Forest of the Damned (2005)

To me, this movie is perfection.

Good story, Not enough for a whole film

Fantastic!

It's the kind of movie you'll want to see a second time with someone who hasn't seen it yet, to remember what it was like to watch it for the first time.

Before this film is even ten minutes into its running time, we have had naked vampires, sex, gore and two 'You've got to be f****** kidding me's'. I'm surprised how much I like it. The initially dreaded 'group of friends go on a road-trip' is as unpromising as these things often are: 'crazy' kids tearing up the countryside to the soundtrack of rock music never fills me with a desire for anything other than to skip forward. The characters are given the first names of characters from the John Hughes teen flick 'The Breakfast Club (1985)'. The results are oddly American names for a very British collective, this decision hardly adding to their already scant credibility. Outwitting and out-glaring each other at every opportunity, it isn't long before they are accosted by a raving man at a petrol station – this brief scene actually explains the main thrust of the story: angels have been rejected from Heaven because of extreme sexual desires and apparently frequent the nearby woodlands. Problem is, this is all relayed so briefly and in the form of such extreme ranting, that the details are very easy to overlook."There's something in the forest," whispers Emilio (Richard Cambridge), and really, that's all we need to know. The nymphs in the forest, the Rottweiler-toothed seductresses ensnare, arouse, overpower and gorily cut down the body-count with impressive ease.'Forest of the Damned' won't please everyone (what can?). The acting is variable, the characters take some while to make any impression. But there are some good effects and some pleasing gore. Above all, though, is the stifling atmosphere of unease that, if anything, grows as the film goes on. The beautiful, wide open woodlands become a place of seduction and death.A wild-eyed Tom Savini makes a surprise appearance (not really a surprise since he's often top-billed, but I am pleasantly surprised he should appear in a low-budget British film like this). Horror writer Shaun Hutson (who has adapted at least three Hammer films) also appears as himself briefly.This is a meandering, occasionally erotic horror in which the dislikeable aspects of the usual group are quickly side-lined in favour of a genuinely sensual/deadly ambiance. Director Johannes Roberts is at pains not to create a 'soft porn picture' which, given the story material, is 'tricky' – for what it's worth, I think he succeeds in directing something that transcends that, much like Jean Rollin did, and delivers a sultry evil that thrives on its tiny budget.

I have to admit to being a fan of low budget movies. They are usually a fine place for young directors to showcase what they can do.Well Johannes Roberts doesn't disappoint. Yes, it's clear to see (and he has admitted the fact) that FOREST was made on a student movie budget, but don't let that put you off as he uses some great techniques and special effects in what can only be described as directorial genius.Spinning cameras under a moving van, night vision shots and some amazing overhead shots are all interlaced with some very clever MTV style editing, by a director that is screaming out for a budget he could really work with.The effects are also good, and I should think so with TOM SAVINI on set to point them in the right direction. Disembowelments and beheadings are done with a loving care for gory detail that is sadly missing in some big budget endeavours.The entire cast are doing this for the love of making a movie they believe in. Why else would three naked women wander around the woods in the freezing cold? (and I can assure you they are cold) Another good reason to watch this film is the cameo appearance of the legendary SHAUN HUTSON as himself.Support the indie horror industry and get this film now. It really is worth the watch.

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!

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