Speaking of things I don't agree with on the internet: Rich Juzwiak's review on Gawker.com seems to get that the movie's asking deeper questions than Scream, but still just dismisses the questions as invalid:

The resolution is not just underwhelming - it's hypocritical. The idea that primitive bloodlust draws audiences to horror films ("Remember when you could just throw a girl into a volcano?" asks a producer) is disingenuous. There is at least a segment of the horror audience that doesn't seek catharsis or some kind of primordial thrill when watching depictions of death, but that sees them for what they are: depictions. For some of us, the real fun of horror movies comes from divorcing yourself from character empathy [...] and, as a result, viewing this stuff as a collection of ways a group of movie makers are attempting to make you squirm, scream and vomit. The question isn't, "How will they scare me?" but, "What will they think of next to try?" One's relationship with the macabre doesn't have to be reflexive, and smart-talking characters aren't the only ones who are capable of consciousness.

Or: "You think you're smarter than me, movie? HA! The joke's on you, because I don't go to these movies to think!"

I think we all get that these are depictions, and that audiences distance themselves from what's happening on screen. Scream just acknowledges that this is what you're doing. Cabin in the Woods asks why you do it.

You can't really accuse someone of being hypocritical if they're asking a question that you refuse to answer.