Forest of the Damned (2005) watch online HD

turning them off before the closing credits start rolling. This was one of those few. I'm sorry I spent the $7.00 buying this movie and may consider either tossing it or using it to shim a kitchen table.

The movie opens with a couple making out on the hood of a new Mercedes Benz. Within the first 2 minutes, the "fallen angels" arrive, start making out with the guy who basically walks away from his girl friend. The angels go from beautiful to hideous with no care to how the special effects are done and basically kill the guy.

At this point, I'm saying.. "hmm, okay, I'll give it a bit more.. at least up to Savini"

The main characters were pathetic and the obnoxious sister was just overly obnoxious to the point of total annoyance.

Tom Savini comes in as a crazed homeowner with a house that's prolly 2-3 miles from his mailbox with no driveway.. yeah sure. His acting is terrible (stick to effects, make-up and George Romero cameo's please).

The "fallen angels" are played by cute girls, but not angelic looking by any means. Pretty but not gorgeous.

Bottom line checklist as to what this movie is lacking:

-Background story -Effects -Acting -Budget -Scares

What the movie offers:

-Total boredom

Take your money and your time and watch something, anything else.

"Forest of the Damned" is a thoroughly disappointing and dull effort.

**SPOILERS**

Going on a trip, friends Molly, (Nicole Petty) Judd, (Daniel Maclagan) Ally, (Sophie Holland) Emilio, (Richard Cambridge) and Andrew, (David Hood) manage to get lost along the way, and upon stopping for directions, are warned away from entering the woods nearby. As that's their destination, they dismiss the warnings and proceed onward. When an accident strands them in the forest, they split up to go find out, only to realize that the warnings were accurate and are being haunted by a trio of wood nymphs who live in the woods feeding on those who in the woods. Determined not to fall victim to the deadly creatures, they try to find a way of getting out of the woods alive.

The Good News: There wasn't a whole lot really right with this one. One of it's few pluses is that the setting is effectively done, making good use of atmosphere here to make for a thrilling location. With the giant trees and the rather suffocating effect they have, it's quite nice to be able to really great setting here that really allows for a lot of fantastic atmospheric shots to occur. The opening shots of them driving into the forest as well as the treks to find help offer a lot of great atmospheric moments as well, making it a really enjoyable and certainly allows an interesting set of events. There's also the way it makes the night-time scenes even better with the creepy surroundings being hidden by the time they take place, allowing for even more fun to be had from these segments. They also allow the film's few action scenes, such as the attacks on the campground and the stalking in the woods after the breakout meaning a lot to the film and how it overall works. Other action scenes, such as the attack in the farmhouse, where they are tied up and forced to let the creatures come to them while trapped allows for some really tense moments. The kills lead to some gore, not all that much but still some and that's a nice accomplishment, letting some of the decapitations and dismemberments to come across as really graphic. The last plus here is the film's nudity, which does deliver here nicely in spades even if not all of it is appealing. These here are the film's pluses.

The Bad News: There was a couple of pretty big problems to this one. One of the biggest flaws to this is the fact that there's absolutely no action at all during the majority of the film. This is an incredibly slow-going film that really offers up hardly anything at all during it's running time that constitutes anything remotely resembling action, as it's barely-there pace, dreary action moments and complete inability to actually move forward with anything at all. The film tends to revolve around either the victims being knocked out and subjected to torture from those involved with the proceedings. It's a relatively dull affair that really doesn't offer much of any action scenes that move the film forward, instead offering up so many different scenes that are quite boring and just lack anything that move this one along and it suffers heavily for this one. It's so dreary at times that it barely makes any sort of impact and just trundles along, hoping the nudity will keep it alive. A prime example is the scenes set inside the house, which have absolutely no point being there. The scenes serve no purpose to put them there, the scenes are confusing as to why they're there and they offer up no answers at all to anything since the holder puts them in league with the creatures and holds them without any reason. That's a rather big flaw on it's own, since it offers up a series of confusing scenes after another with absolutely no answer at all to anything. The first attack during the pre-credits sequence, the reasoning behind the capture, the back-story to the creatures, the twist ending, are just part of the problems here, offering nothing as to what's going on. Not even a conjecture is offered, none of the issues are presented and it's all just quite aggravating having to wait around hoping something will come along that ultimately doesn't. The last flaw to this one is perhaps the least-important but the most detrimental overall, the setting of the music and noises in here. When watching a movie, it shouldn't be an exercise of setting the volume high to be able to hear what's being said then immediately racing to turn it down when the music hits due to it just suddenly blaring out of the speakers. The entire movie is mixed in such a way that a remote has to be kept on hand during the entire film, which detracts significantly from the experience. These here are the film's flaws.

