Awful ending and movie.
-
sinsemilla420071 — 9 years ago(August 01, 2016 08:41 PM)
Your rape propaganda, since that's the topic at hand. Your clear hatred of women, by your postings, is another tip-off that you are an MRA propagandist. You are a genuine psychopath, and no one takes you seriously because you are incapable of presenting your thoughts in a serious and clear fashion. If you want change, do it somewhere other than IMDB. Moron. Consider your stupid a$$ officially on ignore. I don't have time to waste on rapey mental midgets like yourself.
-
coyote5 — 9 years ago(September 29, 2016 06:23 PM)
OK, as a person highly skilled in wilderness survival, I'm probably overthinking this. I really loved the film. The acting and story was excellent.
ButI felt that burning down the house was far too hasty. It represented a wealth of assets for their future survival. I understand that they wanted to be safe from the target/vulnerability it represented (particularly given terrible trauma of the brutal rape attack) , but it would have been far more prudent to slowly harvest it's value to another, hidden location. Then burn the house. The bags they quickly filled were not enough.
I'm just saying that technically surviving and thriving in the northern forest is not that easy for people whose culture didn't teach them how as native peoples' would have.
And hey, getting drenched risks hypothermia, and they did that right away while watching the house burn down. -
tdibble-1 — 9 years ago(January 16, 2017 10:34 AM)
I strongly agree. No need to burn the house to the ground with pretty much everything inside. At least gut it of major potential survival supplies - tarps, containers to gather water, insulation, books about plants etc. I enjoyed the movie too, and this was the most "off" part of the plot to me as well.
"Into the Forest Part II" would likely be these three withering away and dying in the forest. They have shown very little by way of common sense, and don't have training to fall back on. Not a brilliant move on their part to destroy their store of resources before setting off. -
JonahVarque — 9 years ago(January 29, 2017 12:53 AM)
"Into the Forest Part II" would likely be these three withering away and dying in the forest
And it would only be about 5 minutes long. They should have simply kept making this movie for another five minutes as your scenario plays out.
WARNING!
Objects under T-shirt are larger than they appear! -
jonathonwisnoski-856-217430 — 9 years ago(September 30, 2016 01:56 PM)
I think this view comes partially from a misunderstanding of the movie. I went into it thinking it was a survival movie, it is not. It is a chick flick, instead of the normal story arch of the characters physical situation/skill (aka physical and mental) such a film would have, that is left out completely. The girls do not grow better able to survive, they do not better their lot. It is an emotional arc. It is an overcoming of their fugue state, they finally come to accept "reality", at least emotionally. The problem is that with the film comely ignoring any physical/mental growth, and focusing singularly on emotional growth, they still are completely unable to survive, they still do not really accept reality in that sense.
So I do not want to just blanket say that it is a horrible movie. It is unrealistic, it is a chick flick, but I am not positive that it is objectively horrible. -
sumonsmailbox — 9 years ago(October 02, 2016 08:29 AM)
I wont call it the worst movie I ever watched. But I had serious problems with this movie and the ending.
People are survivalists by nature. These two sisters seemed to not worry about what they are doing, what is happening to the world. Or even basic fear of safety was not there. They were living like they were in vacation. Uncertainty about the world should be terrifying. The child thing was such a joke. People die giving birth. Why would you take such a risk for no strong reason? They did not bother to provide a better or an emotional reason. That was amateur script writing. Why would you burn the house? Its like a haven inside a forest. How is the base of tree even compares when you have a newborn child? This movie is a 3/10. Total Nonsense. -
ozz1121 — 9 years ago(January 23, 2017 12:13 AM)
Terrible movie. It had a lot of potential starting off, but a rape and pregnancy in these types of movies is a big cliche. The story was almost non-existent. The house appeared to be a very nice expensive house and 1 and 1/2 years later it just started falling down. Instead of trying to repair it, it was a better idea to leave it and stay in the forest and burn everything using their last bit of gas, they even burned tables, etc which could be used in an new structure. Ultimately, the writing was beyond bad.
ozz -
bobtis — 9 years ago(February 09, 2017 11:20 PM)
Boy I agree 100%. I sat through this film just waiting for something of some redeeming quality to show itself, instead it just went straight down hill. I adore both actresses but they went together like oil and water. I would never believe for one minute they were sisters, them walking from the Pacific Northwest to Boston. Sure and gosh did they learn how to farm quickly. The house looked in pretty good shape to me and just rots away in 2 years plus never showing a winter. Ok done. Great acting to try to pull it off but screenplay was a joke. Gets a 2.