Cabin by the Lake

I have seen this movie many times and enjoy it every time. The sequel is not too bad either but the first one is definitely better. I thought the plot was very good. It was much better than someone getting their head chopped off every 5 minutes. I especially loved the music, it is as creepy as the movie. Definitely my kind of movie and my kind of music. I thought the underwater scenes very good, pretty realistic. It wasn't until i watched it again recently that I realized the actor that played the deputy was on the current TV show Navy NCIS and what a cutie he is. I have always loved Judd Nelson and he can play the crazy guy with the best.

I have to admit, this movie truly did shock me. Within the first five minutes you'll feel totally engrossed by the plot. Most movies will lay it on you in bits and pieces , this one just hammers you immediately then leaves you wondering whats going to happen next.

The audio the video quality was outstanding for what looked like a lower budget film, but the full-screen only DVD bothered me. I'm guessing it was transfered this way because it was originally intended for TV. There was a double DVD released not long ago (Cabin by the Lake, Return to the Cabin by the lake) which can be found at Amazon.com and can also be rented at Blockbuster incase you are interested. (see link at bottom of review for direct Amazon page)

Overall , Judd Nelson does a fantastic job as the main role, the plot wasn't all that thick and sometimes was predictable, but always kept you wondering "Are they next?".

Movie Link : http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B00005RDAP/qid16506652/sr=8-1/refsr_8_67_1/002-2048647-8605661

Even if you did not enjoy this movie, you must admit it is far better than most of the mindless drone that passes for a tv movie (i.e. the entire Lifetime channel rotation). Most all tv movies are atrocious but this was the type that was good in a bad way. Judd Nelson was absolutely perfect as Stanley, nailing even the campiest of dialogue. You could compare his believability to that of William Petersen's in 'Beast'. You can only judge an actor by how well they play in a terrible movie. The rest of the cast I really could do without, but they only serve to make him look better. Also, the water scenes were painfully beautiful in a sick way...

I would have to disagree with the commentator who said Stanley's killing for research was implausible. Au contraire, If you write screenplays, like I do, you can understand that. No, we generally do not become serial killers but on the whole we can be very irrational about the lengths we go to to achieve our goals. We really are all crazy ;-)

And to the commentator Tom: The drowning of girls was not meant to be humorous. And please do not get offended because, let's face it, you are not a woman...

One of the better made for tv movies I've ever seen. Nelson gives a nice creepy performance. I found the story very interesting and different and the visuals were enough to make me squirm. I'm sure there are some who will complain about the very end of the film, but personally I like that sort of thing.:) I would have liked to have seen a few more of his "garden" getting collected, but with all the commercials they have to put in I know their time is limited. Since this is on tv, I think it is well worth the time to stop and watch. And I hope it comes to video, because I would like to add it to my collection.

In my opinion, most movies of this sort sink or swim (pardon the pun) based on the villain, and everyone else kind of falls to the wayside. This one swam. This villain was bad (as he should be), yes, but what I liked about Stan is that he really enjoyed his work, and I can somewhat relate to him as I have been dabbling with screenwriting myself. Judd Nelson played him just right, really giving the impression of a regular guy just trying to do his job.

Some other reviewers have questioned the genre classification of this film, and I'd just like to throw in my two cents. I looked up the individual who wrote this film, and he was a guy who had been in Hollywood for a while, so I'm thinking given the whole subplot with Stan's agent and the director, that this may be a dark (VERY dark) satire of Hollywood and the people who try to make a living in that town, much like "Swimming With Sharks", another fine film.

Some other reviewers complained about a lack of explanation as to why Stan does what he does, but I am not one of them. I'm sure Stan had a motive that made sense for him, and those last two words are what is key here: FOR HIM. Sure, we'd all like a reason for what he did, but the makers of this film are under absolutely NO OBLIGATION to tell us what it is. Personally, it made me wonder about his motives, and I found that much more refreshing than whatever motivation that might have been revealed. I mentioned that I am dabbling in screenwriting and one of the books I picked up said that as long as the screenwriter knows why his characters do things, that's all that matters. No one else has to know.

Good well-played villain, a darkly humorous look at the Hollywood system, and some wickedly funny moments add up to a worthwhile film.