Tedfoldol everything you have heard about this movie is true.

Nicolas Ok... Let's be honest. It cannot be the best movie but is quite enjoyable. The movie has the potential to develop a great plot for future movies

Zlatica One of the worst ways to make a cult movie is to set out to make a cult movie.

Skyler Great movie. Not sure what people expected but I found it highly entertaining.

Katherine Howard Singly one of the stupidest, most poorly written, and pointless movies I've ever seen. The acting was that of a group of 8th graders on their first rehearsal run, "twists" meant to . . . heighten? the plot (you know, the plot that never was) are outlandish and absurd, and the viewer--"captivated" by mere curiosity as to what could possibly come of an inept wreck like this--sits blankly from scene to scene wasting brain cells by the minute. Case in point: Gary Oldman victoriously wards off and kills a dog, violently drowns a man, and frantically runs for his life with an old man and a grown imbecile on his heels . . . only to acquiescently kneel with no objection whatsoever and passively take a bullet in the head from an old man that he could've overpowered with his hands tied behind his back! His reaction was much as if he'd been on the lam for a month and were utterly worn out and realized that he was insurmountably outnumbered to boot. It didn't fit the scene, the mood, or reality whatsoever.I agree with others: what on Earth was Oldman thinking??? He was the only reason I purchased the movie (because we all know any Oldman movie is a good movie) and the only reason I stuck out all the lame acting and pitiful directing/storytelling. Then he drops to his knees and stares into space while some old geezer takes 5 minutes to aim at him from 3 inches away and shoot him?I'm guessing Oldman suffered an erratic spending spree the month before being offered this script and needed some quick mortgage money to save his hide. Nothing else makes sense.One thing's for sure . . . he did himself an unthinkable injustice by participating in a flop like this.

piry12 For speaking Spanish, a great effort, and a good performance. He is a very versatile actor. I, too, thought that the creepy factor of the movie was going to rest on the child and her situation but I found that the fear was instilled by putting these men in a foreign town and in a situation out of control. The movie opens with a song about "war" and I think this feeling predominated in the movie. I also found creepy the transformation of the more docile character (Paul's friend) I also found that although the movie repeated some stereotypes from other scary movies, it was done in a sober manner. The performances (of the men specially) were good and credible. Maybe we were expecting a more "chilling" movie, but I took it for what it seems to be: a war among men, natives and foreigners, the primal versus a more civilized attitude but at the end: all primal.

Rathko Sometime in the 1970s, two Englishmen and their Spanish wives hope to overcome the difficulties in their relationships with a vacation at a family home in rural Basque country. When the guys go hunting and rescue a young girl held captive in an abandoned farmhouse, it's only a matter of time before the locals come looking for her. 'Bosque de Sombras' clearly takes Peckinpah's 'Straw Dogs' as its model, exploring the same themes of power and masculinity through a sexually provocative wife and her weak and ineffectual husband. Only the psycho-sexual dynamic is played out against the unspoken backdrop of Franco's dictatorship instead of the Vietnam War. Unfortunately, these socio-political underpinnings, which made Peckinpah's 1971 classic so powerful, are lost in 'Bosque de Sombras' not only through the lack of any real sense of the era but a reluctance to define the characters in the broad strokes necessary for political commentary. Even the attempt itself begs the question: just how relevant is a critique of the insular superstitions of Franco's Spain? So we're left with a pretty routine genre thriller of backwoods crazies running amok. The cast and crew do an excellent job (particularly the always brilliant Oldman), the forest locations are beautifully ripe and foreboding, and the movie is suspenseful and thoroughly entertaining, but any attempts to achieve something greater are ultimately held back by a screenplay that dares not deliver on its thematic philosophy.

masherlarni no need/unfair to berate this movie for being similar and not as good as straw dogs. its a good film in its own right. great ending as well, brilliant. nice little twist. liked the way i began to sympathise with the french family as well, until the final scenes of course. one thing i am always frustrated about is when people do stupid things like crash into trees when they're trying to escape from the bad guys, but i don't think I've seen a tense drama or thriller that hasn't frustrated me in this way before or since i watched sexy beast. I've seen straw dogs but couldn't get into it at all, ended up switching it off after about 35 minutes. i think because it was made so long ago i'm 36 it put me off right from the start. straw dogs production was also much more low budget and shabby. backwoods gripped me from start to finish. could be because i like oldman, but id say its much better than straw dogs if i was forced to compare or recommend one of them. this isn't one of my all time favourite films but was much better than i expected for a little known french film that i only hired because it had gary oldman in it. i was pleasantly surprised and definitely glad i watched it.