Change Your Image
John-405
Reviews
King Lear (1982)
Perhaps the best ever
Michael Hordern's masterful understanding of the part, his sandpaper voice, his shaggy but noble head made him the perfect Lear--"every *inch* a king". I first saw this production as a college freshman in 1985, and I've seen none since that has equaled it. It should be noted that Frank Middlemass who plays a more sympathetic and tender-hearted Fool is no less indispensable to the success of this production. Unforgettable.
By the way, the BBC series of the complete Shakespeare plays (produced in the late 1970s to mid-80s), which is prohibitively expensive at ca. US$3700, is frequently available in American public libraries. Everyone who is able should make a point of availing themselves of the opportunity of seeing this wonderful series at least once before they die.
Trekkies (1997)
In life, the geeks get the last laugh
If you believe, as I do, that the geek will inherit the earth, you will find some of the implicit mockery in this film annoying. I found most of the fans to be charming people, from the 14 year old kid who designs studio-quality computer animations in his spare time to the Klingon who blows 1400 bucks on a forehead prosthetic.
A few moments were rather scary, however, such as the fellow who admits he'd like to have surgically altered spock ears but "it's too expensive". Now think about that for a moment. Okay, he made the right decision not to give himself spock ears, but the very fact that he knows it's too expensive means he actually called up a plastic surgeon and asked how much it would cost!
And then there's the seemingly nice, intelligent mother who has dubbed herself a "Spinerfem" and who keeps hundreds and hundreds of near-duplicate photos of Brent Spiner and owns a house overlooking his, on the balcony of which she periodically takes "Spiner breaks" to daydream and gaze at his backyard. Now, if I were Brent Spiner I would be a little disturbed. Hell, I'm *not* Brent Spiner and I'm a little disturbed.
My favorite, and the winner of the Don Quixote award, is Barbara Adams, the former Whitewater juror who conducts herself always as a Starfleet officer and insisted on wearing her starfleet uniform to trial, complete with phaser, communicator badge and tricorder, just as she does every day at work. Her serious-minded, innocent devotion to the world of Star Trek was utterly charming. I hope she's still doing the same.
To a milder ST fan, who hasn't been to a convention since he was 9 years old or so, this was a fascinating peek into the world of ST that still thrives (or at least did ca. 1996). Many of the characters you see on screen remind me of the friends and acquaintances I made in ST fandom when I was but a wee lad, as Scotty would say. Some things never die. I hope Trekkies keep treking, because this is surely one of the more harmless expressions of fandom. Think football fans and their sometimes violent misbehavior or rock fans and their drug abuse and then Trekkies will not seem quite so demented and sad as perhaps they did before! What a world! What a galaxy! Live long and prosper!
Capricorn One (1977)
so fair and foul a movie I have not seen
An odd mixture of excellence and nearly incredible incompetence. The plot holes have been adequately covered by other reviewers. I will add that the dialog is often wooden and awkward, a problem which is only exacerbated by Eliot Gould's phoned-in performance as the reporter. Gould sounds like he's on the verge of screaming "what happened to my career???!" Well, perhaps if he hadn't turned in so many lackluster performances like he does here, he would not have fizzled out as a rising star of the 70s.
On the other hand, Sam Waterson steals the show as the wise-cracking Lt Willis. The scene where he is forced to climb a vertical cliff face is one of the most brilliant and memorable moments in any action/adventure film ever. And the stunk work and editing in the aerial chase sequences are among the best of the genre, too. Telly Savalis is surprisingly funny as a kind of crop-duster with a Don Rickles schtick. Many many good things about this film make it an entertaining, if flawed flick. I recommend you give it a chance.
Citizen Kane (1941)
Wait until you mature and see it again
Most of the negative comments this film has received have apparently been from young people. I saw CK for the first time when I was 19 and hated it. I then saw it a year and a half later and loved it. What happened? Well, my tastes matured a bit, and I had the benefit of having seen it before.
Now, more than a decade later, I've seen the film on video perhaps 20 times, and three or four times on screen. (Alas, and inexplicably, CK has yet to be released to DVD!). It is, I have no doubt, the greatest American film ever made. What is good about it has nothing to do with camera, lighting, technique, or any such nonsense. It is perfect the way a piece of music can be perfect--and, as with music, it is impossible to say in words just what it is that makes it so great.
Wait a few years, my young friends, and see this movie again. Do people still mature or is that old-fashioned?
