A Night in the Woods (2011) User Reviews

Never really delivers

[victoryismineblast · 5/10 · 16 April 2014]

Definitely influenced by The Blair Witch Project, this standard "terror in the woods at night" flick starts with a young couple embarking on a camping trip with the woman's cousin in tow. Things and people turn out not to be quite what they seem, however, and as night grows near scary things start to happen.

I found this one to have an interesting premise with some mildly interesting characters.The lead up to the actual horror part showed lots of promise, but never really delivered. There were a few interesting twists and turns present as well as a couple of effective jump scares but there was little to no payoff. 5/10.

Oh! C'mon! This is Blair Witch, except, more boring!

[ShazaliSharaini · 3/10 · 12 May 2019]

The last 30 minutes of the movie is the exciting bit. The first 40 minutes is dull, dull, dull.

I was attracted to watch this because of the cover. i know, i know... I didn't learn from my past lessons, see.

Thank god, I didin't actually waste my time because I was doing something else while watching. I didn't miss much. I didn't need to rewind.

That's because nothing really happened. It's just Kerry and Leo hobby-horsing around while hiking.

Then they built their tent, and the two guys went missing.

If you still want to see this, do something else while doing it.

50/50

[maxwellbruhn1992 · 5/10 · 15 October 2012]

Lets start off with the PROS PROS: Many pop out scares (especially if watching on a high volume..), the few black and white night vision parts are excellent in making trees look like people (several times I thought I saw someone hanging from a tree, which is what the Hunter does in this movie) CONS: Too much inactivity, not enough stimulating dialogue, TOO MANY IDIOTIC DECISIONS (even for someone who is scared out of their mind.. One small example is having a flashlight and not pointing it in the direction of sound!) HOWEVER... this movie was pretty nice and really good at making your eyes deceive you, and then scaring you with distorted sound, blurred camera vision and pop out scares.. I honestly recommend watching at high volume... but not too high, and at nighttime. I viewed it during the day at high volume and it got me pretty good in the last 40 minutes of the film...

FINALLY: One last thing I should mention is that this movie does tdo a very good job at making you hate the characters, then like them, then hate them again.. so its well worth one watch.

A British 'found-footage' movie that doesn't deliver.

[Michael-Hallows-Eve · 2/10 · 16 September 2012]

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.

Do not watch this dreadful boring film

[Earwicker2 · 1/10 · 15 September 2012]

One of the worst films I've ever seen. The camera-work was crass and amateurish, the plot non-existent, the characters unbelievable and totally unsympathetic. The scenario presented was ridiculous. There was even a ludicrous scene in a Dartmoor pub where local yokel Mummerset stereotypes told of ancient myths about horsemen and sang folk music as if this is what Devon folk do in the boozer all the time. In your average Dartmoor pub (I live nearby) you'd get Jennifer Saunders or some tourists. The director seemed to believe that black-and-white shots of ancient trees were in themselves menacing, along with the occasional hoot of an owl or cry of foxes. There was no attempt to create a sense of paganism or witchcraft, or anything else to contextualise the fears aroused during the camping trip.

This film was a bad steal from Blair Witch, transposed to an ancient copse on a Dartmoor tor, but with no suspense, no thrills, nothing remotely scary except that anyone had seen fit to distribute this nightmare of filmmaking. It was repetitive beyond belief - just the same old camera shots seen over and over again, and people stumbling around among some rocks - and I kept glancing at my watch wondering how soon it would end.

Fortunately I hadn't paid good money to see it in the cinema, but I resented using up one of my monthly rental DVDs after reading a favourable review in a respected British newspaper and imagining the film would be a bit of spooky fun.

I recommend that no one should waste time or money viewing this film. It's an embarrassment, and I felt humiliated at having watched it!

Sounds like ...

[kosmasp · 3/10 · 2 February 2012]

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.

The UK's answer to the Blair Witch

[bowmanblue · 4/10 · 27 May 2014]

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.

The Blair Witch as a relationship counsellor?