The Final Verdict: Not all that great, with too many detrimental flaws to this one that it can't really use whatever good parts it has. This one's really only there for those who find these kinds of films interesting, though those who prefer a little more quality out of their films should heed caution with this one.

Rated R: Nudity, Graphic Violence and Language

This movie is a terrible waste of time. Although it is only an hour and a half long it feels somewhere close to 4. I have never seen a movie move so slowly and so without a purpose. This is also a "horror" film that takes place a lot of the time during daylight. My friend and I laughed an insane amount of times when we were probably supposed to be scared.

The only thing we want to know is why such a terrible movie was released in so many countries. It cannot be that high in demand.

The supermodel Nicole Petty should stick to modeling because although she is beautiful she lost her accent so many times in this movie, half of the time she is British and half the time she is American.

This film actually works from a fairly original idea - I've never seen nymphs that were thrown out of heaven in a horror movie before anyway. However, the way that it executes this idea isn't original in the slightest; we follow a bunch of kids that, for some reason decide to go on a trip into the forest. The fact that the forest is inhabited by these nymphs make it more interesting than merely another forest filled by rednecks/nutcases/zombies etc; but really, the monsters are just a variation on the common horror in the woods theme. Many films of this ilk don't have a single good idea - and it would seem that this one has worn its brain cells out with just that one. The only real asset that the monsters bring to the table is the fact that they're beautiful women that the characters lust for, rather than being hideous grotesques that they want to run away from. This is good up until a point; but it soon gets boring, and the almost complete lack of any back-story surrounding the central monsters ensures that the film is never going get itself out of the 'horror trash' category.

It's been years since The Evil Dead made the woodlands a prime horror location, and in spite of films like The Blair Witch Project; it still makes for an excellent horror setting. This is one of the film's major assets, as the forest presents a good impression of the unknown - the only problem is that Forest of the Damned doesn't ever seem to have much up its sleeve. The death sequences show a distinct lack of imagination, and the fact that all the characters are clichéd in the extreme doesn't help, as you're more likely to be looking forward to seeing them get killed rather than hoping they can get away. The cast is made up of kids mainly, but there is a role here for Tom Savini; who unfortunately doesn't get to have fun in the special effects department. The only real highlight the film has where personnel are concerned comes from the nymphs themselves. The naked ladies tend to look great, and if it wasn't for them, this film would get very boring very quickly. There's nothing to recommend this film for really; but if you want a daft little horror film that harks back to the style of eighties woodland flicks, you might find some enjoyment here.

This movie was pretty much a waste of an hour and a half of my time. I generally like the cheap horror monster type movies, but this movie was a disappointment. The main flaw being the lack of explaining the creatures. When they entered the house and found the man he could have at lease explained them. He doesn't really say anything about them other than that they killed his parents, and unless i missed something the didn't say how he managed to escape either... Not to mention the fact that it gives no clue or reason why the only survivor stays and essentially feeds the creatures after her own near death experience. It would have seemed that she would have had the opportunity to leave after the "cross incident".

Oh boy, where do I go with this one? Herendous acting, weak plot, stupid deaths, pointless nudity...

This isn't entertainment...this is hell.

Hell.

Don't waste your money, time, or life on this pit of evil.

It's just...god damn is this movie awful! Tom Savini, WHY?! Why would you waste your life on this crap? This movie not worth it. I'd rather snort crack and smash my head up against a wall than watch THIS...this sinful act again!

