This movie is so dull and boring that even The Asylum or Troma might be embarrassed to release it. The plot in a nutshell is : a bunch of wanna-be film-makers venture into the woods to make a bad horror movie and are set upon by the afore-mentioned and barely-seen rubber-masked assailants. The movie is horribly 'color-corrected' into green-tinted nonsense. The 'FX' are not bad enough to be laughable or good enough to impress anyone. There is virtually no gore or even any nudity of note, but they DO toss in an impressive amount of 'Wilhelm Screams' and Commodore Amiga-caliber gunshots. O and there's a cave that looks like a menstruating vagina.
18 Reviews
At Least It Wasn't Shot in the Dark........
suzishuz753 March 2012
........Also.. Hardly any Shaky Camera shots. (this film can be watched without getting a Migraine).
Having said that, one of the worse things about this film Is: It was over two hours long. 90 Minutes would have been long enough.
The few who have commented so far, didn't think too much of this film. Neither do I, but IMO this was Not the Most Awful movie I've ever seen. For example: "BLAIR WITCH" for me, was painful, but I watched 'till the end.
I've been on both sides of the camera (but never quit my day job)- Never made any money, or got noticed, etc. - but it was FUN while I was involved. So maybe I just can't Trash anything; so if you have two hours with nothing else to do, get ready to view something that could have been made in the 50s.
Would I watch it again? Never. Would being numb Help? Couldn't hurt
MST3k2 shows stuff much worse then this, with bigger budgets; and lastly, during the 'dramatic' scenes, IMO the actors were really trying to Act.
At least this Group TRIED, and Released it, and got comments. Maybe their next attempt will be better.
Having said that, one of the worse things about this film Is: It was over two hours long. 90 Minutes would have been long enough.
The few who have commented so far, didn't think too much of this film. Neither do I, but IMO this was Not the Most Awful movie I've ever seen. For example: "BLAIR WITCH" for me, was painful, but I watched 'till the end.
I've been on both sides of the camera (but never quit my day job)- Never made any money, or got noticed, etc. - but it was FUN while I was involved. So maybe I just can't Trash anything; so if you have two hours with nothing else to do, get ready to view something that could have been made in the 50s.
Would I watch it again? Never. Would being numb Help? Couldn't hurt
MST3k2 shows stuff much worse then this, with bigger budgets; and lastly, during the 'dramatic' scenes, IMO the actors were really trying to Act.
At least this Group TRIED, and Released it, and got comments. Maybe their next attempt will be better.
Film-within-a-film monster horror
Leofwine_draca12 April 2017
Warning: Spoilers
MONSTERS IN THE WOODS is a film gently spoofs the 'monster' genre of B-movies while being such a film in itself. The story follows a film crew shooting a cheesy monster horror flick and opens with an arresting scene in which a nude blonde starlet is knifed in the neck by a masked maniac. Sadly it begins to fall apart soon afterwards and turns out to be rather dullish throughout.
The problem with the film is that the menace is a gang of demons that simply look like people in rubber masks, which is why they're rarely on screen. I did appreciate the way the film looks at the problems faced by low-budget filmmakers but this is mere context rather than the main thrust of the plot, which is strictly routine. In the end, the budgetary deficiancies spoil the fun.
The problem with the film is that the menace is a gang of demons that simply look like people in rubber masks, which is why they're rarely on screen. I did appreciate the way the film looks at the problems faced by low-budget filmmakers but this is mere context rather than the main thrust of the plot, which is strictly routine. In the end, the budgetary deficiancies spoil the fun.
My Review Of "Monsters In The Woods"
ASouthernHorrorFan21 August 2014
Warning: Spoilers
J. Horton's micro-budget horror, "Monsters In The Woods", is a celebration of b-movie flicks from the past.'Monster In The Woods" is a mixed bag of gimmicks and tricks that comes from a vision of awesome potential, but unfortunately falls short of even mediocre levels.
