Benutzerrezensionen

But when I commit to watching a movie called "Don't F*ck in the Woods" I don't expect to be treated to a top tier cinema experience. I expect to see young hot girls get some variety of naked, have simulated sex, and then be killed horribly...

And that's EXACTLY what I got! Was it great? Nope... but it sure wasn't terrible! The dialog was great for the most part and they all seemed to be a real group of friends.

So yeah... I don't get why all the other reviews are 1 and 2 stars... I've seen plenty of movies that make this look like a solid 8. I guess people just went in expecting too much, which I don't get given the title...

How this movie possibly got an average rating of 8.7 (as of the first 45 ratings) is beyond me. I only watched this based off the ranking, but I am disappointed in the IMDb community that this rating would stand for more than a day.

Basically the movie is about a creature that kills you if you have sex in the woods. It stars a porn star (Nadia White) who acts like you would expect a porn star to act, badly. There are a lot of pointless nude scenes in this movie, and was more of a soft core breast video than a cohesive movie.

If you want to see women who expose their breasts, and then are killed, you might like this movie. Otherwise, go watch any other movie.

The only reason I gave this movie a 3 was the camera work was decent, and some of the conversations were entertaining. Quintin Tarantino was always good at creating natural sounding conversations, and the beginning of this started like that. The rest was pure garbage.

A group of twenty-something wastrels go camping in the woods, where they spend their time gassing, smoking weed, drinking beer, and, of course, f**king. What they don't realise, until it is too late, is that the area where they have set up camp is home to a bipedal lizard monster that doesn't take kindly to people humping in the woods.

With such a brazen title, one might reasonably expect this film to be a bold, tongue-in-cheek, trashy horror flick that isn't afraid to deliver an excess of those essential genre ingredients, sex and gore, and that is precisely what writer/director Shawn Burkett strives to deliver, even so far as to getting a genuine pornstar, Nadia White, to take part in his shenanigans. However, a serious lack of both talent and budget results in a tedious film that fails on almost every level. The softcore sex and nudity is plentiful, but unappealing (unless, of course, you particularly like to see skeezy, out of shape, heavily tattooed types bumping uglies), the gore is strictly amateur hour, the acting is barely passable, and the less said about the film's creature the better. Don't F**k In The Woods also features lots of dull conversation that makes the film drag, even at a scant running time of only 73 minutes, and finishes with an inept imitation of Arnie classic Predator (which is referenced earlier in the film).

To finish on more positive note, some of the camera-work is pretty decent for a low budget independent horror, with some especially impressive aerial shots.

As the title may suggest, this is about a monster/creature that kills you if you have sex in the woods. No subtext, twist or anything else. The acting is okay, the effects are okay, the script is okay.

All that is irrelevant because people will watch this for the nudity and sex. Most of the actresses get naked or at least show their breasts. There is straight and lesbian sex. There is sex from the very start. The title meets expectations.

I watched the film purely because with a title like that, how can you refuse? I wouldn't watch it with your Gran. I wouldn't watch it if you like films that you can think about and discuss later. Its a bit of fun and titillation (with a capital T).

I had to give it one star because zero isn't an option. I really don't know what to say, that hasn't already been covered by the other reviewers other than, this movie left me with a lot of unanswered questions. Such as: Who the hell makes these films? Why? How? Surely the production cost outweighs the incoming revenue? Who signs off on it's production? Are they proud of their work? Do they have any concept of shame? Is it an inside joke nobody gets the punchline to? Who are these humans? Are they some bored affluent people taking the Micky out of Hollywood? Are they even human? The list really does go on. The mystery will forever baffle me. Yet oddly depresses me too.

With all due respect to Nadia White (I'm a fan of your other work) I didn't think sitting down to watch this movie that I'm about about to see the next Exorcist, Halloween, Saw or Silence Of Lambs. I mean the title is called Don't F*** In The Woods of course it's gonna be bad. Other than White, I've never seen or heard of anybody else in this movie. The movie is exactly what I thought it would be, a movie with bad acting, bad graphics (monster) bad script, with some funny dialogue and lots of skin. The only thing that surprises me that is relevant to this film is the amount of hate it's getting on IMBd. People, if you're looking for a good horror movie, don't watch something with expletive in the name of the film.