Please take my advice and stay the f#@k away from this elephant turd of a film. No, you know what? I shouldn't even have to call this thing a film! Just stay AWAY!

I rented this flick for one reason Tom Savini, I respect his work but this was a real let down, I had horrible clichés, half of the film was naked women so called "fallen angels" running around trying to act scary, oh and then there was the occasional "Blair Witch" black and white motion sicken camera scenes. Tom's character was really awful, Horrible script. And you got to love these lines they use. "Is anyone there, who is out there, this isn't funny" No but your acting was. I wish I could give this flick a 0! Oh the names of the characters. Judd, Molly, Ally, Emilio, but they did leave out Anthony, The Breakfast Club reunite in the forest of unforgivable acting.

Well this is a typical "straight to the toilet" slasher film.

Long story short, a bunch of teenagers/young adults becoming stranded in the middle of creepy woods and get hacked down by naked nymphomaniac demons.

This movie has all the basics for this slasher fromage:

-Naked women, -teens or young adults being marooned in someplace spooky, -gory death scenes, -the last survivor being a well built young woman who will always show off her midriff, but never bra less, -a creepy, crazy man who knows about the evil, -lesbian kiss scene, -sex being a killer, -no plot

Even then for a cheesy slasher film, it was really terrible. The atmosphere is totally dead. Nothing, not even the sexually explicit scenes and nudity, was enough to keep the male and lesbian female audience interested. Watching it felt like it was being watched with a nasty head congestion or a nasty head cold.

Give the demonic ..... 0/10.

I've seen a lot of movies and rarely would I ever rate a movie "1" but this movie was beyond terrible.

The acting was terrible, the plot was ridiculous, the effects were unrealistic and the characters were annoying. Usually when I watch scary movies I think it's DUMB when the characters hears a noise in house/forest/school/etc and then yells out "hello is anyone there?" - but at least they're believable when they do it.. This movie couldn't even get that right.

This is a movie that'll make other B-horror movies like Venom and The Fog look like academy award winning masterpieces.

I always have an open mind while watching movies and I can only say that this movie was a complete waste of time and I write this comment so that anyone else who's thinking of watching this movie will think again. IT'S AWFUL!

Forest of the Damned starts out as five young friends, brother & sister Emilio (Richard Cambridge) & Ally (Sophie Holland) along with Judd (Daniel Maclagan), Molly (Nicole Petty) & Andrew (David Hood), set off on a week long holiday 'in the middle of nowhere', their words not mine. Anyway, before they know it they're deep in a forest & Emilio clumsily runs over a woman (Frances Da Costa), along with a badly injured person to add to their problems the van they're travelling in won't start & they can't get any signals on their mobile phones. They need to find help quickly so Molly & Judd wander off in the hope of finding a house, as time goes by & darkness begins to fall it becomes clear that they are not alone & that there is something nasty lurking in the woods...

This English production was written & directed by Johannes Roberts & having looked over several other comments & reviews both here on the IMDb & across the internet Forest of the Damned seems to divide opinion with some liking it & other's not, personally it didn't do much for at all. The script is credited on screen to Roberts but here on the IMDb it lists Joseph London with 'additional screenplay material' whatever that means, the film is your basic backwoods slasher type thing like The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (1974) with your basic stranded faceless teenage victims being bumped off but uses the interesting concept of fallen angels who roam the forest & kill people for reason that are never explained to any great deal of satisfaction. Then there's Stephen, played by the ever fantastic Tom Savini, who is never given any sort of justification for what he does. Is he there to get victims for the angels? If so why did he kill Andrew by bashing his head in? The story is very loose, it never felt like a proper film. The character's are poor, the dialogue not much better & the lack of any significant story makes it hard to get into it or care about anything that's going on. Having said that it moves along at a reasonable pace & there are a couple of decent scenes here.

Director Johannes doesn't do anything special, it's not a particularly stylish or flash film to look at. There's a few decent horror scenes & the Tom Savini character is great whenever he's on screen (although why didn't he hear Judd breaking the door down with an axe while escaping with Molly?) & it's a shame when he gets killed off. There are a couple of decent gore scenes here, someone has their head bashed in, there's a decapitation, someone gets shotgun blasted, someone throat is bitten out, someones lips are bitten off & someone is ripped in half. There is also a fair amount of full frontal female nudity, not that it helps much.

