The Singing Forest (2003) Poster

User Reviews

Review this title
36 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
1/10
This movie was inexcuseable
samdixon36 March 2006
I'm sorry, but I think intercutting some of the most gruesome Holocaust photos with your own amateurish footage in order to order to highjack some emotional impact for your plot is inexcusable. Everyone should see those images, because the create a visceral understanding of the enormity of the atrocities committed during the Holocaust. But the way they are used here so gratuitously cheapens them, and cheapens the memory of the victims.

I watched the whole movie, trying to make allowances for the low budget, the learning process, and overall naiveté, but I just became more and more annoyed. Every scene in this movie seems to be trying to wrench significance out of every word and image, and it just isn't earned.
27 out of 33 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Bad. Very, very, very bad.
jz-1030 December 2004
There is nothing good to say about this. It is simply the worst movie I have ever seen. It simply feels like a project that was dreamed up, written, and shot in 10 days with the director's friends cast uncomfortably as actors.

This isn't a "love to hate it" film like Ed Wood's wild weirdness. This is more on the level of a high school driver training safety film. It is a car wreck.

Poor sound makes the dialogue almost unintelligible, poor lighting makes characters almost invisible. The 15 minutes worth of story in this hour-long film is a ghastly mess, and the ending is absolutely the most tasteless, stupid, and absurd I've seen in any movie, period.

Schlock like this gives gay cinema a bad name.
26 out of 33 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Unfortunately, this is horrible
kevinscottallen10 December 2004
The premise is fascinating, and if the director/producer/writer had spent five more dollars he might have half-way decent sound and barely acceptable actors. As it is, the actors are absurdly amateurish and the sound is so horrible half the dialogue is lost completely. I've seen high school films with better talent and production values. The lighting is practically non-existent. Though the story and premise had some very interesting angles that should have been explored, this film never goes beyond agonizingly simplistic and boring. The actors almost seem retarded. And the deceptive cover of the DVD shows actors and scenes that never appear in the movie. Let's hope this man never produces another film, ever.
16 out of 22 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Gay Porn circa 1970
fordraff23 October 2005
Warning: Spoilers
This film reminds me of the gay porn movies I saw in the early and mid-70s in Manhattan at such places as the Park Miller Theatre. In those pre-video, pre-DVD days--those early days of gay porn films--the films had a narrative line so that the exhibitors, if arrested for showing obscene films, could resist conviction claiming the films had "redeeming social value." Thus, those early gay porn films often focused on problems boys had with prison officials, school principals, other authority figures, etc. Inevitably, there came a moment in the plot when everyone got naked and had hard-core sex.

"The Singing Forest" has the same plot structure, the same poor production values of these early gay porn films, the same inept acting those porn "stars" provided, the same bad lighting, sets, and sound.

The story here focuses on Christopher Hayes, a columnist for a magazine or newspaper, who appears to have a major drinking problem. He hasn't seen his daughter, Destiny, since she graduated from college some years ago.

Time out here: Christopher "met" Destiny's mom, Savannah, when he raped her after following her as she walked home from the library! Savannah became pregnant with Destiny because of the rape. But she still married Christopher and, we're supposed to believe, lived happily with him and her daughter until her early death.

Now Destiny is about to marry Ben Ross, so Christopher is going to the wedding. He will be staying with the couple at their home before the nuptials.

Christopher believes that he is the reincarnation of a former self who was executed in 1933 by the Nazis. Back in that former life, Christopher was a gay man, whose lover, Alexander, was also executed.

When Christopher gets to his daughter's place, he immediately thinks that her fiancé, Ben Ross, is his former lover Alexander, reincarnated! The plot is a hoot from beginning to end and makes no sense. Just as in those early gay porn films, if a woman was present, she had to be off the scene most of the time. Here Destiny is always at work, so she is not home when drunken Ben returns from his bachelor party and falls into bed naked with Christopher, who is already in bed and naked. Of course, Christopher turns over and begins to make love to Ben. Now in the gay porn flicks of yesteryear, we would have seen the explicit footage. Here there's a fade out.

