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.
"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.