The Pledge (2001)
What a waste of an afternoon
An uninspired rehash of tired American tough-guy cliches: the obsessed cop who defies his superiors, the case that was apparently solved but really wasn't (and only our hero knows it), even the cop's retirement party. The scene where Nicholson makes his pledge to a victim's mother is absurd and stupid. The interrogation scene is simply bizarre--and utterly pointless. The coincidence at the end which is supposed to come across as some sort of jaw dropping irony simply made me want to yawn. All other matters of suspense were spotted a mile off. What a waste of an afternoon this was. After the mediocrity of the Crossing Guard (which is similarly themed), I have given up on Penn/Nicholson collaborations. Sean, you were making a greater impact on culture when you were beating up on paparazzi. Jack, time to retire. Give it up guys.
Judy Berlin (1999)
Remember when art films weren't "independent films"?
Remember when art films weren't directed by teenagers for teenagers? Remember when they didn't have anything to do with pop culture. Remember when there was actually something as an adult culture?
Neither do I. But there must be some old people out there who do.
"Independent films", a new genre that has replaced what used to be called "art films", are not worthy of their name. They're, on the whole, hip, mass-marketed screwball comedies, "chick flicks", novelty films, etc. Little other than budget separates an "independent film" from a slick, cynical Hollywood marketing effort. In fact, many independent films are slick, cynical Hollywood marketing efforts.
Seeing Judy Berlin is what it used to be like seeing art films. The very fact that nothing in it is designed to shock or surprise you will shock and surprise you. The very fact that nothing in it was test-screened for maximal emotional manipulation will maximally emotionally manipulate you. The fact that no surprising plot twists were inserted to make you want to go see it again will so surprise you that you will want to see it again.
This is not necessarily an endorsement. But I want to stress that this is a film that will not remind you of any other film. It will not be die hard on an anything. It doesn't count Gilligan's Island and My Favorite Martian among its influences, but Checkhov, Camus and Bergman--the sorts of things you've been taught to think are pretentious and stodgy. It is something new--even dare I say it, experimental. Gasp! Avant garde. It wasn't made to make the most money possible. There will be no toy tie-in available with your happy meal.
Whatever you think of this film, cherish it as a kind of throwback, a one-in-a-million, the last dodo bird yet living.
The Contender (2000)
A flawed film, but worth seeing
This film badly needed a rewrite. The comments about the film's inaccuracy are well taken. But there are many things which make this worth seeing. Jeff Bridges' president, endlessly charmed by his ability to order literally anything from his overworked staff chef, is a running joke and howlingly funny. The political points are well-taken, and anyone who stood by appalled during the impeachment vote will appreciate that the republican's McCarthyite evil is portrayed for what it was and is.
The script badly needed a rewrite. The "inappropriate" comment by the FBI agent should have been cut. It was corny and stupid. Also: an ex-republican who says she's an atheist and wants every gun removed from every home? As an atheist, pro-gun-control guy, not even I bought that one! Why was she ever a republican?
The moral content of the film, however, was right on. A point well taken, if not always well said. Entertaining, however be prepared to suspend disbelief.
Blood Simple (1984)
A change of heart
When I first saw Blood Simple, it struck me as terribly mannered and pretentious. Seeing it again in a theater, I was surprised to find that the film now seems fresh and inventive, with little to call self-conscious.
I don't know if this is due to the director's cut or whether it is because we live in different times. Considering the sorry lot of so-called art movies made today, even pretentious is refreshing.
Gladiator (2000)
Cliched epic
I liked the comment of one reviewer, who said that scenes of Elysium were like "a luxury car commercial". So true, I kept expecting a disembodied voice to say, 'try the new Chariot Romanus, id est optimus!'
Someone poured millions into this and hired a competent director, a competent, sullen actor and competent script writer, and they all made a movie which I reluctantly went to see and now wish I hadn't wasted two hours of my priceless 3 score and 10. I learn slowly, but I'm learning....
American Psycho (2000)
A bit disappointing
The creed of American yuppies in the 80s can be basically summed up as "egoism" -- the formalism of selfishness, an ethic whose only constraint is punishment. In the absence of punishment anything goes, and, if you play your cards right, risking punishment can be just as innocuous as, say, risking your life each time you get into an automobile. If all there is is the self, why should there be any constraint on action except punishment of the self? A smart, careful business plan seeks to minimize risk, of course, but risk must be the price paid for getting what you want. No pain, no gain, as we used to say in the 80s.