And the next morning we actually have that old dodge: Ben asking, "How did I get here in this bed? Why am I naked? I was so drunk I can't remember a thing." Ha! Not only does Ben have to be drunk to have homosex, he also has to be reincarnated, as does Christopher.

There are other opportunities for Christopher and Ben to be in bed naked while Destiny is at work (is that a pun?). We have unintentionally hilarious lines like Jon Sherrin as Christopher trying his best to be confused and hesitant at the same time as he mutters, "Uh--here I am--I can't believe it--in bed with my soon-to-be son-in-law." That sounds like a line Rock Hudson would have needed 35 takes to get right.

And Craig Pinkston as Ben can say, "I'm not some crazy ghost from your past. I'm from Des Moines." And you can imagine the many howlers that arise because of Destiny's name.

The director doesn't realize he's making a motion picture since virtually all of the scenes are static, showing the actors speaking dialogue such as no actual people would naturally say. The actors are sitting on the couch in the living room, at the kitchen table, on a bed, on the rocks by the sea--but they are sitting, not moving. The locations appear to be actual bedrooms, kitchens, and living rooms in low-rent apartments.

Although the film is listed as having a 93-minute running time, it actually runs just 62 minutes, followed by 7 minutes of slow-crawling credits. It just seems like--well, 93 hours.
18 out of 22 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
These comments were more entertaining than the Ameer film!
jltjwv24 September 2006
I had fun reading the varied comments here, about "The Singing Forest". I thought the film had an interesting story idea, but it was not developed in the movie, at all. I agree with most all the negative comments about the directing, lousy sound, poor lighting, no action, etc. But, worst of all, our intelligence was insulted by an ignorant script which completely failed to deal with the basic story idea. It was so contrived that it should be named "The Groaning Forest". The actors did the best that could be expected with such a miserable script. I'm giving my copy to the local gay rights organization, with a warning "See it with friends who can make bad jokes about this taaackkkky flick, then you may get some chuckles."
8 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
I lack words strong enough to describe the utter badness of this godforsaken movie.
Unrealxlolx5225 April 2011
Warning: Spoilers
I have seen many movies in my days, some terrific and some not-so terrific. This movie is very exceptional in the way that it actually is beyond this spectrum of good or bad, simply by being so extremely horrible that I find it hard to fathom that a human mind could have produced it.

What can I say? The camera work is atrocious, the cinematography is stunning in its badness, the acting is among the worst of all time, the sound is terrible, the directing is beyond sloppy.... And then I haven't mentioned the stupidest, most obnoxious thing about the movie yet: the plot itself. I mean... come on! The plot is so full of inconsistencies, so full of mind-numbing dumbness and so terribly written that even when I think about it I get angry.

Two lovers die during the holocaust of WWII (which began in 1939, not 1933), and find each other again in the "next life". Personally, I find this to be very stupid, but hey, perhaps that's just me. Maybe the father, who's sleeping with his daughter's soon-to-be husband, is a paragon of good characters. Maybe the fact that the daughter - for unknown reasons - is okay with her father marrying her betrothed is supposed to be beautiful (perhaps she's supposed to function as the embodiment of destiny - that eventually brings the two morons back together). Maybe this is all a poetic vision? In my opinion, it sounds completely retarded, but then again, who am I to complain about the very famous Jorge Ameer, whose many movies enrich IMDb's bottom 100?

But GOD, how stupid can a script be? Why on earth did they even bring in the holocaust element? It's.. just.. STUPID! It has no relevance at all, so why bother? Those two idiots could as well have been killed during the crash of Hindenburg, or even during the battle of Hastings - the point is, it doesn't matter. I could also rant for an hour about the internal logic of the movie, which is astounding in its absence, but if I do that this review will never end.

The Singing Forest is not a thought-provoking movie either - it's far too idiotic to be. However, it can be seen as thought-provoking in one sense: it makes one contemplate how on earth it is possible to achieve such dreadfulness!

