Movie Review: ‘Deep In The Forest’

After watching any of the 24-hour news channels or delving into social media comments, one might come to the conclusion that the United States is headed for another civil war. It is a potentially depressing time, so why not make a movie on the subject? Deep in the Forest follows a small group of American Democrats hiding in a remote cabin at an unknown location as a civil war breaks out (and takes place entirely off screen). The movie seems to be trying to make some interesting and/or eerie points about democracy, war, in-fighting, and survival, but the characters and plot lack substantial development to really delve into the presented story.

The movie opens by cutting between footage of police at various riots and an interview with a university professor claiming that fascism cannot happen in America. The police footage is eerie and ominous while the interview does not provide much hope for joy in the movie we are about to watch. We are then introduced to a suburban family whose discussions quickly touch upon some political issues, like censorship, legal immigration, book banning. The parents then depart to attend a democratic club meeting where more of the movie’s main characters are introduced. The meeting gets cut short due to a news report about a bomb at the capital building which kicks off a new civil war.

Later that night, the members of the democratic club are gathered together to hideout at a safe house during the uprising since they are apparently on a target list. But the “safe house” is not as safe as it may seem since an unknown man with a key shows up before they finish settling in and they have to start making tough life-or-death wartime decisions.

Unfortunately, the plot from there is not very well developed and plays like a string of civics lessons that deserve more exploration or discussion (preferably before an actual war begins). Internal conflicts are minimal; the group is pretty good at banding together when there is a real threat but then has moments of petty squabbles when the threats are hypothetical, contained, or off in the distance. Any thrills or suspense are purely psychological except for maybe a couple scenes near the end which moves way too quickly; the movie poster has more action than the actual movie.

I do like the actors, the scenery, and the ideas behind the plot. Perhaps a bigger budget and/or more time in development could have prevented the need for a nine-minute credit sequence to get the film’s runtime up to eighty minutes. Why did the mom have to tell the dad and kid to hide when they were the ones triggering the lookout warning? Who owned the safe house and why wasn’t the stranger with a key considered when picking the safe house? Why did the kid suddenly decide to let their prisoner go? Why did the group think all fighting would instantly stop as soon as the war “ended”? These are just some questions I have after watching the movie twice.