Dehydrator
05-12-2002, 12:15 PM
DEEP IN THE WOODS (2000)
Directed by Lionel Delplanque
Written by Lionel Delplanque
Annabelle Perrichon
Starring :
Clotilde Courau as Sophie
Vincent Lecoeur as Wilfried
Denis Lavant as Stephane
my rating 6/10
+++ might contain minor spoilers +++
The plot: A group of actors is sent to the woods to perform for some rich guy's kid. Once there, they get knocked off by a guy in a wolf-costume.
DEEP IN THE WOODS tries to pull the last nail out of the teenslasher subgenre's casket, trying hard to make a difference in the annoying-by-now (well, then) wave of crappy SCREAM cash-ins. The difference between DEEP IN THE WOODS and most of it's genre competition is definitely the filmmaking itself: It's hard to imagine a better looking, better directed and better filmed slasher flick than this one. The photography is excellent, the directing is obviously influenced more by Argento than Craven and the score (yes, a score) is used very well. Unfortunately, DEEP IN THE WOODS is plagued by some real crap to sit through that keeps this movie from being more than slightly-above average as a whole.
One of this movie's many problems is it's own unability to rise above slasher standards. You'd imagine in a movie with so much style and visual eye-candy, the makers gave a lil' more thought to plot, characters and script but no dice. DEEP IN THE WOODS features classic stereotypes such as the slutty bitch who dies first, the shy, properbly virginal heroine, a beyond-any-sense lament by the killer (if anybody got what he/she was trying to achive with all this, please tell me!), characters who have nothing better to do than run out in the woods for no reason when they know that a madman is most likely to hide in said woods. There's also a subplot about a rapist that, once it's revealed, doesn't bring anything to the movie exept one of those "Suprise, you'd thought THIS person was the killer" twists. The movie is loaded with stuff that is interesting on the surface but doesn't have any real depth by closer inspection like the kid's weird behavior (sticking spoons through his hand) or the homosexual undertones between two characters that all get dropped and not touched upon anymore in the movie.
Acting wise, DEEP IN THE WOODS offers some cool performances, most notably is Denis Lavant who's swallowing scenery to no extend, behold the dinner scene, the man is clearly enjoying himself. The other actors do what they can with their parts, but especially the teens are written so damm generic, behold their party scene, somebody give them a better script! The kid is way less annoying than it could have been, all in all the acting works. As I said, the movie looks fabolous, sometimes it's a bit much style for it's own sake but that's definitely the least of what drives the movie down.
I think DEEP IN THE WOODS could have been so much more than it was with a better script but as it is, it's still quite good. See it for the execellent photography and stylish look, if this is what you look for you can't go wrong with it. It's a pity that it's, after all, "just" another slasher movie with all the faults of it's genre.
6/10
Directed by Lionel Delplanque
Written by Lionel Delplanque
Annabelle Perrichon
Starring :
Clotilde Courau as Sophie
Vincent Lecoeur as Wilfried
Denis Lavant as Stephane
my rating 6/10
+++ might contain minor spoilers +++
The plot: A group of actors is sent to the woods to perform for some rich guy's kid. Once there, they get knocked off by a guy in a wolf-costume.
DEEP IN THE WOODS tries to pull the last nail out of the teenslasher subgenre's casket, trying hard to make a difference in the annoying-by-now (well, then) wave of crappy SCREAM cash-ins. The difference between DEEP IN THE WOODS and most of it's genre competition is definitely the filmmaking itself: It's hard to imagine a better looking, better directed and better filmed slasher flick than this one. The photography is excellent, the directing is obviously influenced more by Argento than Craven and the score (yes, a score) is used very well. Unfortunately, DEEP IN THE WOODS is plagued by some real crap to sit through that keeps this movie from being more than slightly-above average as a whole.
One of this movie's many problems is it's own unability to rise above slasher standards. You'd imagine in a movie with so much style and visual eye-candy, the makers gave a lil' more thought to plot, characters and script but no dice. DEEP IN THE WOODS features classic stereotypes such as the slutty bitch who dies first, the shy, properbly virginal heroine, a beyond-any-sense lament by the killer (if anybody got what he/she was trying to achive with all this, please tell me!), characters who have nothing better to do than run out in the woods for no reason when they know that a madman is most likely to hide in said woods. There's also a subplot about a rapist that, once it's revealed, doesn't bring anything to the movie exept one of those "Suprise, you'd thought THIS person was the killer" twists. The movie is loaded with stuff that is interesting on the surface but doesn't have any real depth by closer inspection like the kid's weird behavior (sticking spoons through his hand) or the homosexual undertones between two characters that all get dropped and not touched upon anymore in the movie.
Acting wise, DEEP IN THE WOODS offers some cool performances, most notably is Denis Lavant who's swallowing scenery to no extend, behold the dinner scene, the man is clearly enjoying himself. The other actors do what they can with their parts, but especially the teens are written so damm generic, behold their party scene, somebody give them a better script! The kid is way less annoying than it could have been, all in all the acting works. As I said, the movie looks fabolous, sometimes it's a bit much style for it's own sake but that's definitely the least of what drives the movie down.
I think DEEP IN THE WOODS could have been so much more than it was with a better script but as it is, it's still quite good. See it for the execellent photography and stylish look, if this is what you look for you can't go wrong with it. It's a pity that it's, after all, "just" another slasher movie with all the faults of it's genre.
6/10