|Page 1 of 2:|| |
|Index||15 reviews in total|
This movie started off well like a lot of 'found-footage' movies, but then it slowly descends down hill from there. It takes at least 45 minutes before anything actually starts to happen, and the movie is only 75 minutes long. The movie is a cliché of most "people who go camping in the woods" type films, and there is a lot of running through the moors and through the woods that gets to be too much after a while. There isn't that much action in it either really, in fact thinking back over it the movie seems to be a complete waste of time as you don't really get any answers to why or what is happening. I felt like I wasted 75 minutes of my life watching this, but I do have to admit the acting was pretty good, which is a shame, as the movie wasn't. So I give it a 2 out of 10.
It all started with Blair Witch in '99. Since then, 'found footage' and
'handicam'-style films have become all the rage. There was the
less-remembered 'Last Broadcast' which actually preceded Blair Witch
but did not capture the imagination in the same way the viral marketing
method pioneered by Haxan Films managed to. And since those early days,
well-received efforts such as Cloverfield and Paranormal Activity have
upped the budget but endeavoured to keep themselves to the same
So, with these films now extremely common, it takes something a bit special to stand out. Sadly, nothing about 'A Night in the Woods' is special, and it blows several good chances to be a great film, instead ending up a bit of a mess of a production which could have been so much more.
The story sees 3 'friends' decide to go camping out in Dartmoor - the complete lack of explanation as to why they are going there is one mild flaw. A 'sinister' (contrived) element of risk is thrown in with a visit to an Irish pub and tales of horror from the area the intrepid 3 are aiming for. And after a very long and dragged-out first portion of the movie we finally end up on location for a night in the woods.
This film tries insanely hard to be Blair Witch, in Britain. Just like the earlier masterpiece it's 3 friends isolated in the woods with inexplicable evil apparently descending upon them. And to its credit it does manage to create a semblance of tension approaching the crescendo of the story.
But unfortunately the makers decided to throw in a whole bunch of bizarre red herrings which made no sense. They included revelatory back story but unfortunately none of it was remotely developed nor did it make any sense in context of the environment - it did not appear to affect anything.
They also included a few moments which were from the eyes of certain characters. The whole point of these films is you only ever see from the view of the camera they are holding. As soon as you get an eye-view from a character who has no camera, it doesn't work.
It was, as mentioned, also let horribly down by the unnecessarily long intro - the story took far too long to get going and created the criminal error of making every character dislikeable in the process.
That all said it is not the worst cam film I have ever seen, but it was poorly-conceived and lacked sense and cohesion. Its forced and contrived nature let it down horribly, even if the acting was actually half decent.
Seen much better.
One of the worst films I've ever seen. The camera-work was crass and
amateurish, the plot non-existent, the characters unbelievable and
totally unsympathetic. The scenario presented was ridiculous. There was
even a ludicrous scene in a Dartmoor pub where local yokel Mummerset
stereotypes told of ancient myths about horsemen and sang folk music as
if this is what Devon folk do in the boozer all the time. In your
average Dartmoor pub (I live nearby) you'd get Jennifer Saunders or
some tourists. The director seemed to believe that black-and-white
shots of ancient trees were in themselves menacing, along with the
occasional hoot of an owl or cry of foxes. There was no attempt to
create a sense of paganism or witchcraft, or anything else to
contextualise the fears aroused during the camping trip.
This film was a bad steal from Blair Witch, transposed to an ancient copse on a Dartmoor tor, but with no suspense, no thrills, nothing remotely scary except that anyone had seen fit to distribute this nightmare of filmmaking. It was repetitive beyond belief - just the same old camera shots seen over and over again, and people stumbling around among some rocks - and I kept glancing at my watch wondering how soon it would end.
Fortunately I hadn't paid good money to see it in the cinema, but I resented using up one of my monthly rental DVDs after reading a favourable review in a respected British newspaper and imagining the film would be a bit of spooky fun.
I recommend that no one should waste time or money viewing this film. It's an embarrassment, and I felt humiliated at having watched it!
Definitely influenced by The Blair Witch Project, this standard "terror
in the woods at night" flick starts with a young couple embarking on a
camping trip with the woman's cousin in tow. Things and people turn out
not to be quite what they seem, however, and as night grows near scary
things start to happen.
I found this one to have an interesting premise with some mildly interesting characters.The lead up to the actual horror part showed lots of promise, but never really delivered. There were a few interesting twists and turns present as well as a couple of effective jump scares but there was little to no payoff. 5/10.
Lets start off with the PROS PROS: Many pop out scares (especially if
watching on a high volume..), the few black and white night vision
parts are excellent in making trees look like people (several times I
thought I saw someone hanging from a tree, which is what the Hunter
does in this movie) CONS: Too much inactivity, not enough stimulating
dialogue, TOO MANY IDIOTIC DECISIONS (even for someone who is scared
out of their mind.. One small example is having a flashlight and not
pointing it in the direction of sound!) HOWEVER... this movie was
pretty nice and really good at making your eyes deceive you, and then
scaring you with distorted sound, blurred camera vision and pop out
scares.. I honestly recommend watching at high volume... but not too
high, and at nighttime. I viewed it during the day at high volume and
it got me pretty good in the last 40 minutes of the film...
FINALLY: One last thing I should mention is that this movie does tdo a very good job at making you hate the characters, then like them, then hate them again.. so its well worth one watch.
