In the Woods

"In the Woods," directed by Lynn Drzick, is a film that may have had potential, but fails miserably to recognize the kind of film that it could have been. Aside from the amateurish monster make-up and contrived storyline, this film adheres to, in principle, a sub genre of psychological film criticism: fairy tale theory. Fairy Tale theory takes, as its premise, the idea that an innocent journeys into the forest, only to discover the physical dangers and emotional perils which reside in that environment. (The forest is, of course, a metaphor for life in the real world.) Faced with challenges and temptations, the innocent comes face-to-face with his collective self (a concept based on Jung's "Collective Unconscious"). Ultimately, this character leaves the forest a changed individual, and that change can manifest itself in both positive and negative respects. "Little Red Riding Hood" is just one basis for this theoretical school; Edmund Spenser's _The Faerie Queene_, and particularly Book I on the Redcrosse Knight, is another.

Although D.J. Perry's character is no innocent, when he first journeys into the forest (he is an alcoholic and an emotionally abusive husband), the viewer gets the sense that he is unaware of the world in which he lives. He is, like many individuals, contented with the life in which he lives: working, drinking, and going home; this routine is his world. When he is forced to face the inconsistencies and unexpected circumstances which life throws his way, manifested rather dully by a three-horned dog and a reptilian-looking homo sapien, he demonstrates an incapacity to tackle turmoil and confusion. Most everyone in his life, but particularly his wife, pays a price for his lack of insight. Yet, in the end, miraculously he overcomes his naiveté, but realizes that "the beast continues to exist in the forest," and that is the nature of "the forest" (of life). Now, while that may sound fairly intriguing, Drzick fails to motivate the viewer to invest any empathy or emotion into the film. D.J. Perry's and Jim Gruelick's turn as a quixotic duo fails for, among other reasons, lack of chemistry and unengaging dialogue. Perry's relationship to his wife, although more involved than his connection with Gruelick, is too cursory and terse to be effective. The dynamics of this dysfunctional household are presented in a rather shallow, inept manner.

The creatures, as hinted at previously, lack even the sophistication of, in reference to the B-movie classics of the 1950s, lizards with prosthetic armaments attached to their bodies. The three-horned dog reminds one of a stuffed animal, with three tusks attached to its face.

Of even more disappointment is the film's screen writing. Apparently, this film is set in the United States; it would seem near the forests of the Carolinas. In flashback sequences (which are not readily connected to the film's plot nor to D.J. Perry's character development), two knights (one of which may be a sorcerer who conjured up these monsters to wage a battle between two kingdoms) appear fighting in the forest. I mean, "hello!," knights and sorcerers were indigenous to medieval Europe, not 12th or 13th century North America. Also, the tag line for this film is "Vengeance is Timeless." OK, what was this "vengeance" (as supposedly set forth in these flashbacks) based upon, and how does it relate to the D.J. Perry character's conflict. No direct ties to this "medieval" vengeance, and the film's focus on this man and his wife is ever made.

I give this film 1 out of 10 points. My criticisms go to the heart of the screenplay, the acting, and the special effects. However, one suggestion for the director, Lynn Drzick, is to consider the original material, and reshape it to create tension, significance, and believability. "In the Woods" may have the chance for merit, but unfortunately, this merit is utterly unrealized and shockingly disregarded in the final cut.

Saw the box for this at Hollywood Video, and after a while, decided that I needed to see what it had to offer. Obviously, not much.

Alex and Helen Kerwood are having marital problems. Alex drinks his problems away, and Helen can't stand it. As their marraige goes further south, a coworker at the firehouse, Wayne, offers that he and Alex go hunting, supposedly to talk and kill things. (What a great combination!) They end up digging up bones of some ancient creature, and are chased out of the woods. But the evil follows them home, soon killing people and delivering body parts to Alex and Helen's home. Soon, after an attack that leaves two people dead and Helen critically injured, Alex realizes he must defeat this evil beast seeking revenge for the desecration of its grave.

