NOTE IMDb
2,6/10
1,5 k
MA NOTE
Ajouter une intrigue dans votre langueA micro-budget movie crew treks into the wilderness to shoot horror scenes for their unsellable indie-drama. They soon find themselves in the midst of their own real horror movie, as they ar... Tout lireA micro-budget movie crew treks into the wilderness to shoot horror scenes for their unsellable indie-drama. They soon find themselves in the midst of their own real horror movie, as they are hunted by a large group of creatures.A micro-budget movie crew treks into the wilderness to shoot horror scenes for their unsellable indie-drama. They soon find themselves in the midst of their own real horror movie, as they are hunted by a large group of creatures.
Vince Cusimano
- Monster
- (as Vincent Cusimano)
Jacqueline Fae
- Suzy
- (as Jacqui Holland)
Avis à la une
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.
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.
........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.
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.
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.
Le saviez-vous
- Bandes originalesThe Picture Show
Written and Performed by Doc Crow
Meilleurs choix
Connectez-vous pour évaluer et suivre la liste de favoris afin de recevoir des recommandations personnalisées
Détails
- Date de sortie
- Pays d’origine
- Sites officiels
- Langue
- Aussi connu sous le nom de
- Монстры в лесах
- Lieux de tournage
- Fawnskin, San Bernardino National Forest, Californie, États-Unis(Forest Exteriors)
- Sociétés de production
- Voir plus de crédits d'entreprise sur IMDbPro
Box-office
- Budget
- 30 000 $US (estimé)
- Durée1 heure 36 minutes
- Couleur
Contribuer à cette page
Suggérer une modification ou ajouter du contenu manquant
Lacune principale
By what name was Monsters in the Woods (2012) officially released in India in English?
Répondre