In The Woods

I praise the Lord every day that independent cinema exists. Sure, the studios punch out something of worth every now and then, such as the funny, sad and stunning About Schmidt, starring the true Hollywood Star equivalent of an L.A. Laker, Jack Nicholson (smug, but extremely talented when he wants to be). But most of the time, it's 2 Fast, 2 Furious. Well, the Indies keep cranking them out, but for every Blair Witch, there are countless In the Woods's.
Yeah, this is that movie. The one with the scary title that one hack actually called "creepier than Blair Witch."

If by creepy he means "absolutely one of the worst horror movies ever made," he's right!
In The Woods is the sensitive tale of a drunken-idiot fireman who inadvertently mixes it up with a demonic dog/werewolf/ killer-hamster and his long-haired buddy. And despite that promising premise, the movie still ends up nearly unbearable at a scant 76 (or 90, as the box states) minutes.
Lynn Drzick and his or her band of nincompoop cohorts have put together a competent movie. They know how to operate cameras, microphones and editing machines. Sadly, they wouldn't know a decent script, talented actors or anything 'good' at all if these things came up and savagely dismembered them. In fact, I wish everyone involved in this movie would be savagely dismembered for wasting over an hour of my time and their respective lives.
The execrable actors in this abomination exhibit the talent of high-school thespians addicted to nitrous oxide. But instead of being so-bad-they're-good performances, these are so-bad-they-make-you-want-to-burn-the-movie performances. I haven't felt this agitated and angry while watching a film since Punch-Drunk Love. No loss though, since there is no salvaging the truly horrifying dialogue and plot these poor suckers were forced to suck up like so much cheap beer spilled on a Formica tabletop.
Nearly every action, motivation and plot point is so blind-stupid you'd think the writer had spent his or her entire life eating ho-hos and popping valium in a closet with reruns of Mr. Belvedere and The Nanny.
Is there gore? Yes sir, there is, in fact two or three decent prop body parts covered in blood, like watching an advertisement for CSI, actually. That is, not worth your time. And it's not scary either, in the slightest. While you're cringing at the stupidity, the crappy monster (a guy in a poorly made furry suit) is shown early and often, destroying any credibility or hope of suspense. The writer and director have no sense of what a horror movie (or an entertaining 30 second PSA for that matter) is.
I guess I can't say much more. This is very much an insulting waste of time, a malignant virus in the world of movies. Stay away, steer clear, and don't reward these idiots with a rental fee like I did. And to the movie-makers: keep trying, just don't ask us to watch it, because you suck.