Technically Forest of the Damned is OK, it's reasonably well made but nothing overly special or eye-catching. This was shot in England & Wales & it's quite odd to see an English setting for a very American themed backwards horror. The acting is generally pretty poor save for Savini who deserves to be in better than this. Horror author Shaun Hutson has an embarrassing cameo at the end & proves he should stick to writing rather than acting.

Forest of the Damned was a pretty poor horror film, it seems to have fans out there so maybe I'm missing something but it's not a film I have much fondness for. Apart from one or two decent moments there's not much here to recommend.

Angels who got a little icky were banned from heaven and now reside in a British forest where they seduce and chop up teens. Talk about high concept. On the plus side this little mother gives us Tom Savini, but since his acting range is limited to two minutes screen-time, his five minute presence seems a tad long. The angels run around the forest naked for the most part of the movie, but though they might have the body of an angel, their faces sure look like Joan Rivers on a bad day. Mediocre acting and amateurish gore-effects don't help and the night scenes fatally recall Paris Hilton's most famous movie. So bad that it is REALLY bad.

From the start this film was awful! Why was it that bad?? If it isn't the naked women, not only in need of a decent plastic surgeon but also the expertise of a dentist followed by a free hand out of Colgate whitening!! Then it's the 'crazy' old guy at the gas station, who isn't so much crazy, but more "I'm not sure how to act a great deal so I will stare straight ahead and look as stupid as I can while pretending to shout in robotic tones about something in the woods"!! Then back to these naked nymphs in need of a cure for gingivitis.... apparently, without touching you...and this is according to the opening scene.... they can cause a nasty looking red rash on your neck, which I assumed to be a chunk of flesh missing but just looks as though it could do with some TCP to clear it right up. Then you have Sophie Holland who plays Ally, I have never seen such baaaaaad acting, she is more of a "me me me, if I'm not having fun no-one else is, and I don't wanna do this so I won't, and I'm the meanest cow on the planet, I'm sarcastic, petty and if I don't get things my way I will sulk!", kind of person.... reminds me more of a 6 yr old girl's attitude. I don't think it's even worth mentioning the dire camera angles that remind me of Blair Witch, or how low-budget the film actually was that when Judd was hacking at the 'locked' door it was in fact open before he reached to unlock it from the other side!! This film is completely laughable! If it were a spoof then it would have been successful...only just though, but, as a horror film is was just plain wrong!!! I can't even being to describe everything that went t!ts up in this movie I would run out of room! Although it was funny to watch Andrew drip raspberry juice in his ear every time he opened his mouth while Tom Savini's character was completely blind to the two hiding under the table directly in his line of vision!! It was even funnier when these two thought they could escape on a god damn tractor, which as we all know is thee number one hated vehicle to get stuck behind since its so god damn slow! So is it any wonder they don't get away with it?? And how many people do you know that can slice open their wrist and then run around for hours as if nothing ever happened! No pain, no weakening from blood loss, nothing!? But the silliest part is when all of a sudden (and i mean that literally) it's one YEAR later and Molly is still wandering the woods after having escaped the nymphs, and then lo and behold, Shaun Hutson picks her up...of course not without a line to promote his books!! (altho admittedly he is one of my fav authors) but suddenly, and with absolutely no hint of an xplanation as to how and why... she's evil herself and lures Hutson to his death, then we cut to the crazy dude from the beginning suddenly wandering round the woods with a petrol can, even after his 'dazzling' performance on why no-one should ever venture there for whatever reason...cue the nymphs stupidly slappin each other around a bit for fun while Crazy pours petrol everywhere....and here endeth the film....finally! My conclusion....if you hadn't already guessed by now....absolute rubbish! There was no proper thought went into it at all, whoever was aiming the camera needed firing...and come to think of it so did 99% of the cast! If the right director, actors, and budget got behind this it could have been decent. But, once again, low-budget English horror films but the rest of the genre, the country, and the English film-making industry to shame!! (And I'm English so I'm allowed to say that)! In fact the only decent and exciting part of the movie is in the first 15-20 mins when we watch it turn from night to day over a field type area. All I kept thinking throughout this was "Jesus Christ in heaven why oh why did you allow someone to make this, its absolute cow's testicles!!" But I can't turn a film off after I've started watching it unfortunately. I had to watch From Dusk Til Dawn afterwards just to remind myself that Tom Savini does have it in him to act well! If there was an option for 0/10 then believe me I woulda chose that, cuz this film isn't even worth the one point I did give it!