The story has strong possibility, with a film crew deep in the woods, suddenly under attack by actual monsters. It should have been a fun, entertaining, low budget, horror comedy. What happens is that so many ideas and elements are thrown together in a make-shift concept that falls apart mostly due to poor execution. The cast are not convincing- I am not even sure the actors really got what the director was going for with "Monsters In The Woods". The different concepts do more to crowd the film with indirection and distraction than to create a strong single, concise story arc.
The special effects used in "Monsters In The Woods" are by far some of the weakest. Even with cheap effects on a low budget, execution is crucial to pulling off the practical, and desired vision of he story. In the film things sort of look too dime store constume-y, than professional effects. There is nudity and screams galore. Blood spatters and monsters rage. However it isn't powerful enough to cover or over- shadow all the flaws this film gives us. Most notable a poor sound quality. Big no-no, and movie killer for even the best of stories with a decent budgets.
Overall, "Monsters In The Woods" teases an entertaining, homage to b- movie madness but fails to deliver. I followed the film's production and looked forward to finally seeing the finished product. Needless to say-I am disappointed. There is just too much that fails in this one for me to like the movie. Once again it proves the adage-"less is more"when it comes to concepts-put the more into special effects and sound. See the film if you just want to kill some time out of idle curiosity-but just be aware that it isn't J. Horton's finest work.
The story has strong possibility, with a film crew deep in the woods, suddenly under attack by actual monsters. It should have been a fun, entertaining, low budget, horror comedy. What happens is that so many ideas and elements are thrown together in a make-shift concept that falls apart mostly due to poor execution. The cast are not convincing- I am not even sure the actors really got what the director was going for with "Monsters In The Woods". The different concepts do more to crowd the film with indirection and distraction than to create a strong single, concise story arc.
The special effects used in "Monsters In The Woods" are by far some of the weakest. Even with cheap effects on a low budget, execution is crucial to pulling off the practical, and desired vision of he story. In the film things sort of look too dime store constume-y, than professional effects. There is nudity and screams galore. Blood spatters and monsters rage. However it isn't powerful enough to cover or over- shadow all the flaws this film gives us. Most notable a poor sound quality. Big no-no, and movie killer for even the best of stories with a decent budgets.
Overall, "Monsters In The Woods" teases an entertaining, homage to b- movie madness but fails to deliver. I followed the film's production and looked forward to finally seeing the finished product. Needless to say-I am disappointed. There is just too much that fails in this one for me to like the movie. Once again it proves the adage-"less is more"when it comes to concepts-put the more into special effects and sound. See the film if you just want to kill some time out of idle curiosity-but just be aware that it isn't J. Horton's finest work.
Godawful
hashishin66629 February 2012
Glenn Plummer has never been an A-grade actor though he has been in some pretty good movies in his career. This unfortunately doesn't fall into that category. Mr. Plummer must be broke to allow himself to be associated with a film of this calibre.
I really can't stress enough how terrible a movie this is. A terrible script executed terribly by actors who seem to have been stopped on the street and asked if they'd like to star in a monster movie. And speaking of the monster; Imagine fifties B-movies if you will. Now imagine a particularly bad one. That's what you get with this movie. Throw badly shot and badly directed into the mix and you get something I would call a C-movie. So poor as to be impossible to enjoy.
Yes, I know thirty grand is nothing for a movie budget but I'm sure that more skilled film makers could have conjured up something better with that money.
Whoever it was that rated this movie as a 10 must have either been involved in the making of it or having a laugh.
I am as capable of enjoying B-movies as the next person. Some are even favourite films. But I couldn't in good conscience recommend this movie to anyone. This movie is a must miss.
I really can't stress enough how terrible a movie this is. A terrible script executed terribly by actors who seem to have been stopped on the street and asked if they'd like to star in a monster movie. And speaking of the monster; Imagine fifties B-movies if you will. Now imagine a particularly bad one. That's what you get with this movie. Throw badly shot and badly directed into the mix and you get something I would call a C-movie. So poor as to be impossible to enjoy.
