Yawn. Poorly Filmed Snooze Fest.

It's not great by any means, but it's a pretty good movie that didn't leave me filled with regret for investing time in it.

All of these films share one commonality, that being a kind of emotional center that humanizes a cast of monsters.

The film may be flawed, but its message is not.

I came across this flick on part of two reasons, first Tom Savini is in it (as a teaser) and a girl I follow, Eleanor James. The director (Johannes Roberts) is also not unknown for me, he directed "F" and "Hellbreeder", two flicks I have seen and reviews are online. But I also have seen that reviews are really bad for this flick and I must say that they were right. It had so much potential to make a good flick but what we have is a flick that's way too dark. And by that I mean that the black level is too much under zero what results in dark holes, it shows in some way that you doesn't have any information in the black parts. On the other hand the sound wasn't that good either, sometimes when they were talking you could understand the boy but the girl was under the level of understanding. And the editing wasn't that good too, the movie evolves very slowly due the editing, scene's do take way too long before we move over to another scene. The script is very simple and every element to make a slasher or horror is in it but simply doesn't work. For example, the cell phones doesn't work, one of the friends go missing (but the friends are never aware of it and never go searching for him), an axe is available but isn't used in a creepy way it's only used off screen. Blood sputters around on faces but in the next shot their faces are clean. A warning is given by a retard (how classic is that) but doesn't fit in the story, he's just in it to say, you all gonna die...Of course there's a heroin in it but you can guess who's she's going to become. It's so sad that nothing works that you even go stretching your arm to pick up the remote control to see the two most important scene's in this flick, I guess the money for effects was used for one effect, the tearing apart and ripping out of the intestines of a victim, secondly the nymphs do walk around naked in a full frontal gratuitous way. On the part of the acting, that was rather mediocre because they were all type-casted as a nerd, the sex maniac looking at the boobs, the macho, the girl always knowing better, ...and doesn't evolve in the movie. The nymphs doesn't say a word and are just in it for their nudity. One of them is Eleanor, again, she's in it for her creepy lookings. It's funny that one of the fallen angels or nymphs is Charlotte Hunter who moved further as a stunt double in Harry Potter. Here she did her first appearance as an actress. It's really Eleanor and Marysia Kay who went further in low budget flicks. The effects used were done very cheaply what shows is that it is a low budget flick. Most of the things are done off-screen, so it's clearly that Tom wasn't involved in the effects, he really was just in it for teasing and selling the movie. There are a few extras on the disc, one is the deleted scene part and it is interesting to see that it was clearly post production that made this flick way to dark in the black level, guess they used color grading wrongly. The deleted scene's were so clear that it made the movie watchable if it was done in that way. One deleted scene contained some nudity and on that part it was strange that they didn't deleted it, I mean, in 2005 when it was shot most people watched flicks on normal televisions but nowadays it's flat screen galore 46" and was I surprised to see Elenaor's pussy in full glory, not that I mind but I guess that they weren't aware of that. To end, it's low on everything except for 5 nude girls walking around with bad teeth. Nothing is explained, what happened to the guy going in the water with the nymphs? I mean between that particular scene and the scene with Tom. Clearly one to see with the boys and have a good laugh about how a horror isn't made.Gore 0,5/5 Nudity 2/5 Effects 1/5 Story 1/5 Comedy 0/5

This movie is a terrible waste of time. Although it is only an hour and a half long it feels somewhere close to 4. I have never seen a movie move so slowly and so without a purpose. This is also a "horror" film that takes place a lot of the time during daylight. My friend and I laughed an insane amount of times when we were probably supposed to be scared.The only thing we want to know is why such a terrible movie was released in so many countries. It cannot be that high in demand. The supermodel Nicole Petty should stick to modeling because although she is beautiful she lost her accent so many times in this movie, half of the time she is British and half the time she is American.

Forest of the Damned starts out as five young friends, brother & sister Emilio (Richard Cambridge) & Ally (Sophie Holland) along with Judd (Daniel Maclagan), Molly (Nicole Petty) & Andrew (David Hood), set off on a week long holiday 'in the middle of nowhere', their words not mine. Anyway, before they know it they're deep in a forest & Emilio clumsily runs over a woman (Frances Da Costa), along with a badly injured person to add to their problems the van they're travelling in won't start & they can't get any signals on their mobile phones. They need to find help quickly so Molly & Judd wander off in the hope of finding a house, as time goes by & darkness begins to fall it becomes clear that they are not alone & that there is something nasty lurking in the woods...This English production was written & directed by Johannes Roberts & having looked over several other comments & reviews both here on the IMDb & across the internet Forest of the Damned seems to divide opinion with some liking it & other's not, personally it didn't do much for at all. The script is credited on screen to Roberts but here on the IMDb it lists Joseph London with 'additional screenplay material' whatever that means, the film is your basic backwoods slasher type thing like The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (1974) with your basic stranded faceless teenage victims being bumped off but uses the interesting concept of fallen angels who roam the forest & kill people for reason that are never explained to any great deal of satisfaction. Then there's Stephen, played by the ever fantastic Tom Savini, who is never given any sort of justification for what he does. Is he there to get victims for the angels? If so why did he kill Andrew by bashing his head in? The story is very loose, it never felt like a proper film. The character's are poor, the dialogue not much better & the lack of any significant story makes it hard to get into it or care about anything that's going on. Having said that it moves along at a reasonable pace & there are a couple of decent scenes here.Director Johannes doesn't do anything special, it's not a particularly stylish or flash film to look at. There's a few decent horror scenes & the Tom Savini character is great whenever he's on screen (although why didn't he hear Judd breaking the door down with an axe while escaping with Molly?) & it's a shame when he gets killed off. There are a couple of decent gore scenes here, someone has their head bashed in, there's a decapitation, someone gets shotgun blasted, someone throat is bitten out, someones lips are bitten off & someone is ripped in half. There is also a fair amount of full frontal female nudity, not that it helps much.Technically Forest of the Damned is OK, it's reasonably well made but nothing overly special or eye-catching. This was shot in England & Wales & it's quite odd to see an English setting for a very American themed backwards horror. The acting is generally pretty poor save for Savini who deserves to be in better than this. Horror author Shaun Hutson has an embarrassing cameo at the end & proves he should stick to writing rather than acting.Forest of the Damned was a pretty poor horror film, it seems to have fans out there so maybe I'm missing something but it's not a film I have much fondness for. Apart from one or two decent moments there's not much here to recommend.

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!