Slingin Monkey P
Possibly the worst Director, and actor on the planet…
Rated 0.5/5 Stars •
Rated 0.5 out of 5 stars
10/06/23
Full Review
Audience Member
In the Woods had a very clear vision scripting wise that would make this movie much more entertaining if it wasn't executed so poorly. Although the dialog is rather forced, The acting is much better then most films in this tier and the script has a fairly original concept.
Rated 2.5/5 Stars •
Rated 2.5 out of 5 stars
02/09/23
Full Review
markus m
Moderately entertaining with some pretty cool monsters even with the wooden acting, badly written characters and the ridiculous backstory given to the monsters that makes the story of the film even more ridiculous than it already was to begin with.
Rated 2.5/5 Stars •
Rated 2.5 out of 5 stars
03/31/23
Full Review
Audience Member
<b>In the Woods</b> (Lynn Drzick, 1999)
I was going to start off this review talking about it being the rare film where one can truly judge its quality by the first scene. (And don't worry, I will still get to that hilarious first scene.) But then I thought about it, and I realized that we actually do this all the time. I don't know how many people watch the first scene of a movie and decide consciously whether they should go on with it or not; as someone who has only left nine films (out of about three thousand, to date) unfinished with no intention of ever watching the rest of them, perhaps I'm willing to sit through a great deal more abuse than most. Be that as it may, whether you do it on a regular basis (and consciously) or not, when you see the first scene of <i>In the Woods</i>, you will find yourself wondering whether you should continue watching this in the hope that it may, eventually, get better. Let me set your mind at rest: it doesn't.
As we open, a team of firefighters is trying to put out a house fire. A woman and her baby succumb to the flames. Alex Kerwood (ubiquitous low-budget horror actor DJ Perry, recently in <i>The Stalker Within</I> and <i>Blood Ties</i>), who it seems has never managed to <i>not</i> save anyone from a house fire before, loses it. This is obviously supposed to be an emotionally charged scene, but I defy you to not burst out laughing while watching this. The overacting is so bad that it's funnier than about ninety-nine percent of comedy celluloid released so far this century. It is almost singularly awful. It begs you to turn this movie off. But perhaps you are like me, and once you've sat yourself down, you're in for the duration. So you see Alex going out to a bar with the other firefighters, then going home and getting into a fight with his wife Helen (<i>Asylum of Terror</i>'s Aimee Tenaglia, very very attractive in a non-Hollywood sort of way, but can't act herself out of a parking ticket), after which the fire chief, Wayne (Jim Greulich in his only feature appearance; he is probably best-known as a voice actor in the videogame <i>Mech Commander</i>), takes him out for a day's hunting and a good talking-to. (Wayne, of course, understands the stresses the job can put on martial life.) While they're out in the woods where no one goes, they stumble across a homemade, hastily-erected grave. Wayne immediately makes the connection to a local serial killer, and wants to dig it up to see if he can find any evidence. Alex isn't so sure, but he goes along. The two of them uncover a canvas sack containing a horned animal skull. After which something begins chasing them. And doesn't stop.
The best way I can illustrate the incompetence Drzick (who also wrote the script) brings to the table in her only feature is to focus on that serial killer subplot I mentioned briefly. First off, it would have made sense to add the introduction of the serial killer subplot <i>after</i> the creature shows up, if you wanted the audience to be red-herringed into thinking the creature is the killer, as a number of things in the script seemed to be pointing to. (One notes, in passing, that the "ancient" skull-which we later find out is at most a couple of hundred years old-is discovered in a grave that looks as if it were dug just before filming. Which I have little doubt it was.) I should also mention, also in passing, that the one glimmer of hope I had for this movie came in the news report, which the firefighters see while in the bar mentioned above. With the addition of a second vehicle and a newscaster, the shot's blocked <i>exactly</i> like the closing scene of Jon Jost's <i>Last Chants for a Slow Dance</i>, as in "way too exact to be coincidence", and I figured anyone influenced by Jost can't be all bad. How wrong I was. In any case, the serial killer subplot exists for the sole purpose of throwing a couple of red herrings into the works, as I alluded to above. But then, I think, Drzick realized she had a serial-killer subplot on her hands, and didn't know what to do with it. As if the film were not already ridiculous enough, featuring a monster that looks for all the world like a Yorkie wearing a Megalon mask (you know, <em>Godzilla vs. Megalon</em>? Oh, come on, you're not THAT young...). So we have to have a scene, entirely unrelated to anything else, where the serial killer is identified. It's almost as funny as the first scene. It was certainly not intended that way. And in case you actually watch this turkey, I'm not going to spoil the "how we catch the serial killer" surprise. I will tell you, however, the entire special effects budget for the scene was approximately $2.98, because I know how much that particular gag item cost in 1998. ("Gag item" as in "you could buy it from the Archie McPhee catalog.")