Short runtime (around 59-60 mins without credits), somewhat funny indie flick. Go watch it for yourself if you have nothing else to do.

Obviously bad. Watched it because I heard it was bad, but I expected it to be bad on purpose. It was bad because some guy tried way to hard to be a jack black type character and it made me want to curl up and die

Caught this film at a screening. It's definitely low budget and it shows. Amateur acting and bland cinematography. It's another "group ventures out to the woods to camp and are attacked and killed off." Typical to modern horror films, most of the characters are unlikable cliches and long, drawn out scenes of dialogue between them quickly lost my attention. It takes too long for anything really to happen in the film, though when it does, there are some inspired moments of gore.

I feel like this film definitely would not be getting some of the attention it is if it's title wasn't "edgy." It's typical amateur, low budget stuff that is instantly forgettable.

I went into this movie with high expectations, and wow, did it deliver. It has all the right ingredients-love, sex, drama, thriller, comedy-and, above all, fantastic acting. The fact that it was made on such a low budget makes it even more impressive. The director truly turned it into a masterpiece. I don't regret a second spent watching it or the popcorn that came with it.

This film completely changed my perspective on indie movies, and honestly, movies in general. Don't let the bad reviews fool you-this is a must-watch.

(im lying please end my life)

The plot is kind of explained by the title. Something is killing off campers whilst they engage in coitus.

This is a low budget creature feature. Sure, there is a ton of nudity, some pretty graphic. On fact, there are only two of the actresses that do not get naked. The plot is not deep, bit the acting is surprisingly good.

Everyone was believable in their roles and the required "stoner" was perfect in his comedic timing.

The only flaw with this is due to tue budget I am sure. The creature was, shall we say rough. They did a fairy good job obscuring it in shadows, but the jaws did not articulate, and they had quite a few shots of its head.

Overall, I would say that if you are a horror fan, watch this.

You have to admit, a title like this is hard to live up to. I am not even hard to please. I love low budget and even micro-budget cinema. The issue is, with all the hype online, the fact that it played Film festivals where other movies were shut out and the good reviews, I expected it to be a fun, wild ride. I was happy it wasn't a slasher film as that would be too expected. But the Creature in this Feature is a guy in trash bags with a Halloween mask from Spirit that has been doctored. And I could even forgive THAT if the film were more fun. The story is the same old retread "Group of jerks in the woods." Talky to the extreme, the 73 minute running time feels like 2 plus hours. And the online reviews obviously must be friends with the director. It's basically his show here as his name is pretty much every credit. We get that it's a Shawn Birkett film, how can we not? Just on the DVD box his name appears no less than 8 times in a small block of credits, not to mention the actual film.

After all that hype and the Film Fests and the rave reviews from these so-called Horror sites, this just simply wasn't the film ANY of them described. I guess that is the problem I am having. I have seen these same reviewers attack films I like for bad acting or pacing issues and pretty much all that I found wrong here, yet they acted like this film was simply perfect. So when I watched the film, it actually hurt. Had I not read that stuff. I probably would not feel so disappointed. As it stands, I gave it a 3 for effort, but execution was lacking. They just announced a sequel. That was another reason I rushed out and got a copy. But why make a sequel to a film like this one? A great title does not mean a great time at the movies.

There are some good things about the film, some of the cast tries very hard while others almost derail the film entirely. The technical aspects are all pretty decent. I can hear what everyone says for the most part and the dark woods scenes are lit well enough to see most of what is happening. Many of these micro-budget movies don't get that right so I am happy about that. Music was OK, but forgettable. I am hoping things improve for the sequel, as I really liked the "Last Girl" in this one and hope she comes back for part 2. But I think I'll wait until I can get it free on Amazon for that one.

Sadly, 3 stars. I really wanted to give it more.