Moreover, there are several shots (by the seaside) where it is impossible to hear the dialogue (which is awful, by the way) due to the bad sound. Furthermore, several scenes just neglect all speech and replace it with appalling music, some of which is so terrible that I had nightmares after hearing it. The ONLY piece of music that is good in the movie is the 1st movement of Beethoven's Moonlight Sonata, but it is used very inappropriately, and thus it stirs hatred rather than anything else. Having to hear such wonderful music in such a god-awful movie just makes me mad.

Also, the visuals are terrible beyond the deepest strata of imagination. That means "not very good".

I've seen some reviews that state that this is an artistically perfect movie, just like a great poem. True, the movie may have a message under its facade of badness; and yes, it should receive credit for being very original. However, being an enthusiast and student of poetry myself, I say that every aspect of the movie is just too terrible for any of the so-called "poetic subtlety" to be able to manifest and get through to the viewer. To compare this movie to a poem is like comparing Shakespeare to a rock - it just doesn't work.

I rated the film one star. I'm saddened by the fact that I can't rate negatively. I saw this movie, and I was never the same afterwards. It left me with a terrible feeling of disgust, and with an emptiness that I never thought was possible to feel. Seeing the Singing Forest is as entertaining as hitting yourself in the head with a hammer.

I guess my conclusion is: DON'T WATCH IT!!
5 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
How do bad films like this get made?
wildheart-16 September 2004
How do films like this even get made? The story, about a father who's daughter is marrying a man he believes to be his gay lover is a past life, is so lame. The acting is even worse. But the writing and directing is the worst I have ever witnessed. It really makes me puzzled how something so terribly made could be released to an unsuspecting public. I feel sorry for anybody that chooses to watch this thing. It will leave you screaming and running to the remote control to turn it off and demand your money back. If I was on an airplane and this was the in-flight movie, I would jump out of the plane without a parachute.
10 out of 18 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Thumbs down! Way down!
elegantlywasted6 September 2004
Why are so many gay films being released with such bad quality? I am amazed. This was just about the stupidest excuse for a movie I have ever seen. Not a waste of talent either. A complete lack of talent. From the lighting. To the horrific sound quality. The bad score. The bad acting. The bad directing.Bad script. Bad bad bad. There are so many of these cheapie gay themed films coming out I am getting to the point where I am afraid to go see them. Seven out of every 10 gay films I have seen lately are just terrible. But this movie is the worst of them all. Don't waste your time or money on this film. trust me. This is a truly bad film.
9 out of 17 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Not as bad as they make it seem
amberbaer1 June 2006
Warning: Spoilers
This is the middle of road movie that should have been made - the director/editor has cut shots in such a way that the mood of the scene fits with the cuts that are made.

The story does need tweaking abit - the reality of Christopher's immediately knowing his daughter's fiancé as his ex-lover from a former life is not built up in anyway....a scene with the "psychic" made reference to is the only lead in to the whole background story - that was lacking.

mentioning PARAGRAPH 175 of the German penal code was more of a text book reading than an explanation of what really took place during the Holocaust - not just to the Jewish Generation - but to the Gay (Jew and non-Jew) men and woman that lived during the Nazi regime.

While the acting is raw - it has a tinge of honesty behind it - when "Christopher" is talking about his current life - he stares blindly ahead as if to really recall the life he has been through, this time around.

While not the most perfect movie on the block, it is worth seeing just to say that you have seen it on DVD. I do recommend that you watch all of the short films that are included on the DVD - they give you some more insight into the mind of the writer/producer/director - what an interesting world he lives in.

Edgy and Raw is the talent he exposes and uses to his own means - which is a mediocre film that makes you think that love could span the ages and cross time to let you be with the once true love of your life.
5 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Jorge Ameer and his dud
roomsonfire6 September 2004
Jorge Ameer has made a shockingly terrible movie. My boyfriend and I watched this surprisingly bad movie last night. The cover art on the DVD case made this seem like it was going to be a really good movie. But we really hated it. As an openly gay couple, we both were very insulted by this movie. It really lacked morals and suggested some very seedy situations.

