In “Knock at the Cabin,” M. Night Shyamalan shows his talent for creating suspense. He builds tension from the very first knock, using sound and silence to make the threat feel closer and more real. This approach highlights his directorial skill.
The film’s use of 35mm film stands out, giving the images a rich texture. The anamorphic lens adds depth to the small rooms, helping to show the characters’ stress. Close-up shots of faces capture their emotions through small changes in expression.
During violent scenes, the film avoids showing graphic details. Instead, it uses sound and the actors’ reactions to create a sense of horror. This approach fits the PG-13 rating and lets viewers imagine the terror for themselves.
Dave Bautista’s embodiment of the “gentle menace.”
Dave Bautista, once a professional wrestler, gives what may be the film’s best performance. He looks intense and intimidating, but his gentle way of speaking to children and thoughtful appearance make his character, Leonard, feel both unsettling and believable.
When he holds the weapon with tears in his eyes and says, “This is the last thing I want,” he seems less like a fanatic and more like someone struggling with fate. Bautista has stood out in movies like Blade Runner 2049 and Dune, but here he shows even more emotional depth.
Jonathan Groff and Ben Aldridge also do a great job showing the pain of parents under extreme stress. Andrew’s anger and fear, as he sees the situation as “they’re targeting us again,” highlight the discrimination that LGBTQ+ people often experience.
Gage Skidmore, CC 表示-継承 3.0, リンクによる
Gage Skidmore, CC BY-SA 3.0, via link
The Merits and Demerits of Adapting the Original Work
The source material for this film is Paul Tremblay’s novel The Cabin at the End of the World (2018), a psychological horror masterpiece that won the Bram Stoker Award and the Locus Award. Stephen King praised it as “suggestive, with terror that clings like a chain. Tremblay’s best work yet.”
Tremblay’s main job is teaching high school math, and he writes his books in about an hour of free time each day. He says his steady teaching job lets him write what he enjoys without worrying about commercial success, and working with young people helps him create realistic child and teen characters.
The original story uses the number “7” in many ways: Wen’s age, the number of knocks, the main characters, and even the letters in the visitors’ names all tie back to this number.
However, Shyamalan’s film makes some significant changes to the original story. The most important differences include:
The Decisive Difference in the Ending
In the original work, Wen, the daughter, dies from a stray bullet midway through. Eric and Andrew demand that the group accept her death as a “sacrifice,” but the quartet refuses, stating, “It was an accident, so it doesn’t count.” Ultimately, the two choose to accept the world’s end, declaring, “Who cares about a god who demands sacrifices even after taking our daughter?”
In the film, the daughter lives, and instead, Eric gives up his life to save the world.
Ambiguity vs. Clarity
In the original story, it’s never clear if the group’s claims are valid. The reader is left to decide whether the world is really ending or just the group’s belief. This uncertainty leaves room for hope, showing that people can choose not to be forced into religion or ideology.
But in Shyamalan’s version, the end of the world is shown as real, turning the story into one about religious redemption, where one person’s sacrifice saves everyone.
The Original Author’s Reaction
In an interview with the Los Angeles Times, original author Tremblay stated, “There were moments when I wanted to run out of the theater.”
At times, ‘Knock at the Cabin’ made the book’s author want to ‘run out of the theater’
In another interview, Tremblay stated, “The reason I’m drawn to horror is the same reason I’m drawn to punk. A terrifying truth is revealed, and we might not survive, but there’s value in that shared recognition that something is wrong.”
Regarding this adaptation, director Shyamalan stated, “I believe there’s always a chance to stop the end of the world,” and “When individuals are defined as part of a larger collective, they find purpose for the first time.” Indeed, the idealistic message that “individual choices can change the world,” a theme consistent throughout his past works like Signs and Lady in the Water, remains a core directorial theme.
However, this adaptation carries serious issues. By eliminating the ambiguity of “fanaticism or truth” in the original work and presenting an ending that affirms religious sacrifice, it has been criticized as “imposing evangelical values.” Particularly weighty is The New York Times’ observation: “After achieving everything to commit to straight society—marriage, adoption, social standing—is the reward ‘one of you must die’?”
It’s up to each person to decide which is better: the book or the film. Still, the way the film swaps the original’s message of “freedom of thought” for “religious salvation” is a vital issue to think about.
The Perilous Intersection of Religion and Diversity
The film’s biggest problem is that it forces the idea of “Christian sacrifice” on an LGBTQ+ family. The four visitors remind viewers of the “Four Horsemen” from the Book of Revelation, and the sacrifices they ask for are similar to Christ’s atonement.
Although the film never says “God,” Shyamalan has said in interviews that it is a “biblical story,” making his intentions clear. The story, where a gay couple is pressured to make a “sacrifice” based on majority religious values, brings to mind modern hate crimes and is very insensitive.
It’s also troubling that the four visitors are shown as blue-collar workers, while Eric and Andrew are portrayed as intellectuals. It sets up a divide like America’s culture wars—“simple believers vs. secular elites”—and adds political tension that feels unnecessary.
The Director’s Technical Prowess and Narrative Limitations
Technically, the film showcases Shyamalan’s maturity. Textbook suspense techniques shine throughout: character placement in confined spaces, guiding perspective through focus shifts, and building tension via sound design.
One of the best parts is how the film cuts between disaster news on TV and the family’s reactions inside. Showing the outside world falling apart while the family struggles in a small space keeps the audience engaged and adds to the tension.
But even with these technical strengths, the film’s message has big problems. The idea of “saving the world through one person’s sacrifice” is a classic theme, but imposing it on a minority family today undermines the film’s value.
Summary: A technically brilliant yet ideologically questionable work
Knock at the Cabin shows again that M. Night Shyamalan is a talented filmmaker. He’s excellent at showing intense psychological battles in small spaces and short timeframes. The cast, especially Dave Bautista, give strong performances that add depth to the film.
However, the ideas behind the film are troubling for a movie made in the 2020s. Did the director really understand the risks of showing a story where minorities are forced to make religious sacrifices and calling it “moving” in today’s diverse world?
This film is hard to judge because it mixes great technical skill with troubling ideas. I suggest watching it while thinking carefully about its message. Compare it with the original book to better understand the complex issues it brings up.