Yes, I know thirty grand is nothing for a movie budget but I'm sure that more skilled film makers could have conjured up something better with that money.
Whoever it was that rated this movie as a 10 must have either been involved in the making of it or having a laugh.
I am as capable of enjoying B-movies as the next person. Some are even favourite films. But I couldn't in good conscience recommend this movie to anyone. This movie is a must miss.
absolutely garbage
myjgp-668-2413475 March 2012
Absolutely garbage! But some scene were so campy I actually got a laugh or two out them !! Could not believe Glenn Plummer a main stream actor was in this low budget to no budget trash.Watchable little picture but watchable just once.I have to think the horrible acting was done on purpose.cause no actor can be this bad !!Some nice set decoration with the caves and some of the make up was fairly good for amateurs. Wouldn't recommend watch this at a party with friends,U may get cursed out and lose friends unless you're serving very strong drinks and All your friends pass out! Yes this movie is really that bad .But the video sucked,the cameras were busted like they came from Toys R Us, but in a strange way like I said before it had it's points(though not many) and I was able to get through the whole thing without falling asleep !!
I still can't believe what I was watching!!!!!!!!
nightwatch477329 January 2013
I will give this film one positive comment and that is that it was ambitious and tried to some degree to make something a little bit campy but the buck stops there. First of all the acting is soooo bad that it wasn't even funny. Where did they find these people, with the exception of the director of the film and maybe the angel 1/2 way through the rest was just deplorable. Oh My God I just could'nt believe that this film got distribution. There must've been some collusion between the distribution and the makers of this film. I thought Episode 50 and bad bush were bad, this drives them to the supermarket. In fact this film may qualify for top 10 worst films I have ever seen. Monsters in the woods is so discursive that you have no idea what is going on for most of the film. Stay far away unless your on some serious drugs and alcohol because thats what it might take to remotely enjoy this calamity.
IT'S NOT THAT BAD
nogodnomasters20 July 2018
Warning: Spoilers
This is a film about making a slasher film in the woods. The regular photography is supplemented with hand-held cameras to remind us how bad these type of films can be. The plot also includes a battle of good vs. evil as the monsters are really hell hounds.
The dialogue was better than normal with some humor injected into the script. The director was of the "Ed Wood" variety.
Parental Guidance: F-bomb, sex, nudity (Jacqui Holland)
The dialogue was better than normal with some humor injected into the script. The director was of the "Ed Wood" variety.
Parental Guidance: F-bomb, sex, nudity (Jacqui Holland)
Avoid at all costs
billcr129 March 2012
Somebody out there got hold of a video camera, and like Mickey Rooney in the 1930s said, " let's make a movie." Amateurish acting, an incomprehensible script, and silly make up add up to a total waste of 84 minutes; root canal would be preferable.
The editing and story structure is horrible beyond belief. The "Blair Witch Project" started a style of low budget filmmaking which Monsters continues. The creatures in this mess look like puppets created at the Jim Henson studios, although Kermit the frog would have made it more interesting.
The evil muppets come out of a cave containing the portal to hell which must be sealed to save the earth from ruin; I have no idea what the people who created this garbage were thinking. It's not funny or scary.
I can only advise any potential viewer to avoid " Monsters in the Woods" at all costs; trust me; it is horrendous.
The editing and story structure is horrible beyond belief. The "Blair Witch Project" started a style of low budget filmmaking which Monsters continues. The creatures in this mess look like puppets created at the Jim Henson studios, although Kermit the frog would have made it more interesting.
The evil muppets come out of a cave containing the portal to hell which must be sealed to save the earth from ruin; I have no idea what the people who created this garbage were thinking. It's not funny or scary.
I can only advise any potential viewer to avoid " Monsters in the Woods" at all costs; trust me; it is horrendous.
laughable
pattamus-11 March 2012
Cast and crew voting their own movie, AND made the storyline a freaking sob story, go whine to someone who cares "jayson" with all capitals.