But this is just my opinion, watch it and decide for yourself.

The plot was very thin, although the idea of naked, sexy, man eating sirens is a good one.

The film just seemed to meander from one meaningless scene to another with far too few nuddie/splatter/lesbian mouth licking shots in between.

The characters were wooden and one dimensional.

The ending made no sense.

Considering it had Tom Savini and Shaun Hutson in it, you would have expected a decent plot and decent special effects. Some of the effects were quite good but there were just too few of them.

Brownie points go for occasional flashes of tits and bush, naturally, and of course the lesbian moments. I also thought that the scene with the sirens bathing in the pool under the waterfall could be viewed as an innovative take on the 'shower scene'

The film had many of the elements that go into making a first rate horror film but they were poorly executed or used too sparsely.

If I had been watching this alone and aged 15, i would have really enjoyed it for about 10 minutes (with 1 hand of the remote control), then lost interest suddenly and needed a pizza...

When teenagers go on a trip in a camper van there are many clichés that you can guarantee will follow.

1)The teenagers will be warned not to go where they are going by a crazy local. Dan Van Husen handles that with ridiculous exposition about deadly Sirens. What, who, how and why are handled in one almost unintelligible burst. 2)The van will break down. 3)Whilst looking for help the group will be split up and be picked off one by one by whatever monster they have been warned about.4)They will find a house inhabited by a madman, he will capture them. 5) The house will have a phone but it will not work, it will be disturbingly decorated, there will be flickering neon light, spiders and maggots. 6)The madman will catch them as they try to escape in a vehicle that won't start (here the high speed getaway was to be made on a tractor). 7)The madman will be seemingly killed only to come back from the dead for a cheap, weak scare and will then be killed properly. 8)Only a girl will be left alive from the group. 9)There will be an unnecessary twist at the end.

Add to these elements naked Sirens (who the characters seem to react to in startling different ways despite the fact that everyone that sees them is supposed to fall into lust with them immediately) that seduce and kill the teens, throats being ripped out and bodies being pulled in half and you have something resembling a twelve year old boys dream movie.

I think it is only fair to say that my opinion of the director and his previous work is as low as it is possible to be but I am happy to point out that there are a few elements that boarder on pleasurable and are a great improvement on his previous film, Darkhunters, which is one of the worst films I have ever seen. At times the cinematography is very good, the music and editing are a cut above his previous films and some other low budget horror movies. I was impressed to hear that it was achieved with a third of the money spent on the previous monstrosity. However, the worst things about this movie are not to be found in the body of the film, it is ultimately a mildly diverting if pointless movie that has been done time and time again, but amongst the DVD extras.

If you do rent this film I implore you to listen to the director's commentary it is beyond belief. There is more to say about this than the film itself. One staggering part of the commentary is the director's claim that the film is cliché leaden because it was a preconceived idea. He says it is a deliberate attempt to use all of the clichés and openly he wonders if "people will get it".

I'm afraid to say that if this is supposed to be a clever nod and a wink to films of the past and the genre clichés within them then it is not wittily scripted enough, acted in an appropriate tone nor directed with enough style to work. If this film was made to order it leads me to ask one question; "What was the point?" This is s afilm that just slips right into the canon of bad horror movies, any attempt to do something clever or different haven't worked.