And the directing was just about the worst you could ever imagine. No, scratch that. I really could never imagine a film being directed with such sloppy directing. Ever. Jorge Ameer has no business making movies. I don't know what his talents are but film making is not one of them.
8 out of 16 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Don't!
Mark009912 September 2004
While I don't agree with most here who say this is the worst movie I've ever seen, I certainly would classify it in my bottom five....

The premise *could* have been interesting. And if you're unfortunate enough to have rented this mess before reading these comments, it may help to watch the 'special features' (bunch of odd shorts) before, or instead of, the film. They're no better, but they have some shock value and, being shorts, do not drag on & on about nothing.

The shorts and other features on the DVD clarify, for me, what's really wrong: the filmmaker thinks he can succeed by doing little more than recording actions, sets, and dialog and calling it a movie. Everything else on the disc is as emptyheaded as the movie. The filmmaker seems proud of the film in the way you might be proud of spreading garbage over an acre of fresh lawn, that is, he thinks it's most important to be

The only noteworthy performer is Craig Pinkston, but only because he looks halfway hot in the brief scene with his shirt off.
7 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Awesomely awful!
Jasimia13 August 2010
This film was amazing. Amazingly bad! Fellow fans of terrible film, I call your attention to the works of the Jorge Ameer. I am convinced he is the reincarnation of Ed Wood. It's been a long time since the world has seen such terrible filmmaking. I "specially" love the comments that overly praise Jorge's entire oeuvre, comments that were more likely than not written by Ameer himself or those close to him. The comments add a veneer of extreme narcissism that vault Ameer from the realm of ordinary bad filmmaking to legendary status.

So rejoice! A legend lives among us!

I have already "enjoyed" Contadora Is For Lovers, and look forward to watching everything I can get my hands on by this inadvertent master of bad cinema.

I was going to give him one star, but he deserves all the stars I am capable of giving him. So ten stars it is!

P.S. World War II didn't start until 1939, not 1933. (Keep up the lazy research Jorge!)
8 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Two lover from 1933 Poland are executed and re-incarnated in present day
LAmusicman6914 October 2005
Warning: Spoilers
"The Singing Forest" is about two lover's from the 1930's Poland that were both executed during the war under Hitler and re-incarnated in the present day. The subject matter is very thought provoking and interesting to me. I tend to like paranormal stories. I thought the concept of two lost souls being reunited by "Destiny" was inventive. I like the film as a whole and, as an independent production with a low budget, it was put together well. I would love to see this film remade with a bigger budget. As far as, Jorge Amir, He did a great job with direction and camera but had a bit of trouble with the sound. In the scene at the ocean, the waves completely made the dialogue inaudible, Note to directors: Always mic your actors near water, airports and roadways.

I give this a 6 stars out of 10. I look forward to future endeavors from Mr. Amir.
5 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
A Turkey
la_rumours6 September 2004
Who says Ed Wood was the worst director of all time? I used to say that. That is, used to. Not now. The director of this cheap film now takes the honors, But at least, Ed Wood's films were so bad they were funny. This "Singing forest" wasn't funny at all. It was an insult to my intelligence. It is just so bad, that it's bad. A film like this, is proof that just about any average Joe can get out a video camera and start filming a movie, and then get a cheap label to distribute it. This has certainly been the case with so many films entering the newly coveted "gay" market. Movies like "Trick," "Edge of seventeen," are great gay themed films. But this movie is a big thumbs down! It should be a crime to allow movies like "The singing forest" ever see the light of day. Whoever directed this: go get a job at wall-mart, cause you can'r direct!
8 out of 17 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
There is something wrong with every single aspect of this film!
Gordon-111 December 2006
This film is about a man meeting his lover of his previous life, who happens to be his daughter's fiancé.