You aren't McG, just for an example of another dumb name.
Just all around bad, don't even pirate this shite.
I have to write more, so I will write, the cover looks bad, but for 30K damn dun, get a dude with some shoop skills some artistic taste or something. Give me a few hundred and i'd bust out something better.
Make a better movie too, and not do the lame cast n crew praise then whine about "problems". It's like an athlete saying " I was hurt, so that wasn't a great performance, but wait will next season".
You aren't McG, just for an example of another dumb name.
Just all around bad, don't even pirate this shite.
I have to write more, so I will write, the cover looks bad, but for 30K damn dun, get a dude with some shoop skills some artistic taste or something. Give me a few hundred and i'd bust out something better.
Make a better movie too, and not do the lame cast n crew praise then whine about "problems". It's like an athlete saying " I was hurt, so that wasn't a great performance, but wait will next season".
Disconcerting backwoods monster movie
tdeladeriere4 March 2012
On the entry point of what looks like a run-of-the-mill backwoods slasher, a dizzy blonde gets pounded by a black dude under a tent before the latter gets slashed by a bird-faced killer off-camera. Then a director yells "cut !" and we get to meet a cinema crew shooting an additional sex scene for their low-budget horror movie. The director is a tyrant, the boom operator is lecherous and the girlfriend of the aforementioned black guy wants to join the amateurish cast.
The next half-hour is a macabre farce, where the ensemble piece slowly gets diced off by giant bugs in-between a lot of zany bickering. Cut to a X-Files duo exploring these same woods with some heavy artillery and a mysterious agenda.
"Monsters in the Woods" is an unexpectedly funny take on guerrilla movie-making and may also be a homage to low-budget horror movies of the 50's, with the giant monsters and the satanic cults. The script is a hodgepodge of ideas, which to my delight flew in every directions up until the hysterical finale. There's magic in this mess, though I would not recommend it to anybody looking for something in particular, because it's not something in particular. It's a bit of everything, done with improvised flair and not a lot of budget. As usual, it's difficult to determine if Linda Bella is a terrible actress or if she does this on purpose.
The next half-hour is a macabre farce, where the ensemble piece slowly gets diced off by giant bugs in-between a lot of zany bickering. Cut to a X-Files duo exploring these same woods with some heavy artillery and a mysterious agenda.
"Monsters in the Woods" is an unexpectedly funny take on guerrilla movie-making and may also be a homage to low-budget horror movies of the 50's, with the giant monsters and the satanic cults. The script is a hodgepodge of ideas, which to my delight flew in every directions up until the hysterical finale. There's magic in this mess, though I would not recommend it to anybody looking for something in particular, because it's not something in particular. It's a bit of everything, done with improvised flair and not a lot of budget. As usual, it's difficult to determine if Linda Bella is a terrible actress or if she does this on purpose.
I got exactly what I expected
foreverlost10855 March 2012
I don't get the hate this movie is receiving, don't get me wrong I am by no means saying its a great movie, honestly I don't know if I would even really say its a good movie, but its clearly not a bad one.
I mean the monsters looked great, a real throw back to the old school monster movies I enjoyed so much as a child, the rest of the f.x. gags where fun, the acting was... I'll go with OK, but over all I don't feel like I was robbed of the 2 hours I spend watching this, it will just fade into the hundreds of other nameless monster movies I've seen over the years. Lets be honest about one thing though. Even before I saw the budget, with a name like monsters in the woods you should not be expecting to get a film like the "Artiest". Its going to be camp, its going to be "B" grade. If common sense did not tell you that you deserve not to enjoy the movie.
