Knock at the Cabin (2023)

I'm just being real here 🤷

Patrick Martin said:I really tried to force myself to sit through this one, I swear, but it just wasn't happening. Just like I thought—it’s way too pretentious and trying way too hard to be "trendy." Honestly, massive respect to anyone who actually makes it to the credits; you guys are built different.

I don't know, man. This movie is definitely something, but calling it pretentious? I don't buy it.

It’s tough to stay engaged until the end, sure, but it’s not like the movie is insulting your intelligence or anything... it’s not like it’s poorly shot either. It actually has some pretty slick cinematography in there if you look closely.

Grace Sanchez50 said:I guess this movie is all over the place, but it definitely isn't pretentious.

Oh, so it's "not pretentious" in its concept and execution? Fine, let me just rephrase that—it's secretly pretentious. Is that better? Does that satisfy you?

It's hard to sit through until the end, though nothing about it is actually offensive enough to make you turn it off... and technically, it's not even bad. It actually has some decent cinematography work in there.

Sure, it looks good. On almost every technical level, it’s perfectly fine. Except for the one level that actually matters. And if that part fails, the rest is just wasted effort.🤷

I don't usually chime in on movie threads unless some classic Hollywood masterpiece catches my eye, but I just finished this one and I’m honestly still reeling from the disappointment.

It was just plain BAD... and that’s not a word I ever imagined using when talking about his work—especially when you consider his first few hits...

The concept? It had potential. But the editing? Those constant flashbacks to their past were a complete disaster. They totally killed whatever mood the movie was trying to build.

And don't even get me started on the acting... everyone was mediocre, but Dave Bautista... really?

If M. Night Shyamalan thinks that guy (and I hesitate to even call him an actor) can carry a whole movie on his shoulders, he's dreaming...

Dwayne Johnson must be his acting professor or something.

Dave Bautista is essentially acting as a mentor to Dwayne Johnson.
It’s interesting to see how Dwayne Johnson handles his roles when he's learning from someone like Batista, almost like a seasoned pro guiding a young apprentice.

Patrick Martin said:It’s technically sound enough—fine on almost every level, really—but it misses the one thing that actually matters. And if you miss that? Well, what was even the point? 🤷

The film actually has a purpose—though maybe you'll finally grasp that once you actually sit down and watch it?

It’s essentially quite spiritual—Shyamalan actually managed to pull that off quite nicely.
Dave Bautista was excellent—that little girl was just precious. And those scenes in the foster home? Quite something. 🙂

I dig the premise of this movie. Haven't sat down to watch it yet—just read up on the plot.

Saw the trailer though, and honestly? It looked pretty weak to me.

Batista is excellent; he carries the entire film on his back.

The movie? Well, the premise is certainly intriguing, though I found myself wishing for a bit more depth. It manages to spark the imagination, yet fails to provide the substance required to sustain it.

Ultimately, it falls victim to that tired old cliché: "I didn't turn it off during the hour and forty minutes, so it must be good."

I don't have anything against Batista, but he just has such a strange look about him, haha. I don't know, he gives off this vibe like he's some kind of six-foot snake, it's just weird. Kind of reminds me of the Anaconda from the movie Anaconda.

bluerider3 said:I’ve got nothing against Batista—really—but the guy just has such a strange vibe, haha. I don't know... he gives off this weird, two-meter-long snake energy. Like something straight out of Anaconda.

Well, he’s a fighter—probably taken plenty of hits over the years.
Personally, those scars creep me out a bit—I've always hated seeing them on a bald guy. 🕺

feralpilot0 said:Movies have a purpose, maybe you'll get it once you actually sit down and watch it.

Purpose? Give me a break. I saw where this was heading within thirty minutes. You can practically see which group is playing which role, who represents what ideology, and exactly what the conflict is about. Honestly, I just can't stomach the director's blatant bias—it feels like he's just trying to lecture me.🤷

It’s all so incredibly obvious and cheap that it actually makes my blood boil. As far as I'm concerned, the director is washed up. Period.☕

analogbear40 said:My take—it’s just more of the same, but those little flashback montages showing their past episodes are a complete disaster. They totally kill whatever tiny bit of atmosphere the movie actually managed to build up.......

Yeah, exactly

this gay couple they show 🤦

one of them (the guy in the bathrobe) is basically a total mama's boy, just sitting there with this soft, innocent puppy-dog stare like some grandma from a fairy tale, practically melting like cheese whenever he looks at his partner 🤣
meanwhile the other one is this aggressive, high-strung guy who can't even hold back his rage—you know, that stereotypical look you'd spot instantly from an airplane window, just ugh, gross

and that scene in the hospital maternity ward or whatever was just as pathetic. Honestly, I just shut it off without even thinking twice...

Patrick Martin said:it's just like

a gay couple is shown 🤦

pa ćaaaalee, you fell asleep on the remote again! 😢

electriccanyon26 said:pa ćaaaalee, you totally sat on the remote again! 😢

come on, tell me how you saw them? they were great to you, right?

First time I’m hearing about Batista through this flick. He was alright in the role—honestly better than if they'd gone with Johnson.

I don't know why people are even bringing up The Rock in this conversation... he’s just not right for a movie like this. If you look on IMDb, I can't find anything in his filmography that even resembles this genre, despite how many movies he's been in. He basically sticks to action flicks and adventures, like Jumanji or those projects he did with Reynolds. You've got Baywatch, Adam, and so on.

Raymond Anderson4 said:Why is The Rock even being brought up here? He’s totally wrong for this kind of movie. If you check IMDb, there isn't a single project in his filmography that looks anything like this—and he’s done a ton of them. He sticks to action flicks and adventures, stuff like Jumanji or those movies with Reynolds... you know, Baywatch, Adam, etc., etc.

He’s fine for action and adventure movies, sure—but that's about it. He isn't built for films with actual depth or complex characters.

Honestly, this was one of the worst movies I’ve sat through in years. It’s completely pointless and exhausting—the whole premise and setting feel totally unnecessary and irrelevant.
The best part of the entire movie was just the trailers and seeing Shyamalan's name.

Edward Cooper11 said:Sure, he works fine for action flicks and adventure movies. That’s about it. He’s just not built for anything with actual depth or complex characters.

Bautista is basically the doctor of acting when it comes to Rock. And plenty of others, too.

I’ll admit, I’m biased—Schlaman is one of my favorites, so...
It’s interesting, worth a watch, and honestly kind of fun. Look, it isn't some cinematic masterpiece, nor is it the peak of M. Knight's career, but I don't get why everyone is being so incredibly negative about it.
In an era where finding a decent movie feels harder than ever, this is perfectly fine.