The next nugget of brilliance is a conversation about the snobbery towards digital film formats. They rightly point out that digital is often synonymous with cheapness and ease of use. However, the best moment of the conversation comes when they bemoan the fact that when Michael Mann makes a film in the format he is branded as a visionary. There is a simple distinction to be made here; Mann is a talented director who will use the format to fit his story and style, Roberts is a horror hack who uses it to produce bottom shelf genre pictures . I think the differences are obvious and the comparison is not only arrogant but redundant.

The best moment is reserved for Robert's comments about people who have taken the time to review his previous film. Those who didn't like it are generalised as 'geeks' and he even goes as far as to single out specific people for having the nerve to voice their opinion in forums that encourage them to do just that. I must admit I was slightly disappointed that my review of his last film wasn't singled out for ridicule. The tirade goes further as the group joke about Norwegian reviewers, complete with 'hilarious' accents to imply that people from Norway wouldn't know a good film simply because of where they are born. As always these sorts of comments say more about those saying them than those they are targeting, they simply make the director and his friends look ignorant.

The package in rounded out with a tasteful featurette about how the Sirens were cast. Robert's swears blind in voice over, 'I didn't want to make a film that was like Baywatch' as we see audition tapes of topless and naked girls writhing around on the ground. There is also a simpering, self-indulgent documentary about the making of Darkhunters during which Robert's says that a reviewer has claimed that Forest is "The best British film in years". I don't know who he is trying to convince. At one point in the commentary track Robert's says jokingly "I can see people sitting at home saying "this isn't amazing, its sh$t" he isn't wrong.

Note to Horror fans: The only horror here is when you realized you just wasted 95 minutes of your life on a movie that's so worthless it's insulting.

I watched this because:

The premise sounded slightly promising: It's not. It's just an excuse to use the same lame set pieces from other low-budget slasher films that weren't good either.

The promise of naked forest nymphs sounded nice even if the movie turned out to be awful: It's not. It's SO not. The amateur cinematography makes sure the "fallen angels" are about as sexy as the average homeless person.

The name Tom Savini has a long history in the horror genre: He's the king of low-budget special effects and lower-budget acting. Come to think of it, Savini should have been a reason not to watch this movie. It's not that he's bad, but he's almost always in bad movies. His only good role was in From Dusk Till Dawn, and he's been milking that at horror conventions ever since.

But let's focus on the positive: Forest of the Damned is a great example of how NOT to make a movie.

Everything else is a negative. Obviously the writer is allergic to originality. The script is terrible. That's all a given after the first 10 minutes. But the clueless pacing; the way the director treats "plot" and "characterization" as a nuisance he thinks no one cares about anyway; and the excruciatingly long and boring driving, walking, and nature sequences (no doubt added to increase the running time to make the film qualify for distribution) show a complete lack of aptitude for film and storytelling in general.

This is another good example of the number-one way you can tell if a movie is going to be bad: If it's written and directed by the same person, expect garbage.

oh god where to begin......bad acting....characters you just don't care about... are they American or British... they seem to think they are in America, because where else is this enormous forest in the midlands...

one big fault... they are driving all night through these woods... unless they are going around and around they'd have been in Scotland come the morning.. when the whiny one knocks the poor wandering woman over....

and they're mobiles don't work.. so what do they do... split up of course, make it easier to be picked off... so three go looking for a house that might be there in the middle of nowhere and two stay behind to 'care' for the unconscious woman... so what do they do, rather than make her comfortable, cushion her head, cover her up or even move her off the blooming road they just leave her lying on the hard road while they go and make a fire 100 yrds away....and all the time they have a camper van they could put her in...

and onto the horny angels that are supposed to have desired human kind so much that they were ejected from heaven to live amongst us...so what do they do? embark on sexual relations with any men they encounter?.........no they bite huge chunks out of them and rip their heads off... i think they are missing the point...

these are not gorgeous sexually deprived former angels they are cannabalistic vampires... and as for tom savini saying how breath takingly beautiful they are....well those gals have good bodies but nothing special in the face dept. the lead role was far more pretty than these so called irresistible sirens...

rubbish film waste of £2.30 from my local library...