I mean the monsters looked great, a real throw back to the old school monster movies I enjoyed so much as a child, the rest of the f.x. gags where fun, the acting was... I'll go with OK, but over all I don't feel like I was robbed of the 2 hours I spend watching this, it will just fade into the hundreds of other nameless monster movies I've seen over the years. Lets be honest about one thing though. Even before I saw the budget, with a name like monsters in the woods you should not be expecting to get a film like the "Artiest". Its going to be camp, its going to be "B" grade. If common sense did not tell you that you deserve not to enjoy the movie.
Micro-budget, half-baked monster nonsense
Wuchakk6 August 2016
Released in 2012, "Monsters in the Woods" is a micro-budget flick (costing a mere $30,000) about—you guessed it—monsters in the woods of Southern California that a film crew experience while shooting a low-budget horror movie.
I like the diverse ethnic cast, which is refreshing, but the shaky cam gets annoying real quick. There are a couple of cute girls, but no one to get overly excited over, although I like the Hispanic actress introduced in the second act. I also like the way the monsters are depicted, sorta half-human, half-spider and impressively diabolic all things considered. Near the end of the first act one of the main protagonists abruptly buys the farm and the reaction of the rest of the crew is unconvincing and a turn-off. The second act introduces two curious characters with head-scratching dialogue but, thankfully, the cool monsters are also introduced. Unfortunately, the proceedings and characters are dull as written. Things finally perk up in the last act with revelations about what's really going on, but it can't save the flick from being what it is—half-baked nonsense.
There's enough good here for a quality monster-in-the-woods horror movie, but the filmmakers needed to take the time to work the kinks out in the story/script. George Romero did this with his original "Night of the Living Dead" (1968) and it remains a selling masterpiece to this day. The lesson? Don't rush off into the woods to shoot a monster flick, low-budget or not, UNTIL you have a well-written story with interesting characters. Otherwise you're just wasting your time and the time of anyone who views this harebrained drivel.
The film runs about 90 minutes and was shot in San Bernardino National Forest, California.
GRADE: D
I like the diverse ethnic cast, which is refreshing, but the shaky cam gets annoying real quick. There are a couple of cute girls, but no one to get overly excited over, although I like the Hispanic actress introduced in the second act. I also like the way the monsters are depicted, sorta half-human, half-spider and impressively diabolic all things considered. Near the end of the first act one of the main protagonists abruptly buys the farm and the reaction of the rest of the crew is unconvincing and a turn-off. The second act introduces two curious characters with head-scratching dialogue but, thankfully, the cool monsters are also introduced. Unfortunately, the proceedings and characters are dull as written. Things finally perk up in the last act with revelations about what's really going on, but it can't save the flick from being what it is—half-baked nonsense.
There's enough good here for a quality monster-in-the-woods horror movie, but the filmmakers needed to take the time to work the kinks out in the story/script. George Romero did this with his original "Night of the Living Dead" (1968) and it remains a selling masterpiece to this day. The lesson? Don't rush off into the woods to shoot a monster flick, low-budget or not, UNTIL you have a well-written story with interesting characters. Otherwise you're just wasting your time and the time of anyone who views this harebrained drivel.
The film runs about 90 minutes and was shot in San Bernardino National Forest, California.
GRADE: D
The Burning Christmas Yule Log Video is More Entertaining
stellbread4 March 2024
A film crew working on a creature flick finds themselves pursued by real creature and must fight to survive. The film stars directed by Glenn Plummer, who is a solid actor with a proven track record (Pasttime, The Corner, Things to Do In Denver When You're Dead, South Central,), but this is as poorly a directed film as Plummer himself has helmed (VooDoo Curse: The Giddah, 7 Deadly Sins failed to garner a rating higher than 2.6). Plummer must be on the outs with Hollywood's bigwig directors and now has been confined to "the goony leagues" of film actors, where actors' careers go to take their final breath. This film has it all-all bad, that is: Third-rate cinematography, f/x, acting, writing, pacing... sheesh. Director J. Horton has the nerve to flaunt to the world that this version is the Director's cut. At least he had sense enough not to use his full name, though he might've been better off passing this off as an Alan Smithee joint. This is 96 minutes of raw, fecal-scented sewage. If this were graded on an A-F scale this film would've earned a G-rating, and not because its palatable to General audiences.