I could not believe how bad this film is! There is a very big problem with every single aspect of this film, be it the plot, the acting, the lighting, sound, cinematography, wardrobe or directing. Each of these are described below! The plot is bad to start with and it is very poorly told. The acting is non existent. The actors barely stand there reciting the lines. The sets are not made or decorated in any way, it seems as if the director just shot the film inside his house. The wardrobe is very old fashioned and plain, as if the actors wore the cheapest item they have in their own wardrobe. There is no costume adviser or even any budget for clothes, I can bet.

The lighting is very bad. Most of the time the film is not adequately lit. In the scene where Christopher drinks beer in the living room, the only source of light is the lamp beside Christopher. This makes the beer bottles and even the coffee table dark and indiscernible because they are against the light.

In addition, the soundtrack is a big problem as well. There is a high level of ambient noise, and sometimes we even hear traffic outside the house and hear dogs barking! In the scene where the two men talk on the seaside, the waves are so loud that the sound of waves literally drown out the conversation.

However, the worst is yet to be described! The cinematography is shocking. 90% of the time, the camera sits on a tripod for two or three minutes. This means that most of the time, the camera does not move, and the shot length is very long. This means that most of the conversations are filmed with two people sitting and talking. We do not have any camera shots of their facial expressions or reactions. For example, in the scene where Christopher lies in bed talking to the standing daughter, the camera is positioned behind Christopher, so that during the long conversation we could not see his face at all. There are also many times that the cameraman decides that the characters are in fact not in the centre of the visual field, and shifts the camera to the side a bit. Oh, why does it take you so long to realise the camera is off centre? It is almost comical for the film to have a black storyboard to serve as the narrator. It looks like someone holding a black cardboard in front of the camera. Because of the high level of ambient noise, when the black storyboard comes in, there is total silence. Then the ambient noise starts again when the film resumes.

Believe me, this film is really very bad. Avoid!
13 out of 18 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
This film was so bad, the director ought to change his name!
poets-129 May 2005
I have rarely seen a film this bad. The cover of the DVD quoted a critic as saying the film was "A gay GHOST." The producers of GHOST ought to sue him for libel. Jorge Ameer ought to change his name since I would NEVER see anything that had his name attached to it again.

And then the acting! Could one even call what these folks were doing acting? One can only hope that the actors were improvising their scenes, otherwise that means someone actually wrote the film script.

How can that be? Who paid for and who actually distributed this film? Oh, and, by the way, the "Short" films included with the feature were no better.

Avoid this movie!
7 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Don't watch this. Honestly.
distantimage11 January 2010
My girlfriend and I borrowed "The Singing Forest" from the library because the DVD cover is two guys in Nazi uniforms making out, but the movie takes place entirely in modern times, they weren't Nazis anyway, and that scene never happened. In many scenes you can't hear the dialogue over traffic outside or the waves at the beach. Also, the next-door neighbor seems to have a dog. Judging by the dialogue we could hear, I don't think we were really missing anything groundbreaking anyhow. I don't recommend that anyone watch this movie for any reason. "The Singing Forest" has zero entertainment value in that it wasn't hilariously bad, it was just bad.
4 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Bottom 100, Here We Come!
Crazy_Gibberish3 October 2011
Warning: Spoilers
For those of you seeking to view the entirety of the IMDb "Bottom 100", get a head start on a future contender with "The Singing Forest". It's on Netflix Instant and it's a howler. Oh man, is this ever a doozy.

