IMDb RATING
5.5/10
2.6K
YOUR RATING
A screenwriter, who lives in a cabin by the lake near Los Angeles, drowns young women, then goes back to visit their bodies and do their laundry.A screenwriter, who lives in a cabin by the lake near Los Angeles, drowns young women, then goes back to visit their bodies and do their laundry.A screenwriter, who lives in a cabin by the lake near Los Angeles, drowns young women, then goes back to visit their bodies and do their laundry.
Katrina Matthews
- Blonde at Theater
- (as Katrina Mathews)
- Director
- Writer
- All cast & crew
- Production, box office & more at IMDbPro
Featured reviews
10eepiwee
I'll tell ya, I feel sorry for Judd Nelson and all the bad rap he gets; as far as his performance in this movie goes, he totally maintains the mood. Cabin by the Lake is a made-for-tv movie originally aired on USA, however, I now own it and it's sequel on dvd. (amazon.com) If you're looking to hand out oscars you might consider overlooking this one, but if you're looking to be entertained (as cheesily as possible) this is it! I thoroughly enjoyed this movie, everything is quirky from the acting to the music. The underwater scenes were done quite nicely, and the soundtrack isn't so bad either...however it's hard to find any other song from the movie other than "Cure" by the Wild Colonials. If you're a fan of Judd Nelson, serial killer movies, and overall cheesy fun, you'll be sure to add this flick to your collection so you can watch it over and over again. If you liked this movie, check out it's sequel...Return to Cabin by the Lake...it's really DEEP! ;)
I had been wanting to see this movie when I saw it previewed on the USA channel, and when it finally came on,I got to watch it. And, I was surprised! It was a good thriller/horror/comedy film. Although, it wasn't much of a comedy. Judd Nelson (The Breakfast Club) and Hedy Burres (Valentine) were great!!! It was an excellent T.V. movie. I still haven't seen the sequel "Return to Cabin By the Lake". All in all, it was a good film that I give an 8 out of 10. :)
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...
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...
I enjoyed the movie then again i am a sucker for these kind of movies.. in this one Stanley is a, quoted from the sequel, "missunderstood genuis".. But i guess its one of the movies that you have to enjoy the physcological things to get it and to enjoy it.
As for the second one, like most sequels, its not the best.. it seems (and i am watching it as i type this) in return to cabin by the lake, Stanley has lost some of his "vision" and it just more interested it getting revenge on the directors, producers, ect. for butchering his script...
As for the second one, like most sequels, its not the best.. it seems (and i am watching it as i type this) in return to cabin by the lake, Stanley has lost some of his "vision" and it just more interested it getting revenge on the directors, producers, ect. for butchering his script...
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.
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.
Did you know
- TriviaFilmed in 32 days.
- GoofsWhen Stanley has Mallory chained by the ankle to the floor in the soundproof room, he tells he has to wash her clothes and asks her to take them off and put them in a plastic bag. She is wearing blue jeans. In the next scene, the jeans are in the bag. How did she get them off? They would still be connected to the chain.
- ConnectionsFollowed by Return to Cabin by the Lake (2001)
- SoundtracksCure
Written by Frankie Blue
Performed by Angela McCluskey & Wild Colonials (as The Wild Colonials)
Courtesy of Studios USA (BMI)
Details
- Runtime
- 1h 31m(91 min)
- Color
Contribute to this page
Suggest an edit or add missing content