Nifty monster horror outing
Woodyanders23 February 2015
Warning: Spoilers
The cast and crew of a low-budget horror movie that's being made in the woods find themselves under attack from real life monsters. Writer/director Jason Horton keeps the enjoyable story moving along at a brisk pace, cheerfully pokes fun at tried'n'true horror clichés (for example, the black guy dies first), draws the characters with a reasonable amount of depth, generates a good deal of tension, offers a few neat twists and turns, brings a take-no-prisoners attitude to the material, and delivers a handy helping of gore along with a satisfying smattering of gratuitous female nudity. Moreover, Horton warrants extra praise for not only providing an amusing sense of self-mocking humor, but also for going with old school practical guys-in-gnarly-suits beasts over cheap'n'cheesy CGI. The lively and enthusiastic acting from the able and eager cast keeps things humming, with especially praiseworthy contributions from Glenn Plummer as irate director Jayson, Lee Perkins as wimpy soundman Guy, Ashton Blanchard as a sweet and adorable script girl, Edward Hendershott as the tough and resourceful Burt, Blaine Cade as shady investor Bravo, and Claudia Perea as two-fisted bitch Ariel. The dynamic cinematography makes galvanizing use of a hand-held camera. A cool little flick.
Satire!
goatthought25 November 2012
This movie obviously wasn't playing it straight. The acting was hit or miss, depending on the scene. The monsters were damn cool. The movie was funny and I believe intentionally so.
The cast/crew massacre at the midway point was funny as hell. It was cool role for Glen Plummer and some of the other actors are good as well. There are few that are not so great too. And the crazy-ass explanation the angel gives, with the shooting in the middle and goes right back into the speech, freaking priceless. Monsters in the Woods is a great tongue and cheek time.
Flaws? Sure, but there are more positives than negative. I say give this hard to find gem a go.
The cast/crew massacre at the midway point was funny as hell. It was cool role for Glen Plummer and some of the other actors are good as well. There are few that are not so great too. And the crazy-ass explanation the angel gives, with the shooting in the middle and goes right back into the speech, freaking priceless. Monsters in the Woods is a great tongue and cheek time.
Flaws? Sure, but there are more positives than negative. I say give this hard to find gem a go.
Not bad at all! Come on!
horrormovieguy5 March 2012
Warning: Spoilers
It's not nearly as bad as some of the other reviewers have said. In fact it's at some points quite good. Definitely not a 10, but not horrible either. For one the monsters looked good, especially for an obviously beyond low-budget production. Sure the beginning half dragged a little, but it also had plenty of funny lines and some good repartee between the actors.
Once things kicked in it was a lot of fun, didn't take itself too seriously and had one hell of a good sense of humor. It's far from perfect. The acting is hit or miss. LIke I said before the 1st half goes on longer than it should and there should've been a few more graphic kills. But the movie is definitely worth checking out as a rental or maybe a purchase if you're a die-hard monsters movie fan.
A few things worth mentioning. The director's unexpected and random death was hilarious. It was made even more funny by the fact that the crew decides to go on filming their movie. The girl with the ripped off face's final demise was another great moment. There's quite a few few funny one liners. I never thought I'd laugh at the line "I'm an actor." But it had me chuckling here. Also, the commentary between the director and the crew was pretty funny.
Once things kicked in it was a lot of fun, didn't take itself too seriously and had one hell of a good sense of humor. It's far from perfect. The acting is hit or miss. LIke I said before the 1st half goes on longer than it should and there should've been a few more graphic kills. But the movie is definitely worth checking out as a rental or maybe a purchase if you're a die-hard monsters movie fan.
A few things worth mentioning. The director's unexpected and random death was hilarious. It was made even more funny by the fact that the crew decides to go on filming their movie. The girl with the ripped off face's final demise was another great moment. There's quite a few few funny one liners. I never thought I'd laugh at the line "I'm an actor." But it had me chuckling here. Also, the commentary between the director and the crew was pretty funny.
