"In the Woods," directed by Lynn Drzick, is a film that may have had potential, but fails miserably to recognize the kind of film that it could have been. Aside from the amateurish monster make-up and contrived storyline, this film adheres to, in principle, a sub genre of psychological film criticism: fairy tale theory. Fairy Tale theory takes, as its premise, the idea that an innocent journeys into the forest, only to discover the physical dangers and emotional perils which reside in that environment. (The forest is, of course, a metaphor for life in the real world.) Faced with challenges and temptations, the innocent comes face-to-face with his collective self (a concept based on Jung's "Collective Unconscious"). Ultimately, this character leaves the forest a changed individual, and that change can manifest itself in both positive and negative respects. "Little Red Riding Hood" is just one basis for this theoretical school; Edmund Spenser's _The Faerie Queene_, and particularly Book I on the Redcrosse Knight, is another.
Although D.J. Perry's character is no innocent, when he first journeys into the forest (he is an alcoholic and an emotionally abusive husband), the viewer gets the sense that he is unaware of the world in which he lives. He is, like many individuals, contented with the life in which he lives: working, drinking, and going home; this routine is his world. When he is forced to face the inconsistencies and unexpected circumstances which life throws his way, manifested rather dully by a three-horned dog and a reptilian-looking homo sapien, he demonstrates an incapacity to tackle turmoil and confusion. Most everyone in his life, but particularly his wife, pays a price for his lack of insight. Yet, in the end, miraculously he overcomes his naiveté, but realizes that "the beast continues to exist in the forest," and that is the nature of "the forest" (of life). Now, while that may sound fairly intriguing, Drzick fails to motivate the viewer to invest any empathy or emotion into the film. D.J. Perry's and Jim Gruelick's turn as a quixotic duo fails for, among other reasons, lack of chemistry and unengaging dialogue. Perry's relationship to his wife, although more involved than his connection with Gruelick, is too cursory and terse to be effective. The dynamics of this dysfunctional household are presented in a rather shallow, inept manner.
The creatures, as hinted at previously, lack even the sophistication of, in reference to the B-movie classics of the 1950s, lizards with prosthetic armaments attached to their bodies. The three-horned dog reminds one of a stuffed animal, with three tusks attached to its face.
Of even more disappointment is the film's screen writing. Apparently, this film is set in the United States; it would seem near the forests of the Carolinas. In flashback sequences (which are not readily connected to the film's plot nor to D.J. Perry's character development), two knights (one of which may be a sorcerer who conjured up these monsters to wage a battle between two kingdoms) appear fighting in the forest. I mean, "hello!," knights and sorcerers were indigenous to medieval Europe, not 12th or 13th century North America. Also, the tag line for this film is "Vengeance is Timeless." OK, what was this "vengeance" (as supposedly set forth in these flashbacks) based upon, and how does it relate to the D.J. Perry character's conflict. No direct ties to this "medieval" vengeance, and the film's focus on this man and his wife is ever made.
I give this film 1 out of 10 points. My criticisms go to the heart of the screenplay, the acting, and the special effects. However, one suggestion for the director, Lynn Drzick, is to consider the original material, and reshape it to create tension, significance, and believability. "In the Woods" may have the chance for merit, but unfortunately, this merit is utterly unrealized and shockingly disregarded in the final cut.