It is a fact that the majority of murders go unsolved. It is compelling to imagine a yuppie egoist, therefore, on Wall St in the 80s, who accepts the risk of punishment as an acceptable price to pay for the reward of indulging in pleasure killings. The "logic" of this decision is as compelling as the logic of laying off thousands to raise your stock price or trashing the environment so your comapny can be a 2 billion dollar company instead of just a billion dollar one. Why let compassion get in the way of gettin' what you want?
This script seems to miss this tantalizing allegorical angle in favor of becoming yet another Hitchcock-esque thriller. Patrick Bateman isn't a coldly calculating yuppie weekend murderer, he's an out-of-control psycho, who scrawls grotesque scenes of torture in his appointment book and who thinks the ATM machine is telling him to feed it cats. This is a comforting view of serial killers, one that makes them so different from you and me that we can comfortably and conveniently avoid asking the hard questions about what turns a human being into a murderer. Eh, they're just nuts! My, how illuminating.
What if serial killers weren't just nuts? What if they were rational, even, after a fashion, "normal" people who had intelligently rationalized themselves into turning off their consciences? There are a lot of screen killers who approach this sort of character, but the film makers must usually find something in them which makes them seem weird or alien or otherwise deeply disturbed. In American Psycho, I rather hoped that our killer would be a true mirror of ourselves, not just another psycho freak, easily dismissed as an aberration. A real villain is one who can smile while doing evil, someone who is almost likeable. A ranting madman is just a ranting madman.
The Wizard of Oz (1939)
Sorry, but I always disliked this film
I wish I could be more specific as to why, but all my life I have found this film to be...well, creepy and unappealing. I know this is a kid's movie and a certain degree of over-acting is to be expected, but still I find the performances unconvincing and rather dumbed-down and over-broad even for the genre.
My wife, who is a great L. Frank Baum fan, introduced me to the OZ books when we were in college, and I could see how the film completely and unnecessarily changed aspects of the story, effectively ruining the book's atmosphere of daft fantasy. The original has a simple, good-natured charm, completely at odds with the impression the film gives of forced, kitchy, gaudy clownishness. Other attempts to bring Baum to the screen have been limited by a similar disrespect for the integrity of the original material. I hope Hollywood will wise up and one day present a Baum book in the spirit it was intended.
Lord of the Flies (1990)
Score borrows heavily from Stravinsky
I remember being disappointed by this movie, but I can't remember enough about it to be specific. I just wanted to comment, in response to the reviewer who praised Phillipe Sarde's score, that Sarde relies heavily on near-quotations of long sections of Stravinsky's Rite of Spring. Quotations in film music are pretty much par for the course, but Sarde takes it to a bit of an extreme here...if I remember correctly.
Cradle Will Rock (1999)
keep in mind the politics
This film has rather leftist politics. Keep in mind that this will considerably influence how people rate the film. I did my best to put politics aside, and I came away convinced that CWR is brilliant and deserves serious perusal when it comes out on video. As with many great films, once will not be enough to catch all of it subtleties. Of course, your mileage may vary.
As a tribute to the script's ability to win over an audience, I saw CWR in a far-right town with a mall audience and, at the end, *everyone* in the theater applauded for what seemed like nearly a minute. The final, silent, frames are the most moving and perhaps, in implication, the most radical.
Tim Robbins is to be admired for creating a fresh and truly original script (the scenes in which Marc Blitzstein communes with the ghosts of Brecht and his late wife are just some of the script's high points). Had this been a first time script by some unknown talent, it would be surprising enough. That it comes from a "name" actor is somehow more surprising (who knew he had it in him?). Robbins should be nominated for an Academy award, but of course he won't be.
Most of the cast, from the Cusak siblings, to Bill Murray, to Carrey Elwes (and his dead-on John Houseman impression) is well chosen. The actor who plays Welles struck me as a bad choice, but he grows on you.
I could go on, but to make a long story short, this will be a film I will treasure for a long time. With Magnolia, I am encouraged that we may be entering a renaissance of great film making. I can't unreservedly recommend CWR to anyone, given its politics but I think even died in the wool conservatives will find something in it to admire. Only Libertarians perhaps should stay away.
Galaxy Quest (1999)
By Grabthar's hammer...what a movie!
The surprise in this film is Tony Shalhoub, who was mostly new to me. I'd seen him only once before, in Quick Change, but his part was too brief and limited to be a fair test of his abilities as a comedian. (I see he was in Barton Fink, but I don't remember him.)
