A Night in the Woods

Another offspring, another "Found Footage" Film. But should you judge a movie, just because it tries to ride a wave (you'd be missing out on some good movies, if you have prejudices). On the other hand, this movie does not have what it takes to really be considered a good entry into the "sub-genre".

It's not so much about the actors (given the roles they get), more about the script and the execution of it. I can't say that I think you'd be surprised. In any way that is. But even if that's not what you are looking for, with logic out the window what does remain, that makes this movie at least a bit worth-while? Only saving grace might be the sound design, which is quite nice.

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.

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.

I saw the trailer for this a while ago and it looked really cool. It took a while to get the film because you cant get it in Australia but finally I got it and watched it with a friend who also loves horror movies. However this was really disappointed.

The trailer and cover looked really good but the movie was slow, boring, pointless, not scary and only had the final scene which had some form of action appear from that the characters did nothing but talk and sit around a camp fire.

Very disappointing film, don't bother wasn't good at all

The acting was also not very good

The twist at the end however was alright I guess but it could have been so much better if they added some more scares and a better twist at the end

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 principles.

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.