I warned of spoilers, and I don't think this film can be "reviewed" in any conventional sense though many linked on Metacritic have tried. It's basically 70 minutes of Super 8 footage about a middle-aged homosexual who had an affair with his daughter's fiancé in a past life. This past life involved one of them as an SS Officer and the other as a Jewish prisoner in a Nazi concentration camp. Yes. The older one makes a number of sexual overtures toward the fiancé until he gives in to the "truth" of their situation and they sleep together. I kid you not, and it's every bit as laughably absurd as it sounds. Grab some Bad Movie Night friends and crowd around this instant camp classic.
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Plotholes and problematic ideas
jrs-616178 July 2023
Warning: Spoilers
A lot has been said about the low budget, poor acting and bad film quality. It should also be mentioned however, that there are some pretty offensive concepts that are just glazed over throughout the movie. The storytelling wants the viewer to sympathize with a rap*st. In fact, it ends up being paramount to the entire premise of the movie, but the viewer is unaware of it until the last 30 seconds. Lazy storytelling with no clear message, other than this man gets a happy ending, at the expense of his nonexistent daughter. The movie does briefly address the main characters personal trauma, which explains his actions. It's just not enough to justify making this the entire concept of the movie.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
ALFUL!
salmineo1 September 2004
And along comes yet another "no budget" gay themed film with terrible acting, horrific directing, choppy editing and a bad soundtrack. While gay cinema has had many wonderful films the past few years, it has also encouraged some wanna-be film makers into releasing complete trash. This film makes no sense. It's just a complete waste of time for the unsuspecting viewer.

And it's billed as a gay version of "ghost?" Only in the eyes of the publicity machine. I tunred this dvd off after 47 minutes.I finally realised I was better off as this film was agony in terms of trying to watch the entire thing.
5 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Worst film I ever saw
tstover6 September 2004
Well I never thought I'd see a film worse than "Attack of the killer tomatoes. This,um film, it yo want to call it a film, makes "Tomatoes" seem like an Oscar winning classic. This thing is so contrived. The worst directing I have ever witnessed! Horrible script! Bad acting. A pre-schooler could have done a better job, I cannot express how terrible this movie is. I cannot believe I sat through the entire thing. It was like watching a train wreck. I could not believe I paid $2.49 to rent this. I felt like 90 minutes of my life were taken away and I could have cleaned the toilet and had a better time. Seriously, stay away from this movie. It's the worst thing I ever have watched.
5 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
A Little Film Full of Fine Ideas, Some Under-realized
gradyharp22 October 2006
Writer/director Jorge Ameer may just be another edgy filmmaker waiting for larger budgets to set his ideas afire (think Gus van Sant, Gregg Araki, etc). Reading all the comments and reactions to this film is fairly good evidence that he is a controversial filmmaker - and that will probably work in his favor. He has technical problems with his product: the dialogue, which is really fairly good when it can be heard, is drowned out by ocean waves, dogs barking, street sounds, and the worst pastiche of heart-tugging micro-excerpts from classical music (Adagio from Mahler's 5th, Albinoni, Tchaikovsky ad infinitum); he fails to adequately introduce his characters' motivation which would further the storyline; he opts for some pretty cheap effects borrowed from the archives of WW II.

But given all that, THE SINGING FOREST has good thoughts about reincarnation, a stable cast some of whom show real promise, and an overall feeling of commitment that is so often lacking in these startup movies.

Christopher Hayes (Jon Sherrin) is an alcoholic man in mourning for his lost wife, who decides to attend the wedding of his daughter Destiny (Erin Leigh Price) and upon meeting her fiancé Ben (Craig Pinkston, eye candy in looks and with signs he just may become a good screen actor with some body language training). Christopher has met with a psychic Elvia (Toni Zobel) who has confirmed his thoughts that he is a reincarnated spirit of a lad named Jo who while protecting the Jews from the Nazis in WW II fell in love with a lad named Alexander: they both died in the war. When Christopher meets Ben he immediately knows that Ben is the reincarnation of Alexander. Destiny is a hard working girl, giving Christopher and Ben sufficient time together to talk, get loaded on drugs and alcohol, and act out on their hidden sexuality. Many confrontations occur, some including Destiny's discovery of the two men en flagrante, the psychic is re-consulted and the concept of reincarnation and the questions of reality/fantasy/fiction/illusion are addressed. The ending is a bit abrupt but the point is made.