Booted out of heaven, a gang of horny naked female angels (with big plastic fangs) have taken up residence in a spooky forest where they feed upon any hapless souls who should wander by. It's not long before a group of friends on a road trip are falling victim to the bloodthirsty babes… An independent low budget horror made in the UK, Forest of the Damned takes an interesting premise and flushes it down the pan with some of the worst acting, effects and direction I have seen in a long time.

Director Johannes Roberts shows some occasional flair behind the camera – the scenes in the delapidated house are fairly tense and there are some deftly handled 'shock' moments - but for the most part the film is technically amateurish. Throw in some truly awful performances from horror icons Tom Savini and Shaun Hutson, and you have one real bad movie on your hands.

Some fun may be derived from the film's sheer shoddiness, and there is loads of female nudity for the guys to savour, but most will find this a chore to sit through.

I thought that the nadir of horror film making had been reached with "Book of Shadows", I was wrong. This film makes that look like "The Magnficiant Ambersons" compared to this piece of shameless, unexpurgated fecal matter that has the audacity to call itself a movie. I'd write more but I'm still to angry that I was idiot enough to spend £3 renting it, bobbins.

And were these people English? and where is the forest> I have lived in the UK two thirds of my life and as far as I know there are no dark uncharted woodlands in the midlands. The whole bally thing looked like a national trust conifer plantation. Those angels looked like anorexic pornstars (turned most of them were, did my research). I did however like the bit when Judd got ripped in pieces.

P.S I love and admire Tom Savini but HE CANNOT ACT

If you liked "Blair with" you'll like this one. It has the same lousy camera-work and soundtrack, and it has the same non-existent plot and suspenseful moments.

It also has Tom Savini, so if you like Romero's "Dawn of the dead" or Tarantino and Rodriguez' "From Dusk Till Dawn" you're in for a treat. He is an icon and a very good actor as well.

No, seriously. This movie is definitely the lousiest movie I've seen in a long time, and I've seen quite a few movies -- bad ones as well. I can tell you that I find most horror movies entertaining in some respect, but this was just a pure waste of time.

The only reason why I gave this movie 2 instead of 1, was the naked chicks and the hot action with all the sharp-looking plastic teeth... No, I'm just kidding. I must have missed before I hit "submit" on the vote form.

Stay away, even though it has sexy girls with teeth on the cover!

OK me and a friend rented this a few days ago because we like to keep track of b-movies since we do them ourselves. Anyway, the cover contained blood and weird looking naked girls with fangs and stuff... and Tom Savini! There is just no way this movie can fail! Right? wrong!! It just seems like such a waste! There was really no story, the dialog was terrible (is anyone there? x 1000!!!), the characters were.. well, they really lacked any kind of personality... The effects were terrible.. and whats up with these long artsy shots of scared people running around doing nothing.. with extreme closeups of eyes and stuff? We were sitting the whole movie waiting for something... anything to happen... but no... "oh, here comes the nymphs! great! oh.. they're kissing... again... and now for the violence! OK... nothing really happens... again... oh, now they run around... and the closeups of eyes... again... oh, heres Tom Savini! Oh... he died... right... OK, maybe now something cool or even interesting will happen.. no.. oh! Cool! a severed head! the end... oh crap.." And finally, since i'm so full of myself.. i'll tell you this! Give me a van, six actors, a weird looking house, Tom Savini, a couple of naked girls with fangs and buckets of blood and i could make the coolest movie you've ever seen... I've made movies with zero budget in two days that has better effects, better acting and a better script than this... what is this Johannes guy doing?? Making cool movies is easy!It could have been so great... I'm really upset!!

I couldn't watch more than 14 minutes of it. It's a GREAT combination of really bad acting and really bad directing. The shots used are disgusting, they broke the 180 degrees angle all the time. My head hurts try to watch that load of "you know what". Dirt on the "mystery machine" window make you see light from the lighting on the windows...annoying. What else... it's so badly framed all the time it's just make you want to scream at that lady directing there. I only directed short films, but I'm pretty sure I'd be way better than that directing a feature film.... the story is unbelievable, just the long french kissing scene at the beginning tell you that it's gonna be pretty awful. So pretty much, try to avoid this really bad movies at all cost, it'll save you the 5 bucks or so for the rental, and that 1h30 hour of your life you'll never get back...

