A Night in the Woods
Tags: violence, dark

Plot synopsis:
The film follows Londoner Kerry (Anna Skellern) and her American boyfriend Brody (Scoot McNairy) as they travel to Dartmoor for a camping trip. Brody has decided to document their trip with his video camera. He grows irritated and jealous when Kerry invites her cousin Leo (Andrew Hawley), although Brody tries to hide this by acting friendly towards Leo. The trio stops by a pub, where they hear the story of a local legend called The Huntsman, who carves crosses into the foreheads of sinners before killing them.
Brody grows increasingly more jealous of Leo after seeing him and Kerry joking around, making him doubt Kerry’s claims that Leo is her cousin. Things grow more tense as he confronts Leo over footage of Leo sneaking into Kerry and Brody’s home. Brody attempts to catch Kerry and Leo by setting his camera up in the tent, which proves to be effective. It is revealed that not only are the two not related, but that they used to be lovers and Kerry lied to Brody in order to make things easier. Left alone, Kerry and Leo begin to have a fling, which is cut short when Leo hurts Kerry. He tries to apologize, but is rejected when he suggests that Brody is trying to replace her recently dead father. Leo then leaves Kerry alone in the woods.
Strange things begin to happen around the now alone Kerry such as strange noises and nooses tied to tree branches. Kerry is then chased into the woods by an unseen force, who knocks her out and carves a cross on her forehead. She manages to regain consciousness and returns to the campsite, where she angrily discovers the camera that Brody had set up in the tent as well as footage he had been secretly recording of her. This is further exacerbated by footage of her experiencing a nightmare while sleeping as well as a clip of Brody discussing plans to abandon Kerry in the woods so she can experience a solitude that he once experienced in exactly the same woods 10 years earlier. This infuriates Kerry, who then turns to the camera and threatens to hurt Brody. Her anger is cut somewhat short when the tent is violently shaken and she discovers a devastated Leo, all bruised and cut. Kerry tries to help him, but he attacks her in a fit of rage and chases her into the woods. She runs into a bruised and bleeding Brody, who convinces her that Leo is not himself and that they are being hunted by an unknown force. They try to find a way out of the woods, but Kerry fights with Brody after discovering Leo’s bracelet on the ground and suspecting Brody of wrongdoing. She manages to fight Brody off, killing him in the process but leaving her alone and hunted in the woods.
Kerry then discovers Leo’s digital camera on the ground, where she views a clip of Brody being attacked and dragged away by an unseen assailant. Frightened, Kerry tries to find a way out but is attacked, causing the camera to cut to black.

Review: It all started with Blair Witch in '99.
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.
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.
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.
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..
A British 'found-footage' movie that doesn't deliver..
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.
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.
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..
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 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..
The camera-work was crass and amateurish, the plot non-existent, the characters unbelievable and totally unsympathetic.
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.
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.
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?
Blair Witch, but British..
Just from watching the trailer, there are too many similarities that can be drawn back to The Blair Witch Project.
The UK's answer to the Blair Witch.
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.
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.
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..
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 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.
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..
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.
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..
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.
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 allThe acting was also not very goodThe 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.
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.
***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.
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.
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.
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.
Compare that to The Blair Witch Project, we get tons of background history and stories about the woods, and the witch.
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.
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.
The Blair Witch as a relationship counsellor?.
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?
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..
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 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.
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.
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.
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!
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?
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.
Leo talks into the camera, saying how he knows that Brody once attacked a woman.
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.
He Ain't Back yet Entire Movie Makes You Hate Leo, Whom is Obviously Involved With The Girl...
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.