Hidden in the Woods

Horrible acting along with a horrible story line. It's been a long time since I seen a movie this bad....

'Hidden in the Woods' cropped up in my recommended for you section and the concept was halfway interesting, though not an original one. Was not exactly excited and was somewhat apprehensive with the low rating and the few reviews as of present not being good, which has often lowered expectations and most films with both have turned out to be that bad.

Watching it, 'Hidden in the Woods' is another example of those films, one seen with not so high expectations that had things that made me cautious and sadly turned out to be that bad. The potential wasn't massive but what there was is diminished completely by beyond poor execution. Have seen far worse films, recently and overall, and it is not irredeemably bad, but of my recent viewings, 'Hidden in the Woods' for me is up there with the most ineptly executed films.

Its best, and only, saving grace is the sadistically creepy performance of Michael Biehn, the one component that saw any conscientiousness or effort.

This cannot be said for the acting of the daughters, which came over as wooden in some places and shrill in others, or even both in the same scene. Did not buy their situation or feel it, and if all the characters were better written that already would have made things better. None of the characters are properly developed or built up and they bore and irritate rather than endear and being rootable. Better writing would have helped, because the stilted, cheesy and limp script here seemed like it was written as an afterthought. The direction has no character or personality.

Furthermore, it doesn't even look good, with some of the most ineptly shoddy photography and editing to come my way in a while. The sound is obvious and intrusive, and yes that "Amazing Grace" rendition gave off an unintentionally creepy vibe and so monotonous. The story was the worst asset, no tension or suspense with gratuitous violence. Much of it is uneventful and dull and when things finally get a move on far too late into the film that is where things become rushed and the ending is not much of one at all.

Overall, another very bad film. 2/10 (1 has been a relatively rare rating recently and saved only for films and such with no redeeming merits or effort, Biehn's performance just about saves that from happening here) Bethany Cox

Please retire from the movie making business with your dignity somewhat intact, rather than subjecting yourself....and the world.....to shlock like THIS. 🤢

Imagine if family favourite 'The Dukes of Hazzard' had been produced by Freddie Krueger, this is the kind of thing you might have ended up with. Raucous, coarse, loaded with every variation of every expletive you have ever heard; brutal, violent and completely ridiculous, 'Hidden in the Woods' is, if you're in the right mood, highly entertaining.

There's nothing like a father's love, is there? "Nobody messes with my babies," says Oscar Crooker (Michael Biehn) at one point. To list the depravities this man has subjected his 'babies' to would be to venture into spoilers. He's a phenomenally diabolical character - and he's in good company.

The atrocities heaped on various characters are relentless and appalling, but there's a dank humour in there also, and despite being shocking, the films is a highly entertaining way of spending just over 90 minutes. 7 out of 10.

The very idea of transposing a story so obviously set in a machismo banana republic to America is idiocy on a level all its own.

But apart from that, I'm having trouble deciding which was more painful here: The amateurish writing, the cheap iPhone look of the digital photography, the incompetent editing, the dead-voiced rendition of Amazing Grace over the end credits, or the knowledge that Michael Biehn has fallen so far as to produce and headline in dreck like this.

The fact that I managed to sit through this mess should be testament to my tolerance level, as should the fact that I've given the film two stars rather than one, just because it has William Forsythe in it. Even he can't do anything with the ridiculous clichés he's given to work with, though.

I'm sure someone will tell me that I should watch the original to see a better version. But I'm not going to. If the second time around is this bad with the same director at the helm, how good can the first one be?