Nutty, Bloody, Uneven but Ambitious Oddball Semi-Spoof B-Indie
DrGrood27 November 2013
I don't think all the positive comments here are made by members of the production crew for the movie, as almost all are for a few other new independent cheapo horror-movie disasters such as ALPHA GIRLS, and I AM ZOZO, which are hideous failures in all ways and shill-spammed here like crazy by fiends and family (and yes, my spelling there is intentional).
This movie has some very amusing scenes in it and is a mix of spoof, improv, creature feature and hand-held "reality" horror and the reason why it doesn't entirely work is not that everything about it is bad, it's that not all those elements always fit together.
Unquestionably the best moments in it are the sly little comedy lines and bits that are slipped in and will especially appeal to anyone who has ever shot a film before. This stuff is almost all genuinely funny and includes jabs at bad actors, girlfriends who want to be in movies too, stupid low-budget horror characters (the initial scene portrays an attack on innocent naked campers by a monster turkey-man--yeah, that's right, a turkey-man, and when you realize that you can't help but smile), comments by a black guy about black guys always getting killed first, a script girl being asked to fill in for a role when another actress goes missing but objecting to getting naked, etc. A few are absolutely laugh-out-loud moments and the timing on most of them is excellent -- you don't always catch everything that's going on right away, you have to pay attention, but, yeah, those bits are supposed to be funny and they are, the filmmakers just don't slap you in the face with them, or provide you with a laugh track or cartoon sound effects to telegraph them, and that's a good thing.
The actors here are mostly not bad here either; the director is amusingly frustrated with everything that goes amiss (and plenty does) and the script girl in particular is a very amusing and capable performer.
There is also a sincere effort made here to include NON-CGI practical creature suits for the oddball monsters that dominate the second half of the movie. That's admirable, even if they are a bit odd-looking and not usually very well-photographed.
What doesn't work here is the way-too-absurd plot imposed on the original setup which is there to justify the monsters and murders which eventually abound. It's just way too far-fetched to make any sense or be engaging and honestly the creatures, as one of the actors even says, don't even look anything like the "hell-hounds" which is what, apparently, the script says they are supposed to be. The whole idea is poorly conceived, though if it had been allowed to be more funny too, might have had a chance. It isn't tho, so the monster-stuff pretty much falls flat throughout.
Also, makeup effects are pretty dismal throughout, and involve mostly a lot of chocolate-syrup blood (or is it just plain chocolate syrup?) being poured all over people who are supposed to be getting killed. A lot of the deaths look the same and one appliance worn by a main character who lives through some brutality is actually even loose and separated from her face most of the time is worn. Sloppy stuff there; invest in some spirit gum or pros-aide, guys.
So the whole deal here, yes, is very uneven, but if you look at it as a spoof you will get some entertainment out of it, and me saying that is not some member of the crew saying that is what a movie that actually entirely sucks was "supposed to be all along." As I mentioned before, parts of this thing are really funny IF you don't watch it in serious-mode, which, from the opening scene involving the turkey-man attack, is clearly not something that you're intended to do. But then it looks like you ARE supposed to take it seriously and you don't know if you are doing the right thing when you do so or not. And this is the movie's inherent problem. It shifts in tone too widely throughout for it to be entirely acceptable.
I wonder what might have happened if they had just left out the preposterous "real" horror story in this thing which is just not in any way acceptable and just filmed a comedy about the frustrated director and incompetent, whining, ridiculous actors trying to make their fictional horror movie and just goofing up in every way possible, jumping each others' bones, having to be replaced when someone leaves, etc. Sometimes just doing one thing well is better than trying to do 4 things at once and not being able to pull them all off successfully.