[FlashCallahan · 5/10 · 21 September 2012]

Brody, girlfriend Kerry and her friend Leo go hiking in Dartmoor's Wistman's Woods, named because of its supposedly haunted past.

That night, sexual tension and strained relationships come to a head turning what should have been a peaceful camping adventure into a nightmare.

As paranoia reaches fever pitch it becomes clear that there is a much darker force at work in the ancient surroundings.

Who or what is after them? And who is carrying the camera in that scene where Kerry is running around on her own?

So the director of this film stated he made this because of a dream he had. What he means is, he saw The Blair Witch Project, knows some people and decided to homage it/rip it off.

But it's nowhere near as bad as what I feared. But you cannot watch this film without comparing it to Blair Witch, because it's just too similar, and this is where the film is it's own worst enemy.

There is a sub-plot involving the three, Brody has discovered something about Leo, but it concludes too quickly and it's obvious from the start. And this is the films other problem, the characters are not very likable, so it's difficult to care for them.

There are a couple of good scares, where the sound technicians just decide to make the film extremely loud, and some eerie imagery.

And there is a huge issue regarding who on earth is holding the camera when Kerry is on her own, really makes it less 'realistic'.

But, as i've already said, it's not awful, just too familiar.

If you lke boring, this is your lucky day!

[lynnebriangoldstein · 5 February 2020]

If you enjoy over an hour of three people walking around and bickering, then this film is for you!

Avoid this film, even if you like found-footage movies

[redban02 · 2/10 · 19 January 2022]

As a big fan of found-footage movies, even I have to admit that this movie wasn't good. I turned this movie expecting a horror movie. Instead, the bulk of the movie focuses on some love triangle that I didn't care about; I was yawning throughout the first 40-50 minutes. When the horror does begin, the focus seemed to be on the woman running around in the dark. I shut this thing off with 15 minutes left because it was so bad.

This is why people hate found footage...

[icocleric · 1/10 · 10 October 2022]

This is exactly the kind of film that gives found footage a bad name, and why people dislike the genre. So much shaky cam, and nothing really actually happens. It's boring, and decends into a whole screaming, and a plot that makes absolutely no sense.

What dark forces? Where?

So the set up isn't a bad one, 3 friends go out camping in the woods, and they get some tales of local legends. Which if the film followed through with this, and actually tried to have some of this on camera then it could have worked as a film. But you see absolutely nothing.

You see people get dragged away off camera, some camera glitching, and that's really it. Which makes it dull.

Missed opportunity

[Danny_G13 · 6/10 · 25 September 2012]

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.

The queen of toxic women.

[DustinRahksi · 1/10 · 14 October 2013]

This movie is horrible, the characters are despicable, it's not even scary. Let me tell you the two biggest problems with this film, these two problems that pretty much ruined the whole film.

Problem 1: Kerry, the girlfriend to Brody, and I also guess to Leo too. The first few minutes we see her, I knew she was no good and was sleeping around. That's one thing, but she brings Leo( her other lover) on her boyfriends camping trip. She then continues to ignore Brody, and treat him like he is the bad guy. But that still isn't it, when Brody goes off into the woods, she takes Leo into the tent and begins having sex with him. But little miss prince throws Leo away too. And now she is all mad, and upset. But that still isn't it, when Brody tries to take her safely out of the woods, she stabs him to death, then cries for him to come back. Kerry is one of thee worst female characters in horror history, you just can't wait for her to get her come up-ins, but we don't even get to see it.

Problem 2: There is maybe about two minutes of exposition about the woods, and it isn't even well done. We have no fear, or understanding of what is happening because it doesn't even set up the horror properly. Compare that to The Blair Witch Project, we get tons of background history and stories about the woods, and the witch. We know to be afraid of the woods, and know it is a bad place to be. But here, we don't get jack. This movie focuses more on enraging you over an adulterer girlfriend, so don't care about 2/3rds of the characters, and we have no proper set up. This film fails so hard it's not even funny, I think they added the horror aspect as an after thought.

This movie is just a sad and anger fuelled mess. So as usual, stay away.

Blair Witch, but British.

