gpeltz Talking about the movie Lost Woods, 2012 co directed by Nathan Eilering and Phillip Ellering. Phillip also co wrote it with Joey Brown, who also stars in it. Spoiler Alert; I will be talking about plot details, If you can see it first do so, then come back and see if I'm close. My initial reaction is leaning toward the positive, It was redeemed by a number of factors. However before it was redeemed, it came very close to loosing it. It's premise at first resembles a grand cliché. Five friends go out into the wilderness, out of contact with anyone, and meet a Sasquatch. The undying monster. They are picked off one by one.Here the five friends are Darrin, played by Joey Brown, who wrote this story. the vulnerable member of the group. Garrett Vander Leun plays Warren, the intellectual one, dark rim glasses. The congenial Lucy is played by Nina Brissey, She's the only girl on this trip. Phillip Ellering who co directed this plays Rey, the leader, outdoors-man, and survivalist. Lastly, the Comic book, zoned out, long blond haired and most outrageous of character goes to Nathan Ellering as George who again co wrote this story, . Throw in a pair of country boys, and a beast with glowing eyes, and you got the elements in play. How can such a setup succeed? First film it beautifully with pristine wilderness backdrops. This Cinematographer Lance Kuhns does very well, There is care in the color palette used here. the sign of some thought in the production values, Here the typical "Kids running through the woods in panic" seem less typical, even though almost every character has a chance to run, they are all filmed to cinematic effect, and are interesting to watch, the percussive score by Cody James and Jayden Lewis punctuate the action. Well done, The Actors obviously have a lot invested here, as they were all co writers or directors, The closeness in a working situation, is reflected in the camaraderie displayed by the characters they play. Friends of many years. Friends with issues. This lifts the players out of the "stock" role they are assuming. This is a difficult relationship to convey, yet it comes off well, most of the time. Then there is the monster. The first shots of the man beast are unsettling, The viewers are given the usual shadowy figure in the brush, but even when the beast is full frontal, it is somewhat convincing, It has a ape like face, but is built like a woolly Hercules. A movie like this can stand or fall on the credibility of the creature, does it look convincing, does it act convincing. Yes and No, A big guy in a suit, Not alien enough to be a Predator type creature, but big with glowing eyes, and an invulnerability to bullets as well as an ability to leap through the wooded terrain. Did I mention that it was also seemingly invulnerable to any attempts on its life. On the other hand, it does not hesitate to brawl fist to fist with one of the leads. It hunts all humans, but has poor vision. Nor does this beast smell nice. When I discovered that the beast was indestructible, I figured the movie lost any credibility it gained with the fine acting. Likewise was my feeling when I contemplated the "ten little,Indian" plot, I was not eager to see these guys get knocked off. and yet even in the inevitable plot line, they were able to make it interesting. To be sure there were some major flubs. One male bonding scene for example, would not have rung true even if Shakespeare wrote it, and worse, it was out of place, nearly killing the pacing, Even the stalwart of horror films convention, the, celebration after killing the beast, followed by the revelation that the beast is not really dead. is put in play, For some reason, it works. allowing the final victory conclusion. There are more than a few questionable plot holes, How did the one who got carried off survive? How did the dog survive? What the heck was the issue with the kid and his Pop? What are they target practicing with full bottles of beer? Big mistake. All manner of goofs, yet somehow it all pulls together and the ending is convincing bordering on satisfying. It is easier do give up the notion of the creature as a ape man type entity, and start to recognize it as a malevolent alien, empowered by negative forces and black smoke. Then it starts to make sense. And the conclusion is satisfying redeeming. Four out of Five" Indie does Sasquatch", Stars.

gallifreyent Consider that this film was made for less than what other productions spend on catering, it is a decent effort from what is clearly a family business (just read all the end credits). The rudimentary special effects for the creature are balanced against a beautiful location and able camera work. The characters are not one-sided, and there's even a fair amount of character development as the story progresses. The relationships in this close-knit group of friends and relatives and a pet are the core of this story, and the external threats are secondary. The opening credits with the graphic novel style are a nice touch. The company might have been wiser to do all the creature scenes the same way. There are a number of strong spots where they went against the trite "standard creature vs. group of friends" clichés, and this deserves some respect above other entry-level productions. Examples: there's only one female, but she's regarded as a friend, not a target for the men. I would knock a point off that because she had to cook and call the men to dine as though she were the house mother. The "science nerd" is not an inept guy who can't socialize. In fact, this is a rare character who obviously works out and has a nice tat, truly swimming up-stream in horror movies. The "dumb guy" isn't dumb at all, just very open and unpretentious. The "scared guy" is not a total flake as in other films. The "leader" is calm and confident and actually knows how to get around outdoors. Spoiler: There's no dog violence, thank goodness! The last time I saw a horror flick with a dog that survived happily through the whole thing, it was an early film from The Asylum, and the production values were not even as good as for this film. There were a few very minor editing problems where the story jumped, but later conversations filled in the missing information. Pacing was also uneven. Still, this is an ambitious film by so many newcomers, and I don't think it deserves a bashing. One reviewer surely didn't see the same film I did, else he would not have said it was about teenagers. Hopefully, any future projects will have better research and props. One does not have to go to Honduras or anywhere else outside the US to get a nice machete, and it seems visually odd that the person who has that cannon of a sidearm and some large blades would not also have a more imposing rifle. The sight of burly men holding tiny rifles is nearly comical, and that includes the rude men who claimed to own the land. I think this company did a passing job, and I hope they will learn from the experience and give us something more in the future.

acerbic-1 Well, OK. The movie is not going to be an award nominee. Just get it down if you are about to watch this film. Managing expectations is a point in this case. Comic-ish intro sequence is actually rather good and sets you up for something with greater production value, but it is a decoy. The intro is probably the best part of this film.Overall, the whole thing looks like a student's work, and almost every part of it leaves you wishing for better. Better acting, better camera work, better script, better FX.... It is not horrible, its just not on the level we are taught to expect from modern-era cinema, with millions of dollars invested into the making of a single movie.Despite all downsides, I rated it 7. I found it to have a certain... charm. When you get to the core of it, it is not your typical "picnic-in-the-woods-turn-massacre" slasher. The whole thing is a rather dull implemented plot device to tell you a story of a person's journey from being a scared boy to a man. The monster is really secondary to that. It could be as well "group-of-friends-escape-building-on-fire", or some other dramatic event. And this is what I liked, the film has a message, its not just blood! guts! gore! tits! of an average horror flick.

despodleous-394-911081 1. I think the characters' tattoos were done with Sharpie pens. 2. Pretty much the whole movie was filmed in the daytime -- so they all went to bed around 5 PM, or so (maybe earlier) -- I am guessing it was so that they could film the whole thing in a few hours. 3. Porno movies have better acting... Hell, porno movies have better PROPS(they used the same rifle for two different characters). During target practice they shot a rifle at FULL beer bottles... oh, and the rifle's scope cap was on for some of the target practice. Rather than re-shoot the scene with the scope cap off, they just made sure that it was off for the last guy practicing with the rifle. Good thing they caught that one. 4. The "bad" guy is an actor dressed up in a big furry suit. A yeti or big-foot kind of thing, except this one throws actual punches. Seriously. Uppercuts, roundhouses, jabs... none of that normal slashing or clawing one might expect. 5. At some point the campers return to find their friend impaled on what is perhaps a truck's tailpipe... everyone gets upset yet no one actually asks what happened or why... they bury him, regardless, in a hole big enough for a pet garter snake. 6. If you watch this movie and are disappointed, it's your own fault. Quite possibly the worst movie I have ever seen.