🎬 In this FilmSpeak video essay we discuss The HUGE Problem with Knocka at the Cabin and why the new M. Night Shyamalan movie is kinda problematic…
🔔 SUBSCRIBE:
In this video, we’ll discuss the HUGE problem with Knock at the Cabin… and why it’s such a disappointment.
M Night Shyamalan’s latest film is billed as a thought-provoking, claustrophobic thrill ride, but unfortunately, it’s not all that it’s cracked up to be. Sadly, Knock at the Cabin suffers from a lot of the same issues Shyamalan has struggled with for years, particular when it comes to the KNock at the Cabin ending aka the problem with M. Night Shyamalan. It’s not all bad, though. There are some compelling performances from Dave Bautista and Ben Aldridge, but outside of that, the new Shyamalan movie is one note, and surprisingly, albeit unintentionally, problematic with it’s handling of queer representation. In this video, we’ll discuss the problems with the film and how it ended up disappointing us- big time! Griffin (@griffschiller) gives you his Knock at the Cabin review and explains why Knock at the Cabin is a disappointment, the problem with Knock at the Cabin, why Knock at the Cabin fails, Knock at the Cabin explained, and why Knock at the Cabin is bad. Enjoy this Knock at the Cabin analysis and Knock at the Cabin ending explained video!
#knockatthecabin #mnightshyamalan #videoessay #davebautista #knockatthecabinreview #endingexplained #explained #explainervideo #analysis
Edited by @CadesCinema
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
🎞 Chapters 🎞
0:00 Intro
2:35 I. The Proposition
6:34 II. The Ploy
14:04 III. The Pedestrian
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
🎞 About Knock at the Cabin 🎞
While vacationing at a remote cabin in the woods, a young girl and her parents are taken hostage by four armed strangers who demand they make an unthinkable choice to avert the apocalypse. Confused, scared and with limited access to the outside world, the family must decide what they believe before all is lost. Written and directed by M. Night Shyamalan, Knock at the Cabin stars Dave Bautista, Jonathan Groff, Ben Aldridge, Rupert Grint, Abby Quinn, and Nikki Amuka-Bird.
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
▶️ Other Amazing Videos ◀️
🔀 Click HERE for more Video Essays:
📺 Click HERE for a SURPRISE video:
▶️ About FilmSpeak ◀️
Welcome to FilmSpeak hosted by Griffin Schiller, where the conversation continues after the credits. If you’d like to become a part of that conversation, consider subscribing for more thoughtful and exclusive insight, analysis, and interviews behind YOUR favorite movies!
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
❗️ My YouTube Gear 📺 ❗️
Camera 🎥: Sony a7iii ➡️
Microphone 🎙: Shure SM7B ➡️
Lights 💡: Elgato Key Light Air ➡️
Tripod: Joby Gorillapod ➡️
Live Stream Capture Card: Elgato Cam Link 4K ➡️
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
Follow FilmSpeak on Social Media
► Visit FilmSpeak’s Homepage:
► Twitter:
► Instagram:
► Facebook:
80 Comments
But mainly I felt it was refreshing there was no convoluted twist in it. Hadn't read the book for myself, but I can see why some people are upset that there is no ambiguity here.
EDIT: I completely did not pick up on that Andrew and Eric (Adam and Eve) allegory! Never thought about it, but quite an interesting observation.
1.) make it common knowledge that the world is seemingly ending. I heard the book is more of a home invasion set during a apocalypse. As if to say that everyone knows the apocalypse is happening. That way it’s less about are they telling the truth about the world ending, which is something they can easily prove in the first 20 minutes, but instead do they have some unique revelation about the cause and solution to the apocalypse. Each time ever sacrifices himself, did it have a direct effect on the apocalypse, or was it just a coincidence or planned out to look like they have a inside scoop on how to save he world. This is much harder to prove for the group, and it focuses attention on what really matters, that being whether or not they are a mentally ill group of people or rather not they are actually sent by God.
2.) have the condition to save the world not be that one of the family members randomly must be chosen to die, but instead both parents must sacrifice their child. Not only is this infinitely a harder choice to make, as with the original you can just choose yourself as the parent, but also this would make the climax much more sense. As we would see one parent converted willing to sacrifice their daughter, and the other parent completely disagreed, and seeing them fight over this would have The audience on the edge of their seat. Especially if it got physical. This also would ask many more philosophical questions.
3.) And finally, recast the movie. Jonathan Groff is the only actor giving a semi believable and somewhat moving performance. The actor who plays his husband is not good at all, the worst of the actors is easily the actress in plays Wen, at some points her performance is actually painful to watch. And yes I would also recast Batista, his performance is mediocre at best. He just delivers his lines in a semi-dramatic and melancholy way, and it doesn’t help that the entire time the audience is just thinking I’m looking at Dave Bautista right now with glasses dressed as a teacher. It’s distracting. He has the body of a literal God, not a middle school gym teacher.
I believe with a cast I can truly grip the audience in and move them, and have us believe in this absurd scenario, and with those two changes to the plot, it would easily be his best film since unbreakable. I will also add that some of the camera movements were distracting and unnecessarily showy.
Also, the grasshoppers in the jar metaphor is so stupid. Like what questions does it ask? What is the metaphor implying? It’s an empty metaphor, with no actual significant value or depth. I was just ask some sort of suicidal question about the relation between the grasshoppers and the family, because they literally have none besides their situation. Or are we supposed to ask the philosophical similarity between Dave Bautista and the rest of the four horsemen and the Wen who has captured the grasshoppers? It’s a pointless metaphor that’s just there to see in clever.
Comments are closed.