[michaelstrugnell1 · 4/10 · 11 August 2012]

Just from watching the trailer, there are too many similarities that can be drawn back to The Blair Witch Project. The only difference this time is why the characters are there and who is supposedly out there.

The characters feel lackluster and not engaging, the plot is very predictable and the overall quality is at an average standard. Another reappearance of Scoot McNairy after the last film the team worked on, Monsters (2010), which seems to be the only connection to this movie despite the poster and trailer stating that the movie was made by the same people despite no information on who exactly these people are.

Overall, not a film that would be a must-see in theaters but probably just a cheap thrill rental.

OK but not really good...

[vengeance20 · 4/10 · 9 October 2012]

After watching this film last night I think it started off just like The Tapes. It used the whole found footage style of film where it starts off with 3 people going on a trip & then it turning into a nightmare at the end. Then having one of them getting paranoid & such & then the other going missing & so on & so on. Then them giving you the "These 3 people disappeared & have yet to be found" card before the credits roll.

***Contains Spoilers***

I found this film similar to The Tapes & would say this one you couldn't figure out what was going on & what was happening. I must say though that the scares were pretty good along with Kerry finding the 3 nooses hanging from the tree & Leo getting possessed. It was OK generally, but could of shown more instead of the camera rumbling & rolling around every 5 minutes.

Boring and amateurish

[Hayden-86055 · 1/10 · 31 October 2020]

Starts off ok, acting was pretty bad but the premise of the ghost "huntsman" who killed people and carves crosses into their forehead sounded like some hammy fun. Unfortunately that never happens and instead you're treated to an hour of nothing happening, the characters aren't likeable the plot tries to be interesting but isn't and there's just no scares. The cinematography is poor.

1/10: Bad, bad, bad

Don't be fooled by the cover and trailer

[Benmammone16 · 3/10 · 9 July 2013]

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

Unwatchable

[harryplinkett14 · 1/10 · 10 May 2013]

Unbelievably bad. What on earth were they thinking? It makes no sense. It's just random nonsense that no one can follow, and frankly no one wants to follow. To make a bad film is one thing; to abuse your audience is another. The only thing scary here is the fact that a film this bad was actually made. You are literally witnessing random nonsensical footage in the middle of the night, consisting mainly of people running around with a camera.

But that is not all, because the point of view in this film is impossible to make sense out of. It begins as a film being made with a camera carried by one of the protagonists. But then we start getting flashbacks and then another camera suddenly appears making the whole thing utterly confusing. Add to that the fact that even when the camera is present, half the time its positioning makes no sense at all, and the footage is already edited in an obvious way.

As for the actual plot, it is utterly meaningless and it becomes obvious fairly early on that it will remain meaningless, thus alienating even the most patient viewer. The film resorts to jump scares, which is the cheapest form of horror. If you eliminate such brief moments of being scared by a sudden noise or movement, the film is just an irritatingly confusing mess.

It boggles the mind that someone actually wasted time and money, filming night after night in these woods, just to produce this pathetic excuse for a film.

Utterly illogical.

[fedor8 · 29 July 2018]

Like so many found-footage crappolas that reveal a major spoiler in the first scenes, this one doesn't respect the viewer either because it tells us straight away that the three characters will all be killed. (As if the film has so much else going for it that it can actually afford to give away a major spoiler!) So why should I hide the spoilers?

"The **** is this?!" says Brody at one point. It's as if he speaks for 99% of the viewers: "the **** is this found footage nonsense?! The **** is this dumb movie that makes no sense? The hell am I doing watching three nincompoops stumble around in the dark?!"

American Brody plans a night out in the woods with his English girlfriend Kerry, played by the ravishing Anna Skellern, but we soon find out that she is in fact a slag. The third person joining them is not her cousin, as she claims, but her ex. Brody straight away shows jealousy, but the slag isn't that bothered - for the moment at least.