Here, too, he is a supporting character, but his comedic timing and delivery are impeccable and he comes close to stealing the show as the IQ-challenged Fred Kwan (a.k.a. Tech Sergeant Chen). I hope a smart movie exec will sign him for a staring role in a comedy feature.
As to the rest of the movie, I think this is likely the sort of thing that will certainly play well to people like me in the late 20s/early 30s set, people i.e. who grew up with Captain Kirk as THE Star Trek captain, but it will likely have broader appeal as well, especially since ST IV, which also sought to make fun of the Star Trek characters in a similar way, was and remains such a success (don't be fooled, although the names have been changed to protect the innocent, it is clear throughout the film who and what is being parodied).
Also, who knew Sigorney Weaver and Alan Rickman were such talented comedians? And, although I'm the last person to consider himself a Tim Allen fan, I thought he was very on-point as an aging, washed-up William Shatner type. The relatively unknown actors who play the aliens are brilliant, especially their fearless leader, played by Enrico Colatoni whose mannerisms and alien-vocalisms are inspired.
There are *enormous* plot holes, which I won't bother to explore in the interests of non-disclosure of spoilers. I have to mention one particularly disturbing one, however -- a scene in which a spaceship crash lands in a parking lot, smashing into dozens of cars, and, finally, into a crowded building. The occupants then exit the ship with no apparent concern for the fact that they probably just killed or injured dozens of people. Shouldn't they make sure? Shouldn't they call an ambulance?
I happen to be the sort of person who can easily "suspend disbelief" and enjoy the fun, but then no one who can't suspend disbelief belongs in a world of hand held laser pistols, tele-transporters, and faster than light speeds in the first place, right?
Magnolia (1999)
An unexpectedly human film
I saw this when I was stuck at a mall with nothing to do while my car was being serviced.
I wouldn't have been surprised had I completely hated Magnolia. I don't in general admire new, young directors. Their movies seem to be cruel and valueless and use human misery as a cynical punchline (e.g., Tarrantino and his buddies).
Magnolia is a beautifully UN-cynical cautionary tale about the dire consequences of treating those around you in a selfish and cruel way. In brief, it's a film about the power of understanding and kindness. What a wonderful, refreshing, much needed premise! It's hard to speak great truths and seem fresh and original, which probably explains why so many new directors opt for a cynical smirk instead of reaching for something greater.
There's nothing "post-human" in Magnolia, and for that I'm grateful. I missed boogie nights expecting it to be more of the usual Tarrantino-clone crap. Maybe it is, but now at least I'm going to give it a chance on video.
Free Enterprise (1998)
a disappointment; mostly, I cringed
I fall right in the demographic this movie claims to be targeting, i.e., I'm old enough to remember Logan's Run but too young to be a baby boomer--I'm caught between the Xers and the Boomers. That's me. I'm also a Trekkie from way back (back before anyone insisted on being called a Trekker), and I was a big Star Wars fan as a kid.
So this movie should have been enjoyable if not earth-shatteringly great. Well, it wasn't.
I did slightly enjoy the fact that finally I was sitting through one of those "pop culture one-upsmanship" movies where I understood practically all of the references (yes, I got that the green liquor Shatner and his costars swill throughout the film is supposed to be Saurian brandy--ha ha). But then again pop culture one-upsmanship is such a tired cliche at this point that it's really too late for me to consider this a plus.
Shatner speaks his lines with little inflection or involvement, as if he can't wait to go home. This can't have been much of a paycheck for him, so one wonders what his motivation is, since he seemed to have zero interest in being there. The two yuppie-wannabe protagonists are 1) not funny at all, 2) way too hip to be Trekkies, and 3) drive suspiciously fancy cars and live in suspiciously upscale LA apartments (finished wood floors, big screen TVs, $100k in sci-fi memorabilia) to be the losers on the verge of bankruptcy they're portrayed as being. Also, it doesn't help that the film rips off everything from dumb college frat films of the 80s to Woody Allen, while never allowing its own "voice" to show originality.
I would say the premise of the film was superb, the nostalgia for a "lost generation" tempting and the situations rife for comedy. In short, there were just too many missed opportunities.
"It's a hit! It's a hit!" "Negative, negative--just impacted on the surface."
Man of Flowers (1983)
Is there a little bit of Charles Bremer in you?
In Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man, James Joyce pokes a little fun at Stephen Daedelus' aesthetics. Daedelus says there are two extremes in art--the kinetic and the static. Static art is beauty of the mind, or Apollonian beauty. Kinetic is more akin to sexual desire, or Dionysian beauty. Though Joyce found this theory to be rife for satire, albeit gentle satire, I think the distinction is compelling.
