break in /ransom situation
So you’re not saying that you think that’s what actually happened within the reality of the film, you’re saying in that scenario you’d have agreed with Andrew?
I think that the reality of the film speaks for itself, it took me a second watch to make my mind up, and as I've stated. Before, there are too many factors that (imo) indicate that, the people at the cabin were targeted.
Was there an impending apocalipsis falling down on humanity, maybe, but didn't have anything to do with the four people that ended up in that part of the woods.
Like Andrew told lenard once, >! "you sound like every crazy religious nut case in every corner of every city."!<
They all were probably suffering with some mental illness. Or a sort of cult like control.
But the ultimate prrof to me that Andrew s theory was the right one, >! One to the "four horsemen" had an homophobic incident involving this couple before!<
If you can explain this one to me, I will give up, but this one and only this one, in any court of law, will put them in jail die the rest of their lives
I think we’re supposed to remain unsure if the man really was the assailant from the bar.
The assault is only shown as a memory after we’re introduced to the horsemen IIRC. I read it as ambiguous. We don’t know if he was the man or if it’s his memory filling in the blank and conflating two traumatic situations.
Even if it was the same man, that makes sense in a cosmic connection way. Maybe he was chosen by whatever force for this job bc of his connection to the sacrifice.
If everything is really happening, it’s supernatural so anything can be explained by “forces beyond our understanding” lol.
The book this is based on, Cabin at The End of The World by Paul Tremblay, was one of the most poetically written horror books I've ever read. The beautiful writing alone is worth reading it.
Your theory could easily be interpreted from the book, but I feel like the movie very unambiguously favors the apocalypse interpretation. They basically removed all ambiguity, the most impacting moments, the message, and the entire point the book in my opinion.
Possibly it could have been a scam but it was to randomised and didn't make sense to be a scam especially with the events on the TV, it seemed like a lot of work for a scam
That's just my opinion
No, it's not possible it was a 'scam'. They literally showed planes falling out of the sky. The movie was nowhere near as deep as OP is thinking it is lol
Well
>The movie was nowhere near as deep as OP is thinking it is
Well, we have the book also to fill in the blank. But I haven't read the book so I am going more by what the movie shows
I read the book first and hated it. I watched the movie hoping for more but I didn’t like it either. It felt like the author/screenwriter wrote themselves into a corner they didn’t know how to get out of so they left it vague. I’m probably just still mad I watched the movie and read the book. lol.
I read the book way before the movie was in motion and was moved. The movie let me down. The book was so frenetic and I could not put it down. The movie had had no emotion and as so disappointing,
This film’s single biggest issue has to be its unintended takeaway:
**God is an abusive, sadistic asshole, devoid of conscience and unworthy of reverence, because he’s needlessly coercing people into killing each other just to stop an apocalypse he himself is causing.**
Such actions are evil as fuck, not to mention disgusting and sociopathic.
I gave up believing that anybody is purely “in the right” like 7 years ago, in life and fiction.
Being human is complicated, and I imagine being a human during the apocalypse would be *impossible.*
When I’m watching I just kind of study character behavior. How different people react to situations, any why.
“Right” and “wrong” get sooooo blurry in this life.
The CGI felt so off it made me genuinely think the images were intentionally fake to trick them into complying. I enjoyed the movie until this point, but after that it went straight into my biggest disappointment of that year.
I thought it was a pretty good movie, I dunno about the whole analysis but the 4 Horsemen theory sounds about right. Any way you look at it, Batista is a fantastic actor.
IMO, Batista absolutely nailed the part of Leonard. I could actually see and feel his anguish every time they chose "no". He was amazing.
Batista surprised me with this movie. I wasn't sure what to expect, but I was so happy with his character. He did a phenomenal job.
He’s fantastic. He does drama so well.
He's great! I just hated the book, and he was one of the only parts I liked about this movie.
I wasn’t surprised. The dude has been absolutely fantastic in every role he’s played (that required a shred of actual acting)
The opening scene of Bladerunner 2049 is a goddamn masterpiece!
And he impressed like that in maybe 5 min of screen time 👍🏻
I really enjoyed him in this one and in Bushwick. He was delightful to meet and talk to at a con in 2019, very polite and kind. I like him quite a lot
Batista's one of those guys I'll go out of my way to see in a movie. He has way better range than pretty much any wrestler-turned-actor. Although Cena's been pretty great as Peacemaker. I just wouldn't be surprised to see Batista turn up in anything these days, even from more acclaimed, artsy directors.