I saw this film yesterday.. I rented the DVD from Blockbuster.. In fact, I know one of the actresses from the film.. I won't say who..! (That's kept under wraps..) But I must admit, it wasn't as good as I thought it would be.. Tom Savini? Hats down to this guy.. But it's a shame he wasn't in the film for long.. What lacks the film is the idea, the script, sound, etc.. It may look like a good movie.. but it wasn't that entertaining..

Well, I'm glad my Sister paid £10 for renting 3 DVD's from Blockbuster.. I chose this one.. and I was disappointed. Anyway, thumbs down for me..! Not my cup of tea! 0 out of 10!

I love 80's teen movies, especially John Hughes', and when reading about this film I found something I thought was hilarious. I love inside jokes almost as much as I love 80's movies, and if you do too, I'm sure you'll feel the same way:

Molly = Molly Ringwald; Judd = Judd Nelson; Emilio = Emilio Estevez; Ally = Ally Sheedy; Andrew = Andrew McCarthy (probably); John = John Hughes (probably)

This cannot be a coincidence, no way.

But what about Sally and Stephen? I couldn't think of who those names are supposed to refer to. Any ideas?

I watched this movie back to back with another film from Britain (Dead Meat) and as such as I was with Dead Meat was very impressed with both films. Forest of the Damned was possibly also like the other shot not on film however this film was far superior in the look which was at times most unusual and totally distinct from other such horror films. What the film lacked for me that was the depth in the characters although Tom Savini's role gave the film the dimension it otherwise lacked. Most impressive of this film though were the plentiful gory effects and the demonic angels. The idea behind the film felt new and original although its format (teenagers lost in a wood) was not however the film was not only bloody but at times in the cabin very scary and exciting which one cannot often say for low budget horror.

Well, before I tear into it let me say that it wasn't a bad film. It was shot rather nicely and had decent production values all around for a low budget flick. Also, the acting was pretty good, and the film moved along at a nice pace so it never came across as boring. Also there were a few scenes with decent tension, a bit of gore and some nudity.

On the downside, well it registered like a 9 on the cliché-o-meter. This is like a slasher/creature in the woods type flick and it's pretty much formula. Do we have a group of tweens going on vacation in the woods? Check. Do they stop at a gas station and get warned not to go to the woods by a crazy guy? Check. Does the driver get distracted and hit someone or something? Check. Do their cell phones not work? Check. Do they split up? Check. Do they find an old, seemingly abandoned house in the woods? Check. Is the house outfitted with lights that flicker, maggots, etc.? Check.

Of out intrepid victims, er, I mean travelers, only a couple are stereotypes, the others come across as fairly normal. Final girl is of course identified pretty much from the start. They did throw in a couple of mild twists, some of which worked. The ending on the other hand was just goofy.

I'll call this a spoiler, though it really is given in the opening scene *** sort of a spoiler *** Our slasher/creature in this is basically some naked girls with pointy teeth. They're supposed to be like fallen angels who liked sex or something, but all they really do is kiss their victims a couple of times then go all cannibal. Now it you're going to do a picture as by-the-numbers predictable as this then you really ought to do something to make it stand out. The way to go with this would have been to play up the gore and sex and nudity. Unfortunately, given the villain, this isn't done. While there are 2 or 3 fairly decent gore bits towards the end the middle is left rather flat.

Since there are horny angels it fits in (not) that there is absolutely no sex. There is nudity, but really not as much as you might first think. Most of it is shot in dark lighting and ultimately most of the scenes with nudity only actually have a few seconds of on screen breastage. I listened to some of the commentary and it seems that the original script was more "erotic" but that they were concerned about the censors, especially when mixing sex and violence. This being a UK film, well I don't know how the censors are about that, but I wish they had gone for it. They didn't so it ended up being more middling than it could have been.

Final analysis is that it was a slightly better than average low budget slasher/monster flick that could have been worse but could have been better. I'll give it a 7/10 for being mildly entertaining. Some gore, some nudity.