I'm not sorry I saw this and may even go back to it again to see if I can catch more funny stuff I didn't before, because the comedy parts of it are funny; the filmmakers clearly have a sense of humor and that is the best thing about MONSTERS IN THE WOODS. The "horror" business mostly doesn't work tho, because the "idea" is too involved & fantastic for the filmmakers to be able to pull off. Have to hand it to the people who made this for trying, tho.
This movie has some very amusing scenes in it and is a mix of spoof, improv, creature feature and hand-held "reality" horror and the reason why it doesn't entirely work is not that everything about it is bad, it's that not all those elements always fit together.
Unquestionably the best moments in it are the sly little comedy lines and bits that are slipped in and will especially appeal to anyone who has ever shot a film before. This stuff is almost all genuinely funny and includes jabs at bad actors, girlfriends who want to be in movies too, stupid low-budget horror characters (the initial scene portrays an attack on innocent naked campers by a monster turkey-man--yeah, that's right, a turkey-man, and when you realize that you can't help but smile), comments by a black guy about black guys always getting killed first, a script girl being asked to fill in for a role when another actress goes missing but objecting to getting naked, etc. A few are absolutely laugh-out-loud moments and the timing on most of them is excellent -- you don't always catch everything that's going on right away, you have to pay attention, but, yeah, those bits are supposed to be funny and they are, the filmmakers just don't slap you in the face with them, or provide you with a laugh track or cartoon sound effects to telegraph them, and that's a good thing.
The actors here are mostly not bad here either; the director is amusingly frustrated with everything that goes amiss (and plenty does) and the script girl in particular is a very amusing and capable performer.
There is also a sincere effort made here to include NON-CGI practical creature suits for the oddball monsters that dominate the second half of the movie. That's admirable, even if they are a bit odd-looking and not usually very well-photographed.
What doesn't work here is the way-too-absurd plot imposed on the original setup which is there to justify the monsters and murders which eventually abound. It's just way too far-fetched to make any sense or be engaging and honestly the creatures, as one of the actors even says, don't even look anything like the "hell-hounds" which is what, apparently, the script says they are supposed to be. The whole idea is poorly conceived, though if it had been allowed to be more funny too, might have had a chance. It isn't tho, so the monster-stuff pretty much falls flat throughout.
Also, makeup effects are pretty dismal throughout, and involve mostly a lot of chocolate-syrup blood (or is it just plain chocolate syrup?) being poured all over people who are supposed to be getting killed. A lot of the deaths look the same and one appliance worn by a main character who lives through some brutality is actually even loose and separated from her face most of the time is worn. Sloppy stuff there; invest in some spirit gum or pros-aide, guys.
So the whole deal here, yes, is very uneven, but if you look at it as a spoof you will get some entertainment out of it, and me saying that is not some member of the crew saying that is what a movie that actually entirely sucks was "supposed to be all along." As I mentioned before, parts of this thing are really funny IF you don't watch it in serious-mode, which, from the opening scene involving the turkey-man attack, is clearly not something that you're intended to do. But then it looks like you ARE supposed to take it seriously and you don't know if you are doing the right thing when you do so or not. And this is the movie's inherent problem. It shifts in tone too widely throughout for it to be entirely acceptable.
I wonder what might have happened if they had just left out the preposterous "real" horror story in this thing which is just not in any way acceptable and just filmed a comedy about the frustrated director and incompetent, whining, ridiculous actors trying to make their fictional horror movie and just goofing up in every way possible, jumping each others' bones, having to be replaced when someone leaves, etc. Sometimes just doing one thing well is better than trying to do 4 things at once and not being able to pull them all off successfully.
I'm not sorry I saw this and may even go back to it again to see if I can catch more funny stuff I didn't before, because the comedy parts of it are funny; the filmmakers clearly have a sense of humor and that is the best thing about MONSTERS IN THE WOODS. The "horror" business mostly doesn't work tho, because the "idea" is too involved & fantastic for the filmmakers to be able to pull off. Have to hand it to the people who made this for trying, tho.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