This is awful from front to back. The only reason I could possibly see anyone actually wanting to watch it is because it is almost guaranteed to induce heavy drinking. I'm amazed it's not in regular rotation on Syfy. (half)
Rated 0.5/5 Stars •
Rated 0.5 out of 5 stars
02/11/23
Full Review
Audience Member
<b>In the Woods</b> (Lynn Drzick, 1999)
I was going to start off this review talking about it being the rare film where one can truly judge its quality by the first scene. (And don't worry, I will still get to that hilarious first scene.) But then I thought about it, and I realized that we actually do this all the time. I don't know how many people watch the first scene of a movie and decide consciously whether they should go on with it or not; as someone who has only left nine films (out of about three thousand, to date) unfinished with no intention of ever watching the rest of them, perhaps I'm willing to sit through a great deal more abuse than most. Be that as it may, whether you do it on a regular basis (and consciously) or not, when you see the first scene of <i>In the Woods</i>, you will find yourself wondering whether you should continue watching this in the hope that it may, eventually, get better. Let me set your mind at rest: it doesn't.
As we open, a team of firefighters is trying to put out a house fire. A woman and her baby succumb to the flames. Alex Kerwood (ubiquitous low-budget horror actor DJ Perry, recently in <i>The Stalker Within</I> and <i>Blood Ties</i>), who it seems has never managed to <i>not</i> save anyone from a house fire before, loses it. This is obviously supposed to be an emotionally charged scene, but I defy you to not burst out laughing while watching this. The overacting is so bad that it's funnier than about ninety-nine percent of comedy celluloid released so far this century. It is almost singularly awful. It begs you to turn this movie off. But perhaps you are like me, and once you've sat yourself down, you're in for the duration. So you see Alex going out to a bar with the other firefighters, then going home and getting into a fight with his wife Helen (<i>Asylum of Terror</i>'s Aimee Tenaglia, very very attractive in a non-Hollywood sort of way, but can't act herself out of a parking ticket), after which the fire chief, Wayne (Jim Greulich in his only feature appearance; he is probably best-known as a voice actor in the videogame <i>Mech Commander</i>), takes him out for a day's hunting and a good talking-to. (Wayne, of course, understands the stresses the job can put on martial life.) While they're out in the woods where no one goes, they stumble across a homemade, hastily-erected grave. Wayne immediately makes the connection to a local serial killer, and wants to dig it up to see if he can find any evidence. Alex isn't so sure, but he goes along. The two of them uncover a canvas sack containing a horned animal skull. After which something begins chasing them. And doesn't stop.
The best way I can illustrate the incompetence Drzick (who also wrote the script) brings to the table in her only feature is to focus on that serial killer subplot I mentioned briefly. First off, it would have made sense to add the introduction of the serial killer subplot <i>after</i> the creature shows up, if you wanted the audience to be red-herringed into thinking the creature is the killer, as a number of things in the script seemed to be pointing to. (One notes, in passing, that the "ancient" skull-which we later find out is at most a couple of hundred years old-is discovered in a grave that looks as if it were dug just before filming. Which I have little doubt it was.) I should also mention, also in passing, that the one glimmer of hope I had for this movie came in the news report, which the firefighters see while in the bar mentioned above. With the addition of a second vehicle and a newscaster, the shot's blocked <i>exactly</i> like the closing scene of Jon Jost's <i>Last Chants for a Slow Dance</i>, as in "way too exact to be coincidence", and I figured anyone influenced by Jost can't be all bad. How wrong I was. In any case, the serial killer subplot exists for the sole purpose of throwing a couple of red herrings into the works, as I alluded to above. But then, I think, Drzick realized she had a serial-killer subplot on her hands, and didn't know what to do with it. As if the film were not already ridiculous enough, featuring a monster that looks for all the world like a Yorkie wearing a Megalon mask (you know, <em>Godzilla vs. Megalon</em>? Oh, come on, you're not THAT young...). So we have to have a scene, entirely unrelated to anything else, where the serial killer is identified. It's almost as funny as the first scene. It was certainly not intended that way. And in case you actually watch this turkey, I'm not going to spoil the "how we catch the serial killer" surprise. I will tell you, however, the entire special effects budget for the scene was approximately $2.98, because I know how much that particular gag item cost in 1998. ("Gag item" as in "you could buy it from the Archie McPhee catalog.")
This is awful from front to back. The only reason I could possibly see anyone actually wanting to watch it is because it is almost guaranteed to induce heavy drinking. I'm amazed it's not in regular rotation on Syfy. (half)
Rated 0.5/5 Stars •
Rated 0.5 out of 5 stars
01/26/23
Full Review
Audience Member
This movie tried to draw me with the Blair Witch hook, and I fell for it.
It's awful.
Rated 1/5 Stars •
Rated 1 out of 5 stars
01/13/23
Full Review
Read all reviews
>
