Woodland is quiet, weird, and mostly just trees

Is it worth your time?

If you like movies that move at the pace of a growing fern, you might get something out of Woodland. If you need a plot that actually goes somewhere, look away now. This is for the folks who like staring at dust motes in a sunbeam, not people who want a tight thriller.

Honestly, I spent half the movie wondering if Frank Moser was just waiting for the craft services truck to show up. He spends a lot of time looking at trees. Like, a serious amount of time.

The vibe check

There is no dialogue to speak of, which is usually a red flag. Here, it just makes the whole thing feel strangely detached. It reminds me a bit of the aimless wandering you see in Something Different, though way less intentional.

Cinematic perspective: Exploring the visual vocabulary of Woodland (1932) through its definitive frames.

There’s this one shot of a branch swaying in the wind that goes on for about forty-five seconds too long. I checked my watch. Twice. It’s the kind of choice that makes you think the director just fell asleep at the editing desk and let the tape roll.

• The lighting is surprisingly nice during the golden hour shots.
• The sound design is just wind. Lots of wind.
• Frank Moser looks very tired. Or maybe he’s just acting? It’s hard to tell.

It’s not trying to be Far from the Madding Crowd, obviously. It’s smaller. It’s thinner. It’s barely a movie at all, really. Sometimes that’s fine, but Woodland really tests your patience.

I found myself thinking about The Clean-Up midway through, just wishing for something—anything—to actually get cleaned up or blown up. Instead, we get more leaves. 🍂

Don’t go in expecting a deep dive into the human condition. It’s just a guy, some trees, and a total lack of urgency. It’s imperfect, it’s quiet, and I’m still not entirely sure why it exists. But hey, it kept me off my phone for an hour.