The viewers are first lead to believe that the trio will encounter some loony cult, then they find out that Brody is scheming something - because he knows about Leo and Kerry being former screw-colleagues. For some reason he had never confronted Kerry with the damning evidence of Leo sniffing her underwear, or whatever, earlier on, but decided instead to teach her a lesson(?) by getting her to experience an "epiphany"(???) as he so stupidly says. (By leaving her in the woods? Huh? Or by making her watch all those pointless peeping-tom clips of her?) We never find out what bloody epiphany he's talking about because all hell breaks loose - as things tend to in horror films and especially in the woods at night - and nothing ever gets explained. People just end up running around screaming, alternately chasing or following one another, stumbling in the dark - perhaps trying to entertain the viewers? Even a standard love-triangle drama between those three buffoons would have been far more enjoyable than this pitiful excuse for a horror film.

To cut a very long, very silly story short, the movie constantly lies to the viewer, but in a very clumsy way that makes no sense. Loony woodsman? Druid cult? Witches? Brody the killer? Leo the killer? Who the hell is the killer?

Kerry finally finds Brody, distraught and injured, and just as she finally regains her trust in him, she finds Leo's bracelet - and suddenly that makes her distrust Brody again! WHY? What does the bracelet prove either way? She'd already been ATTACKED by Leo beforehand, so what bloody difference does the bracelet make? WHY would she blame Brody for Leo's behaviour - unless she thought Brody is some kind of a sorcerer who put a spell on Leo to turn him into a murderer? There is nothing whatsoever in the movie to hint that Brody might have such miracle powers. Hence Kerry is an imbecile?

Or how about Kerry being chased by someone (the hell knows who), then suddenly falling down (without explanation), taking a nap while being filmed by the mystery person, then getting up again and resuming her running? What the hell was that about? This movie throws almost random stuff at you, as if desperately hoping that you're one of those nitwits who thinks that the more confusing a thriller is the more brilliant it must be. You know, the sort of people (hipsters, for example) who actually worship David Lynch's more recent dross, or who consider De Palma to be some sort of genius because all of this, thrillers are utterly cretinous.

There's more nonsense. Leo talks into the camera, saying how he knows that Brody once attacked a woman. How does he know this? How come he never told Kerry about it? None of this stuff adds up even remotely.

The epilogue is hilarious: "After an intensive police search, none of the three people were ever found." What they really should have put in the caption is this: "Despite gathering hours of (found) footage, the director hasn't found a way to meaningfully tie it all up together. He totally failed in editing it in a way that would remotely be logical, which is why what you've just seen makes zero sense - and you're a gullible for hoping a found-in-sewage flick with a title that promises dark wobbly scenes with lost of pointless screaming might actually be good."

Fine, I'm a gullible. Although, in my defense, I took this movie only because Anna is in it.

We Camping... Oh Nooooooo Things Getting Weird Now.

[loyaltyofaleo · 1/10 · 31 October 2013]

:SPOILER: NOTHING HAPPENS Seriously 100$ To Whoever Can Tell Me What Happened In This Movie...

I'm Serious...

:SPOILER: Oh Look, The Guy Walked Off... He Ain't Back yet Entire Movie Makes You Hate Leo, Whom is Obviously Involved With The Girl... Then.... Well Thats It.. The Movie Ends bro.

:SPOILER: Oh Snap... Its Got Night Vision, We Gon Run Thru The Woods Now :SPOILER: Ahhhhhh He's Chasing Us And I think its Like a Witch Or Something Take The Blair Witch Project, Take Away Any Suspense, Take Away Any Character Development, take Away Any Plot, Don't Explain What Your Looking For, Add Some Scenes About The Past We Don't Care About, Bring Us To A Point Where You MUST Explain, Then :SPOLIER: Its Night Time.. And There You Have A Night In The Woods... More Like 10 Minutes In The Woods And A Buncha Creepy Kissing Cousin Stuff.