No, this is not a good movie, if that's what you're thinking, which hopefully, you're not. The movie box is misleading, making you think most of the movie takes place in the forest. Alex and Wayne are in the woods for all of ten minutes, and most of the movie is Alex coming home drunk and Helen yelling at him. I was hoping the movie would pick up when the devil dog (the single most ridiculous beast to terrorize any victim in a horror movie) came to the detective and his wife's house, but it quickly killed the two one-dimensional characters, and leaves Helen unconscious because it took a bite out of her shoulder (go figure) and for some reason, didn't kill Alex. Then Alex goes through the rest of the movie in bloody clothing. This one feels quite short, but drags on quite well. The acting is beyond bad, but there is some good music. But still, a horrible movie not worth seeing.

I just rented this movie and watched it with some friends. What it says on the cover and the general idea make it sound like it just might be worth watching once. We laughed through this whole movie, which was supposed to be scary.

Everything in it is just begging to be cracked on. From the VERY bad acting to the inappropriate scenes, to the really stupid looking monsters.

The story has huge holes. Scenes that just don't fit in with the storyline at all. The only way I can recommend this is if you want to sit around with some friends and laugh at a REALLY BAD movie. It is entertaining in that respect but only that. Cannibal gerbils and devil dogs? LOL!!

I think the funniest thing about this movie is the price it goes for? Who would actually buy this?

There was only one line in this film that was conveyed convincingly. See if YOU can find it. (Hint: it has 'bulls***' in it.)

It was a bad sign that I put this movie in my VCR and discovered that the previous renter did not bother to 'be kind and rewind'. In fact, it appears that they may have gotten about 20 minutes into the film and hit EJECT.

Yes, the acting reeks. I ended up not liking any of the characters and even hoped that the creature would 'get' the wife....or anyone, for that matter. Horrible acting a la Mark Spitz. To go along with that acting is dialog that will have your eyebrows raising. Some very insipid lines delivered by some really bad actors. Yes, but I knew this before I put it in. I WANTED to watch a bad movie.

For the most part the plot and action are straight out of the 1950's monster movie period. However, much of what goes on frequently makes less sense than many films from that period. Unbelievable logical lapses. There are holes in the script you could drive a >put your word here< through.

Unexplainable gore and body parts....at first. But stay with it til the end.

The best technical part of the film was the camera work and direction. Very professional tracking and blocking. It seemed completely out of place it was so good.

You may think by the sound of this that I hated the film. I really didn't. I knew it was going to be bad before I started it. I can handle it. I sat through 'Eegah' twice, after all.

When you finally get to the end and find out what is really going on then the film becomes interesting. Too bad though. End of film. I was hoping that it would play it out a bit more. A neat little idea that would have actually made a decent sequel. Sequel? Unlikely.

This was not a good movie. But it wasn't the worst. I wouldn't recommend it and I won't see it again. But the neat little twist at the end had me thinking about it for awhile. Not an entire loss.

...and not in a good way either. What starts out as a promising title and idea for a film - a couple of guys go "in the woods" on a hunting trip and discover a grave of a horned creature - progresses rather badly.

The acting is very subpar to begin with, and the production values are worse that what it tries to imitate - the Blair Witch project. Now, when a film tries to be cutting-edge with a documentary style approach like Blair Witch attempted, it can meet with some success.

This film is a rather cheesy attempt to feed off some of the success of the Blair Witch.

It's not scary, and not worthy of even a first viewing - I can't believe I've wasted my time watching it in it's entirety, but I had to see if it could redeem itself somehow. Alas, it could not. The characterizations, the creature makeup, and the plot are all some of the worst I have seen - almost laughable...but it tries to be a serious scary movie and fails badly.

Now some "scary" movies are actually funny, and I like those, but this was just horribly made on so many levels. To give you an example, the two guys come upon the creature grave, decide to dig it up, then see the horned skull, get scared and begin to run away... but then (this is sooooo bad), smoke starts to pour out from the skull - bright BLUE smoke like some one had put a colored smoke bomb under it (hey, that's probably how they did the effect). That's when I began to know how "horrible" this flick would be.

I can only give one star for the attempt to make a scary movie about what can happen "in the woods" as it was all a dismal disappointment. Heck, even I could have made this a scarier movie, based upon my real camping experiences.

The movie's motto "Vengence is Eternal" is true if only the director is forced to watch this movie eternally.