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
After watching this film last night I think it started off just like
The Tapes. It used the whole found footage style of film where it
starts off with 3 people going on a trip & then it turning into a
nightmare at the end. Then having one of them getting paranoid & such &
then the other going missing & so on & so on. Then them giving you the
"These 3 people disappeared & have yet to be found" card before the
I found this film similar to The Tapes & would say this one you couldn't figure out what was going on & what was happening. I must say though that the scares were pretty good along with Kerry finding the 3 nooses hanging from the tree & Leo getting possessed. It was OK generally, but could of shown more instead of the camera rumbling & rolling around every 5 minutes.
It's amazing that this film was ever made. Not because it's
particularly bad, but simply because I can't imagine the sales pitch
that financed it. It must have gone along the lines of: 'A Night in the
Woods is a film that's shot entirely from the point of view of a single
camera operator and is about three friends who go hiking in the woods,
only to get picked off by an evil witch.'
Surely the studio executive listening to that pitch would have said, 'Yeah, but... isn't that the Blair Witch Project?' And they'd be right. Only this one is made in England. Otherwise it's pretty similar. As I say, it's not as bad as it could be. The three characters are pretty amusing and there's a fair bit of UK vs US banter between the English girl and her American boyfriend, plus they're pretty realistic in the way they all interact. Then there's the scenery. The film is a decent advert for the English countryside, showing some really scenic shots of Dartmoor. These become increasingly creepy as the night vision techniques are used.
However, from a promising start, we're soon treated to a pub-load of country bumpkins that happen to tell them sinister tales, foretelling what's to come (ala every other film of this type). Then, after a long build up with nothing vaguely supernatural happening, odd things start to occur (and one of the three vanishes mysteriously, again, just like Blair Witch).
I thought that perhaps it shouldn't have been filmed from the first-person and the film-makers should have stuck with a more simple approach. At least that way it would be a little less like Blair Witch. Plus, and I hope people won't think that this is too much like a spoiler, but the very first shot of the film is text explaining that these three people were never seen again and this footage has been edited together to 'explain' it. I found that this kind of removed the tension as to who might or might not survive. If you know all three are never going to be seen again, it does kind of take away some of the mystique.
If Blair Witch was never made, this might have been thought of more highly. As it is, A Night in the Woods is sadly little more than a poor copy of a better film. It's not bad, but it's hardly worth seeking out, unless you're really into these 'first person' films.
If you get the feeling you've "seen it all before" when watching this
movie, it's because you have. It's The Blair Witch Project. Same plot.
Same character dynamics (one girl, two guys), same found footage style,
same 'locals giving the background behind the evil that will ultimately
befall the group', same directionless running around, same screaming,
same distant calls for help...
The only difference is that, instead of swapping between film camera and video camera, it's been brought up to date by switching between camcorder footage and mobile phone footage. And that's it. I can only imagine that they got funding for this movie by pitching it to some rich recluse with nothing better to do with his cash. That or someone really thought that what the world of horror needs is a remake of The Blair Witch Project but with worse weather and worse acting.
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
Brody, girlfriend Kerry and her friend Leo go hiking in Dartmoor's
Wistman's Woods, named because of its supposedly haunted past.
That night, sexual tension and strained relationships come to a head turning what should have been a peaceful camping adventure into a nightmare.
As paranoia reaches fever pitch it becomes clear that there is a much darker force at work in the ancient surroundings.
Who or what is after them? And who is carrying the camera in that scene where Kerry is running around on her own?
So the director of this film stated he made this because of a dream he had. What he means is, he saw The Blair Witch Project, knows some people and decided to homage it/rip it off.
But it's nowhere near as bad as what I feared. But you cannot watch this film without comparing it to Blair Witch, because it's just too similar, and this is where the film is it's own worst enemy.
There is a sub-plot involving the three, Brody has discovered something about Leo, but it concludes too quickly and it's obvious from the start. And this is the films other problem, the characters are not very likable, so it's difficult to care for them.
There are a couple of good scares, where the sound technicians just decide to make the film extremely loud, and some eerie imagery.
And there is a huge issue regarding who on earth is holding the camera when Kerry is on her own, really makes it less 'realistic'.
But, as i've already said, it's not awful, just too familiar.
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
This movie is horrible, the characters are despicable, it's not even
scary. Let me tell you the two biggest problems with this film, these
two problems that pretty much ruined the whole film.
Problem 1: Kerry, the girlfriend to Brody, and I also guess to Leo too. The first few minutes we see her, I knew she was no good and was sleeping around. That's one thing, but she brings Leo( her other lover) on her boyfriends camping trip. She then continues to ignore Brody, and treat him like he is the bad guy. But that still isn't it, when Brody goes off into the woods, she takes Leo into the tent and begins having sex with him. But little miss prince throws Leo away too. And now she is all mad, and upset. But that still isn't it, when Brody tries to take her safely out of the woods, she stabs him to death, then cries for him to come back. Kerry is one of thee worst female characters in horror history, you just can't wait for her to get her come up-ins, but we don't even get to see it.
Problem 2: There is maybe about two minutes of exposition about the woods, and it isn't even well done. We have no fear, or understanding of what is happening because it doesn't even set up the horror properly. Compare that to The Blair Witch Project, we get tons of background history and stories about the woods, and the witch. We know to be afraid of the woods, and know it is a bad place to be. But here, we don't get jack. This movie focuses more on enraging you over an adulterer girlfriend, so don't care about 2/3rds of the characters, and we have no proper set up. This film fails so hard it's not even funny, I think they added the horror aspect as an after thought.
This movie is just a sad and anger fuelled mess. So as usual, stay away.
|Page 1 of 2:|| |
|Plot summary||Ratings||External reviews|
|Parents Guide||Plot keywords||Main details|
|Your user reviews||Your vote history|