Time to get lot in the woods once again

[Woodyanders · 5/10 · 24 March 2022]

You know the drill: Three young folks decide to venture deep into the woods and something terrible happens to them. So far, so familiar. So is this any good? Alas, no. It's just okay instead. For starters, writer/director Richard Parry spends way too much time with the three main characters talking, cursing, and bickering up a storm, which becomes pretty tiresome about a half hour in. Secondly, Parry crucially fails to generate any essential tension or creepy atmosphere. Fortunately, the abundant English countryside on display looks beautiful and the three lead cast members do respectable work in their roles, with Anna Skellern a particular stand-out throughout. Moreover, the last fifteen minutes are fairly harrowing. But overall this movie serves as an example of too much build-up with too little pay-off, thereby dooming the whole thing to instantly forgettable outright mediocrity.

Good Idea,but,seen it all

[lorcan-61881 · 5/10 · 4 July 2017]

A Night In The Woods is a British horror film. It tells the messed up story of Leo,Brody and that girl,they all spend the night camping in the woods when they realize not only are they all in love with each other,that there's someone lurking in the forest..or something..woo. This film had a good idea as in Leo was actually the guy the girl lost her virginity to and that the Brody guy was a messed up psycho was attacked a girl the year before;this was just messed up,this was good for a film..but the horror part..this i saw in The Blair Witch Project. Its just Blair witch but if it was English,the film is copied,the only creepy scene in the whole film was kind off when the random person picked up the camera and followed the girl and she was unaware that he was behind her,that gave me chills but apart from that..BORING! A night in the woods is a complete copied British version of The Blair Witch Project. Bye everyone!

Prepare to yell at your tv a lot

[donaldwaynestephens · 5/10 · 23 June 2023]

The story line was a little plain and the footage was jumpy in a lot of it people were doing things that did not make much sense. For example if your phone rings what are you going to do, 1st look see who it is second decide if you want to talk third either answer or ignore. There are some that will throw the phone across the room depending o. The caller but is there going to be anyone who goes to post office and mails the phone to Antarctica. That is what I felt about a couple parts in this people made choices that most of us I feel would have not made and psychology says that it wrong. It is probably wrote this way because the writer wanted to keep the story from ending or he had to write it that way so that other scenes could happen but still I know one in a million chance that the decisions that were made would have been made if it were me and my friends that actually lived the situation.

The night vision is there for a reason by the way not sure why they show us the people know how to use it and then it is like they forget everything about their own equipment and how use it. We see this in so many B movies lately I want to see a really good B rated film with great camera footage and great storyline and awesome characters that don't seen scripted at all. Feel free to message with some suggestions please.

Everyone is different and we all face different things in life yet, this should have never gotten to where it did. Watch the movie and pay attention to everything and you will see that the three of them being there??? Well it's unlikely if it were any of the people I know that three people would been present in the woods but ratig this film, special effects were none the plot decent if you figure out what it is, the main thing which I hope this do t spoil it for anyone is the Hunter that was the biggest disappointment. Those who agree please like my post. But the film is worth watching for a 1st timer but I wouldn't watch it again.

It's like that deja vu thing all over again...

[gaz-gerrard · 2/10 · 27 November 2012]

If you get the feeling you've "seen it all before" when watching this movie, it's because you have. It's The Blair Witch Project. Same plot. Same character dynamics (one girl, two guys), same found footage style, same 'locals giving the background behind the evil that will ultimately befall the group', same directionless running around, same screaming, same distant calls for help...

The only difference is that, instead of swapping between film camera and video camera, it's been brought up to date by switching between camcorder footage and mobile phone footage. And that's it. I can only imagine that they got funding for this movie by pitching it to some rich recluse with nothing better to do with his cash. That or someone really thought that what the world of horror needs is a remake of The Blair Witch Project but with worse weather and worse acting.

brits suck at found footage.

[jrstadie · 3/10 · 31 August 2023]

I dont know man, it seems like every british found footage i find is just garbage, it feels like they tried to rip off the blair witch. Yes, i know there are many out there that does this but i feel like this diolog was horrible and there were no likeable charectors. It was just bickering. Its like a toxic relationship on the screen, you get someone who hurts the other emotionally then they apologize then the other person does something similar then apologizes, its just a huge circle. I wouldnt reall waste your time watching this, i have sixty four more words to use so i am just typing this and that.