One of those slow-paced horror films that have zombies pulling their hair out. This is the polar opposite of what the torture-po$n crowd wants from a movie. They don't want mystery, a story, good dialog, proper characterization - and a total lack of gore.
No splatter-butchering tore-limbs rivers of blood whatsoever here. This is every torture-po$n fan's worst nightmare: real people in unusual situations. (They prefer absurd people in totally contrived situations.) The only "unusual" situations a torture-po$n dweeb wants and understands is when an innocent tourist family find themselves in the middle of a huge shredder, observing their legs get cut into tiny pieces - while the torture fan finishes in their pants, stuff dripping down on his Coke cans lying around on the floor. A LACK of extreme violence repulses them. They don't want to be forced to use their unusable grey cells, they want pure unadulterated deprivation and sadism. As simple as possible, with a plot that even a lower-tier plankton can comprehend. When other people experience great pain - is their joy. The screams of a murdering hillbilly's victims is like a ballad to their monkey ears.
This is no such film.
Granted, there are many slow-paced horror films that absolutely stink, but those are the ones with a boring premise, and/or a lack of style, and/or lacking a proper soundtrack and camerawork required for such a film. Building a mood isn't easy, it requires effort and skill. Money, too.
A psychological drama is what this is, with strong horror overtones. The build-up is interesting, the score is very good (especially the tunes in the 6th and 86th minutes), the cast is competent, the dialog very solid, and the setting nice. A pretty, charismatic blonde helps a lot too, I admit. Niamh Algar (the brunette lead in "Censor") is the one I'm referring to. Yeah, being called "Niamh" is a bummer for her, but if she plays her cards right (and by that I don't mean weinsteining her way through) she could have a very good career. Of course, that also depends on luck, plus whether there are enough non-morons in the film industry to recognize her potential.
Did I understand the ending? No. But that's OK, because the movie never bored me, nor annoyed me, nor did I particularly expect to get answers, because I surmised that this wasn't that kind of film. There is a (small) possibility that Eric had split up into two: the part of him that joined the plant-life, and the physical part of him that ended up in a loony bin, along with his predecessor who had the same fate. This would explain him watching his family, friends and cops lead a searching party in the woods. I don't believe he was literally hiding, but that he was already assimilated into the forest. This is, perhaps, why there are two of them at the same time: one in the forest, "hiding" from the people, the other in the house, a shell of his former self.
Does he seem happy? Not really. This isn't some tree-hugging fable of a "man who becomes one with nature", a glorious state of bliss and contentment that hippies have been fantasizing about ever since the first joint was rolled. Eric appears distraught in the final scene, i.e. Perhaps the forest did a number on him, as a way to defend itself from being turned into a tourist resort, a factory, or whatever it was this land surveyor was sent for.
Show more 