This film is in part about this distinction, or rather the absence of it in one man. For Charles Bremer, all beauty is erotic. For some reason, emotional or physical, he can't participate in the act of love, so he sublimates it into art. For him, seeing a beautiful painting or a beautiful woman undressing are two instances of the same thing, both equally erotic and equally profound.
All this babble makes the film sound pretentious, but in practice it is actually almost completely unpretentious. It has something profound to say, but it says it very simply. If there is a little bit of Charles in you, you will understand this film implicitly. If there isn't, then nothing will help you, because all of the great things the film has to say are unspoken. All is said with mood and characterization. The music, largely from Lucia di Lammermoor, is put to probably the best use that any music in any film ever has been. The 16mm flash backs with Werner Herzog (yes, THE Werner Herzog) playing Charles' father are brilliant and beautifully balletic, as if they had been choreographed gesture by gesture by the director.
The day I saw Man of Flowers in the theater, I walked out into the sunlight and looked at the world a little differently. That was in 1984, when I was 17 years old. And I'm still moved by the experience.
Boys Don't Cry (1999)
like Schindler's List for gay people
I would rate Boys Don't Cry as one of the better films of the year, if not the best. Don't deprive yourself of a rare cinematic masterpiece because of the "uncomfortable" subject matter.
I would also ask anyone who professes to hate gay people to see this film. The absurdity of homophobia is taken to its logical conclusion here and the film pulls no punches in showing the human consequences. As we exited the theater, in stunned silence, I turned to my wife and said "that was like Schindler's List for gay people". She looked up at me with a gasp, because she was thinking the very same thing. It opened my eyes and *taught* me something. What more can you ask except that the drama be suitable to the theme, and in this case it certainly is.
Hilary Swank and Chloe Sevigny deserve Oscars for their dead on and subtle performances. It's a pity that this is the sort of movie not likely to be considered an Oscar contender. At just 30 years of age, let's hope Kimberly Peirce has many more films in her. I eagerly await her next one.
Being John Malkovich (1999)
Very fresh and clever, but is that saying much?
Art film is dead. That may seem a funny way to introduce a positive review of BJM, but the cleverness and skill of this film are painful reminders that, as good as this is, this is really the best it *can* get anymore. And the best it can get is really not very good.
Twenty years ago, this sort of thing would have been considered a particularly original Hollywood screwball comedy, or weird sci-fi film, kind of like one of Terry Gilliam's outings. But it ain't an art film, and I don't know that I've really seen an art film *anywhere* about *anything* for years.
What is an art film? Last Year at Marienbad was an art film. Picnic at Hanging Rock was an art film. Fitzcarraldo was an art film. Walkabout was an art film. Aguirre the Wrath of God was an art film.
These were original, serious and thought-provoking films.
Arguably BJM is original, serious and thought provoking in technique, even in plot, but really nothing about it is terribly original in concept. The themes are actually pretty hackneyed: stardom, our obsessions with stardom, the nature of individuality, the differences between men and women, etc. Ho hum. How many times have we rehashed those before?
There are no grand themes anymore. Everything is irony and cynicism, irony and cynicism. ARRRGH! Doesn't anyone have anything challenging to say? I'll even take pretentious. Just once I'd like to see an art film that wasn't:
1) a variation on a tried and true hollywood format (Central Station)
2) a "naive", simplistic film about "emotions" (Children of Heaven)
3) a pop-culture, "post-human", self-satisfied genX feature (anything by that Tarrantino monster)
4) technically innovative but intellectually vapid (Blair Witch Project)
Is there a director out there who has the cajones to be an intellectual? Hello? Anybody?
The Man Who Knew Too Little (1997)
The man who laughed too much
Have you ever found a film that makes you so weak with laughter that you think you will pass out, a film so funny that you have to pause the tape to finish laughing? For me, this is that film.
Maybe it's me, but Murray strikes me as the funniest man on the planet. Apparently, some people hated this film, because it didn't get a very high rating, so maybe it *is* just me. Granted the second half is less funny that the first, but overall, Murray's comic genius shines through in so many scenes, I would be surprised if you aren't rolling in the aisles at least once.
When I watch Murray's films, I don't laugh that phony adult laugh (oh haha, how droll), I laugh the piss-yr-pants laugh of childhood. If I ever met Murray, I'd shake his hand, say thanks and hand him my dry cleaning bill.