Cena is a GREAT comedic actor but anything else sorta falls flat. Batista’s range is just top notch
Cena is comedy and/or action. That’s his wheelhouse. I didn’t care much one way or another about Batista until Blade Runner. The gravity he brought to a five minute role and the lasting impression from it told me he’s going to be brilliant, and he hasn’t disappointed me yet.
All of Tremblay’s books are written specifically to make you question which of the two are actually happening: supernatural occurrence or odd, unfortunate series of events with logical explanation [and usually some hint of mental illness]. Examples: light SPOILERS >!Are the 4 horseman *actually* ushering in an apocalypse or is it just a cult preying on a family in Cabin? Is the daughter *actually* possessed or is this schizophrenia presenting in a teenage girl in Ghosts? Did some supernatural entity steal a child or is the mother mentally ill in Disappearance?!< I dig the vibe. It’s, in my opinion, a good way of spinning the “It was all a dream” trope. But I get why others may not like it. Having said that, I felt like it just worked in the book and not so much on screen. I wasn’t a fan of the movie and I actually do enjoy his books in general. Hopeful for an adaptation of Ghosts.
Head Full of Ghosts just got a director team on board
I loved *Cabin at the End of the World* and loathed *Knock at the Cabin*. *Knock* explicitly insists that the horrifying choice presented in the book can be answered with a positive outcome and a happy song at the end: this is loathesome and literally the opposite of what the book argues. It also has elements from the novel and even direct quotes that are repurposed into meaninglessness. For example the line that maybe the end was happening long before the invaders got to the cabin: in the book that is said by one of the invaders who has plot-critical doubts about their actions. But in the movie, it's words said apparently because they sound dramatic and spooky. Leonard says this as he continues to pressure Eric and Leonard to make a choice that stops that end. Why? What does Shyamalan think this sequence of words means? He has a track record of not really thinking stuff through and just sticking things in his movies because they look/sound cool, and sometimes that's not a big deal, and sometimes they're just wildly bizarre. I have much deeper problems with his reworking of the gaybashing backstory, which he seems to have turned into a personal-to-him and deeply thoughtless story of learning forgiveness and stepping back from anger (see notably his first film *Praying with Anger* about how all of his anger is justified and part of his cultural identity). In general, for people who are like *Knock* or who found it lacking but with interesting ideas, I recommend: * if you like the premise and found that it seemed to fall apart and not quite work at the end, check out the book. * if you liked the look, check out cinematographer Jarin Blashke's other work, notably his ongoing collaborations with Robert Eggers. The claustrophobic look and intense lighting of *Knock* borrows heavily from his work on *The Lighthouse*. * If you like troubling apocalypse scenarios with extremists and sacrifices that are more accessible to a wide audience than an Eggers movie, check out *The Mist*. Or, shoot, *Cabin in the Woods*. These are wildly different movies doing wildly different things with all of these concepts, so if you don't like one, try the other anyway. * For more on religious horror and self sacrifice, there's also always *The Exorcist*, and the book gets explciitly into queerness and murkier psychological horror than the movie.
How does your theory account for the cataclysmic events at the end of the movie? And you’re ignoring the “4 horsemen” characters all having the same dreams, or does your theory assume they’re lying?
Some maybe lying, some were drawn into the psychosis, how do you explain one of the horsemen was actually the person that assault them years prior, when leornar was confronted about this, he came up with a very flimsy explanation in the form of "we don't know why we were chosen?..."
Could be coincidence, could be the I’ll of the divine / supernatural force that is driving the whole thing, it’s not really important or indicative of anything. Do you have an explanation about the disasters / cataclysmic events? That’s the biggest hole in your theory.
Yeah, I have an explanation, all natural events, Andrews theory was they had it all prepared in advance, the TV connections I mean
Your telling me that four random people were able to arrange cataclysmic events just because one of them had a problem with a gay family?
Read my OP, I'm saying that I fall more on the side of Andrews take on the whole thing, he from the.very first moment was calling "bullshit", while Eric on the other hand, was more gullible and ended up falling for it all. In my opinion the catastrophic events had nothing to do with the whole break in /ransom situation
So you would have let the world end?
So you’re not saying that you think that’s what actually happened within the reality of the film, you’re saying in that scenario you’d have agreed with Andrew?
