Raven's Ridge (1999) User Reviews

It wasn't that bad

[reidronnie72 · 6/10 · 2 August 2005]

The black monk gave this film such a hard time I felt I had to defend it a little. This isn't a great movie it is cheaply made and obviously is low budget but if you don't come to it with too many expectations its actually quite an enjoyable movie.

This movie does look cheap. In fact it looks so cheap that when I watched it I actually thought it was a 70's b-movie, it had that sort of "Texas Chainsaw Massacre (original version)" look about it. Now I find out its from 1997 I wonder if they set out to make it in the same schlocky horror vein those 70's movies.

The cast do do their best and make what could be just awful quite a fun movie. Their acting isn't great but its also not the worst you'll find either. As the Black Monk says the plot has many holes in it but this didn't ruin my viewing of it and a big budget doesn't necessarily mean no major plot holes or great acting either. The Day After Tomorrow, Independence Day, Pearl Harbour all come to mind. You aren't going to sit down to watch this expecting an Oscar winner.

The bank robbery plot is really just a side issue to get into the woods for the slaughter to begin. However it gives the film a slightly different storyline (the cops are after them too) rather than the usual, bunch of kids roaming around in the woods for no particular reason.

The bottom line is that you know whats going to happen from the word go. But the film moves fairly quickly (as it should, there is no need for any major character development in this type of film) and it kept me entertained for the time it lasted.

I watched this late on a Saturday night with a couple of beers and I would suggest that this is the best way to enjoy it. If you want to watch a non taxing but entertaining schlocky horror movie you could do a lot worse than Raven's Ridge.

A high-schoolish attempt at movie-making

[BlackMonk · 1/10 · 31 March 2001]

At the beginning of the video, before the movie begins, Mike Upton (who was "discovered" by Roger Corman) appears and gives what I can only describe as a disclaimer to his directorial debut. Essentially he says that he wants viewers to "keep in mind" as they watch, that the actors and crew are making this low-budget independent film, not for a "big check," but for their love of movie-making. And, he adds, everyone did the best they could. What does that mean?! That those actors in bigger productions who DO get a large paycheck DON'T do the best they can?!! Trying to pull at my heart strings, trying to illicit viewer sympathy for the cast and crew's supposedly altruistic ideals is not the basis upon which to plug a movie about robbery.

Which brings us to the plot, which was rehashed from other, better, movies and, besides that, was poorly executed. The plot devices--those scenes that are supposed to "move the plot along"--were always flimsy and often absurd. For example, one robber, who mentions that he's an ex-con, has conveniently infiltrated the ranks of the armored car service, becoming a driver. Only one problem with that: Armored car companies always do background checks and DON'T HIRE ex-cons. When the armored car was forced off the road, the legitimate security guards weren't suspicious--no standard operating procedures were executed.

The shootout scene is ridiculous. A half-dozen people fire at point-blank range but--and the film is weirdly doctored here--no one gets shot, though I could have sworn the fat cop did. Confusing editing. The robbers, though they had the shootout near a city, weren't worried about anyone hearing the noise.

Motivation? There really is none given. Obviously the desire for wealth is a motivation for robbery, but these characters weren't developed enough to SHOW us WHY they decided to turn to crime. The movie starts and BAM, a bunch of young people are planning to rob an armored car--"just because"--the viewer is left to assume.

But the robbery is merely a way to get the kids into the woods where, the director apparently thinks, the real creepiness will begin. Wrong. This 'antagonist'(who's the protagonist? I never figured it out)is the most a not-so-scary-as-he-is-strange bad guy. But he's nothing more than a caricature of a "redneck."

Oh, everything about this movie was dumb. The crime, the arrest scene, the purpose of the map, the couple getting angry at each other, the digging for the loot, the redneck, the shootout, the interrogator, the traps, the final scene--everything! It's as if a bunch of talented high-schoolers made a movie.

Over the Edge

[NoDakTatum · 2/10 · 8 October 2023]

A group of morons rob an armored car after it leaves a racetrack. The motley crew takes the money deep into the woods, buries it, and decide to come back for it in five months after the heat dies down. The main ringleader is caught, and the remaining thieves run back up to the mountains to dig up the loot. They cannot find it, and on top of old smoky, are being killed one by one by an unseen woodsman.

There is not one redeeming character in the film, which always means there is not one character to cheer for. The armored car heist is a mess. One of the thieves is driving the armored car, having taken the job in order to help rob it. The other two guards haven't a clue, even after the car is blocked in a narrow alley in downtown Los Angeles. The guns look like they were found in a bargain bin at a toy store. The robbers communicate with walkie talkies in public in broad daylight. The murderous backwoodsman is awful. I was not aware the cast of "Deliverance" hired themselves out to do other films. Look for homages, or rip-offs, of other films: "Treasure of the Sierra Madre," "First Blood," "Southern Comfort," "Scarecrows," "Bonnie and Clyde," and every other heist film ever made. The video store I rented this from way back when had this in the Horror section, yet the only horrific thing about it was the script. Skip "Raven's Ridge."