The Stepford Husbands (1996)
Dumb attempt at update
Not as believable or relevant as the first, with wooden acting and a finale that suggests the writer just got bored and did his best to wrap it up quickly so he could go to lunch. The "turnabout is fair play" tactic could have been handled intelligently, but this is not that movie. For die-hard stepford fans only. For others, stick to the original and the "revenge" sequel.
The Awful Truth (1999)
Sickening
I'm sick and tired of Michael Moore acting like human life is more valuable than money. Look, money makes the world go around; there are *billions* of people and most of them contribute nothing. Nothing!
Money has got me my beautiful trophy wife, my sports car, my trips to Europe, my tennis court, my three houses, etc. ,etc. etc. What has that slob that Michael "saved" from the HMO ever given me? Zip, that's what. El zippo.
Doesn't Michael realize the kind of money HMOs make off the death of people like that whining sicky he patted himself on the back for saving? If the HMOs were to pay for every little old operation every one of their whining patients wanted, what kind of money would be left for the investors?
Come on! We're talking MONEY here people! Get with the program.
I hope Michael Moore's career goes down in flames, because the more he is on the air, the more he hurts the interests of people like me.
The Iron Giant (1999)
Genuine sentiment without corn
Like all high quality animations, this is a movie for kids and adults. The vividly drawn relationship between the giant and the boy is the most...human...and touching (without being maudlin) that I can remember in recent years, and that includes both children's films and so-called adult drama. For that reason, maybe, it drew genuine emotion out of me, something that hasn't happened since I first saw Barry Lyndon (of all things) years ago.
It's sad that Disney has such a stranglehold on the genre. I was so grateful that there was not a single syrupy pop song in this movie that on the strength of that alone I might award it a "10" on IMDb. But fortunately, Iron Giant succeeds more for what it is than what it isn't.
The Cook, the Thief, His Wife & Her Lover (1989)
Disappointing
Peter Greenaway is a brilliant master of dialog, I will grant. The lines he puts in the Thief's mouth are brilliant, with wordsmithery on the order of, say, Tom Stoppard at his best. Would that he used his powers for good and not evil! I liked the comment from the person who said this was comparable to an episode of "Tales from the Crypt". Yes, it's about on that level. The ending is cheap, lurid, and, frankly, plain dumb--the sort of ending a ten year old boy would invent to finish his story with a flourish of cheap sensationalism.
I won't say it is a bad film merely because the subject matter is vile. Actually, purely as a film it is well above average, and the writing is well wrought, as I've already said. But...as a work of imagination, it is cheap and uninspired. Does that make sense? It seeks to thrill and impress by being shocking and revolting, and that is the oldest trick in the book for artists who have nothing to say.
The Blair Witch Project (1999)
Wonderful -- definitely not "Night of the Living Dead for the Millennium"
No spoilers here, IMO, but read at your peril.
Most of the negative comments about this film seem to come from hard core horror buffs who fail to find it particularly frightening. The problem is that hard core horror fans have been hooked on so much blood, gore and cheap frights that anything that asks them to use their imaginations is going to seem boring.
As someone who is not particularly a horror buff, I thought Blair Witch was brilliant.
I should say that I walked into the theater ignorant of any of the hype surrounding the film. I had seen a preview, and so knew the basic premise, but that was it.
The three principles are more or less completely believable, which is probably due to the fact that their situation in real life was as close as possible to their characters' situation. They really were left to wander in the woods, and they knew only generally what they would find there.
There is nothing profound about the film's content. The 3 film students are typical slacker dumb bells, and they react to their situation with honest fright and little else. There is little time for philosophizing, but you get the feeling that even if there were these three would have little to say.
The brilliance of the film lies completely in its concept: the idea of throwing three actors in the woods and asking them to improvise on their own fear. The result is extremely compelling and convincing. There are little clues here and there that the 3 are acting, but, for the most part, they appear to actually be 3 people lost in the woods being terrorized by a coven of witches!
There is *one* glimpse of blood in the entire film and zero glimpses of the witches (or whatever they may be). The horror is left entirely to the imagination and the oblique ending resists the urge to explain. As the credits rolled, I was really grateful that the film makers hadn't tried to make this a "Night of the Living Dead for the Millennium".
Oh, and one other comment: Some reviewers have complained that it is unbelievable that Heather would keep filming, even when her life was in danger. Actually, that is is not so hard to believe when you consider all of the documentary films that have been done in life-threatening situations during war time. Heather may be a little more professional than you would expect a 20-something film student to be, but she's hardly unique or without example in real life.
J