Many subplots are touched upon (a rape scene that has more significance than we are allowed to understand, adequate exploration of the father/daughter relationship or the childhood histories of Christopher and Ben) and it is obvious that budget restraints prevented development of points that should have been clarified. But Both Pinkston and Price prove promising talent that needs developing.

Accompanying the film are several shorts that, while crude in nature, are funny and irreverent and again show some clever thoughts underdeveloped. In all, for a first film this is not a bad outing - if only there were some way to Dolby out all the background noise so we could actually hear the story Ameer is trying so hard to tell! Grady Harp
4 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
original, insightful & disturbing - a great film!
torietysonla24 October 2005
Many people on this site have trashed this movie. I rented it the other day and found it to be very original, entertaining and amusing. Rarely do we see anything original today. The studios have managed to numb and dummify audiences as we see practically the same thing, with little distortions, here an there. How many awful romantic movies can we tolerate of the same thing. This one, at least, is different. I applaud the filmmaker for coming up with such a mystical premise. I loved the idea of reincarnation and for those who believe in it, you will find this picture quite mystical. It is indeed oddly gripping and the director has taken a several subject matters and made them his.

Stylish and artful, this film by Jorge Ameer pulls its viewers into a free associative ride that incorporates two separate eras, or at least three, separate points of view and references that move fluidly between people we think we are and the people we might have been in earlier lifetimes.

Symbolism cheerfully weaves its way throughout this narrative in ways that touch on wildly free associative archetypes. Duets evolve into trios, trios devolve into duets, and we are warned, that human memories are so subjective that truth is, by definition, variable and intensely personal.

The Singing Forest opens with some of the most daring segues in the history of film-making. Tender scenes of gay male on male affection during the Weimar Republic alternate with views from emaciated corpses in the death camps at Auschwitz. Time streams forward, backwards and sideways. Some scenes evoke a Dada-is-tic revival of Alfred Hitchcock. Nazi storm troopers roaring down a staircase, dragging the almost emaciated corpse off to be tortured. These alternate with images of modern day healthy bodies that are bound and bleeding, a forecast of emaciated deaths to come. From there, the plot spins and then thickens around the dynamic of a modern day southern California family which, while hipper and more evolved than most, is ill equipped for the conflicting loyalties that evolve when resurrected soul-mates are reunited.

During the course of this film, tow swift-flowing streams of consciousness run constantly sometimes in different directions. Good-looking actors deftly switch in and out of realities in patterns that are sometimes synchronized and sometimes not. Like bodies swimming up from great watery depths, the two (extremely good looking) protagonist rediscover the love that bound them together during their tragically truncated earlier lives.
6 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Is Destiny faith?
carlfilmbuff8 November 2006
Warning: Spoilers
Despite all the negative reviews, I rented this title several months ago. I don't agree with most. I thought the premise was, yes controversial, but intriguing. I thought the girlfriend was an imaginary character. Try studying this and you'll notice what I;m saying. Its as if the girlfriend never existed. Both men, when the Destiny is present, conduct their conversations interactions as if they were by themselves. Then toward the end the psychic says that there once was a soul who reunited both men. I thought that was in reference to Destiny. But I'm not sure. Maybe I'm reading a lot more into this... maybe not. I do agree with most. It is very creative and original.
2 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
utter torture
eulalia-127 November 2004
An experience of utter torture. I'm glad that I got it as part of a two-for-one special at the video store. Horrible story, bad acting, bad lighting, bad soundtrack: bad, bad, bad. It has to be one of the 10 worst films ever made. After 10 minutes, I played most of it at 2x speed on the DVD player, and it was still awful. If it were submitted as a project in a film class, it would not even receive an F. The student would be tossed out of the class. Low-budget video films have better production values. Why was the microphone in another room during the filming? Didn't anyone bother to check the focus? Did anyone actually READ the script? This film should come with a warning label: it can be dangerous to your cinematic consciousness.
9 out of 16 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews


Recently Viewed