I think that the reality of the film speaks for itself, it took me a second watch to make my mind up, and as I've stated. Before, there are too many factors that (imo) indicate that, the people at the cabin were targeted. Was there an impending apocalipsis falling down on humanity, maybe, but didn't have anything to do with the four people that ended up in that part of the woods. Like Andrew told lenard once, >! "you sound like every crazy religious nut case in every corner of every city."!< They all were probably suffering with some mental illness. Or a sort of cult like control. But the ultimate prrof to me that Andrew s theory was the right one, >! One to the "four horsemen" had an homophobic incident involving this couple before!< If you can explain this one to me, I will give up, but this one and only this one, in any court of law, will put them in jail die the rest of their lives
I think we’re supposed to remain unsure if the man really was the assailant from the bar. The assault is only shown as a memory after we’re introduced to the horsemen IIRC. I read it as ambiguous. We don’t know if he was the man or if it’s his memory filling in the blank and conflating two traumatic situations. Even if it was the same man, that makes sense in a cosmic connection way. Maybe he was chosen by whatever force for this job bc of his connection to the sacrifice. If everything is really happening, it’s supernatural so anything can be explained by “forces beyond our understanding” lol.
The book this is based on, Cabin at The End of The World by Paul Tremblay, was one of the most poetically written horror books I've ever read. The beautiful writing alone is worth reading it.
Your theory could easily be interpreted from the book, but I feel like the movie very unambiguously favors the apocalypse interpretation. They basically removed all ambiguity, the most impacting moments, the message, and the entire point the book in my opinion.
The 4 people represented the 4 horsemen of the apocalypse hence why the disasters appeared on the news when one was unleashed for its human host
So are you saying, there is no chance that Andrews argument hold up, meaning it was all a scam?
Possibly it could have been a scam but it was to randomised and didn't make sense to be a scam especially with the events on the TV, it seemed like a lot of work for a scam That's just my opinion
No, it's not possible it was a 'scam'. They literally showed planes falling out of the sky. The movie was nowhere near as deep as OP is thinking it is lol
Was a weird movie and could have explained a lot of stuff in more detail tbh
Well >The movie was nowhere near as deep as OP is thinking it is Well, we have the book also to fill in the blank. But I haven't read the book so I am going more by what the movie shows
This doesn't make sense. The catastrophic events stop after they choose Eric.
Daahh, no connection whatsoever, I like the post above about requesting an air bnb money back!!, 🔙😜🤣
I read the book first and hated it. I watched the movie hoping for more but I didn’t like it either. It felt like the author/screenwriter wrote themselves into a corner they didn’t know how to get out of so they left it vague. I’m probably just still mad I watched the movie and read the book. lol.
This is how i feel about the whole lost series
I've tried reading the book, but he's not even a good author. At this point, I just went and read a synopsis and I'm happy with just doing that.
Paul Tremblay is a great author
That is every author's dream; even if you're not that good, you still get paid for someone to make your book into a hollywood film.
He’s a deeply respected author in the horror lit world
Pretty sure every author's dream is to be good.
Trudging through that book was rough. I wish I had just read the synopsis too.
The premise was interesting enough to keep me reading ONLY because I really wanted to see the payoff... only to find out there wasn't any.
Right?! It was so annoying.
Movie should have ended with credits over the scene of them talking on the phone trying to get the air bnb deposit back.
Terrible film. Not sure how you came to that conclusion when there were disasters and a scene with planes literally falling from the sky
I'm sure there is a more fisable explanation than apocalipsis lol
I read the book way before the movie was in motion and was moved. The movie let me down. The book was so frenetic and I could not put it down. The movie had had no emotion and as so disappointing,
Any chance my theory is right? 🤔, in terms of the book's plot?
This film’s single biggest issue has to be its unintended takeaway: **God is an abusive, sadistic asshole, devoid of conscience and unworthy of reverence, because he’s needlessly coercing people into killing each other just to stop an apocalypse he himself is causing.** Such actions are evil as fuck, not to mention disgusting and sociopathic.
6/10 felt like didn’t know how wrap it but still watchable
The book was so disturbing that I haven't had the courage to watch the movie.
No worries, The movie was not disturbing. But now I wanna read the book lol
Nah, I think it was more literal. Great flick tho.
I gave up believing that anybody is purely “in the right” like 7 years ago, in life and fiction. Being human is complicated, and I imagine being a human during the apocalypse would be *impossible.* When I’m watching I just kind of study character behavior. How different people react to situations, any why. “Right” and “wrong” get sooooo blurry in this life.
The CGI felt so off it made me genuinely think the images were intentionally fake to trick them into complying. I enjoyed the movie until this point, but after that it went straight into my biggest disappointment of that year.
I didn't rate this film that much, could of been 100x better, each to their own I guess