Well, I am not quite sure how this stuff even gets produced, the visuals are so bad and acting so terrible, it makes you think how OK those movies you hated previously really were. It's like a college made metal porno movie so be honest. The opening scene has what looks like a predator type alien in the scene. Looks like its in 360p it's that bad, I don't turn off many movies or delete them but this one will get deleted and I had to turn it off. It's worth a 1/10 at best.

Amateur movie. With bad acting. That aside, it's not awful. Kinda sucks you in. The survivor girl and the chubby comic relief guy were great and made the movie. I enjoyed it.

My quick rating - 2.8/10. As much as I wanted to like this movie, mainly for the goofy title, it just was not good. I thoroughly enjoy finding low budget movies made by unknowns to find your Raimis or Jacksons (both of which I found on their shoestring budget flicks long before Hollywood) this movie isn't going to be catapulting anyone into stardom. Especially not the creature creator, whom I assume shops at the local Halloween store. The effects were terrible. I am fairly sure the dialogue was adlibbed. The "woods" may have been someone's backyard next to a local forest, at best. I really tried to like this, but with so much not to like, such as being within feet of this big bad monster, and acting like nothing is there, I just couldn't possibly enjoy this. I expected boobs and gore in that order, and neither really delivered. Too bad to waste the clever, yet obvious title on such a snoozefest. But I will say, in the end, the blooper reel did seem like the kids had fun in filming this, so at least that is good. And some bonus points added for bow and arrow use, then subtracted for lack of reason or method of making an exploding arrow out of literally nothing combustible (I doubt the nudge to Predator is appreciated). At a mere 75 minutes, you won't be all that upset if you watch it, you most likely just won't enjoy it.

Given its title, and its low budget. People should not expect anything mainstream with great camerawork or a lot of special effects. The plot is quite simple and it is quite exactly what we would assume based on its synopsis.

The acting isn't bad, its passable considering most of the actors appear to be lesser known and haven't worked on much prior to this.

The creature is one of the highlights but isn't exactly given much to do. Its appearance isn't that frightening and it doesn't exactly speak, but it does have a strong and silent presence.

The film could have been funnier or have better dialogue. Everything is quite standard and majority of the characters are rather bland or try too hard- specifically the main bigger guy.

With a very short run time of a little over one hour, everything moves quite quickly and it isn't dragged on or to develop anything else. This film apparently developed enough of a following to warrant a sequel- released in 2022.

First, this movie was done by passionate people for under 10 000$ budget, so don't watch it with other expectations (and then bad rate it). And for the budget i find pretty nice. Typical teenage (monster) slasher. I loved some references. And once again, impressed y what people can do with no money. So please appreciate it, at its just value.

And you pretty much know what you're in for. I mean, a movie based on this slasher trope, to me, was a stroke of genius (though this movie, as it turns out, is a creature feature). Don't F in the Woods certainly delivers on gore and sex (the vag even makes a couple brief appearances), but don't expect much else. To its credit, they only milk the premise for about 60 minutes (and tack on 5 minutes of bloopers, and 5 minutes of credits). I can see where other people would want more out of this movie, but it is fun for what it is, a no-budget exploitation flick.

I loved that the creature "senses" sexual activity (by sniffing it out!), yet they stray a bit from this, as the creature gets less discriminate with who he targets. I also got a real kick out of the "tribute" to Fast Times at Ridgemont High. Can't say I've seen that iconic scene parodied in another film. Chicks, for the most part, are decent in a sleazy sorta way (though, uh, final girl I wanted to see more of, she filled out her shorts nicely, and Brandy Mason is downright gorgeous), guys are lizard-fodder, and the creature is, well, there's a Blu-ray extra on it, and let's say they struggled with it.

I did have trouble making out the dialogue when someone wasn't facing the camera (assuming they couldn't afford a boom mic), so I would crank the volume... only to be met a minute later by blaring metal. I'm hoping the sequel rectifies this. Word of warning: If you're buying the Blu-ray, it's a Gravitas Ventures release, which are burned BD-R's. To their credit, I didn't have any issues, it's got 5.1 surround sound, plus a few extras.

Kind of a mild recommendation from me, I think people who "get" a kick out of the title, like grade-D low budget slashers, and a heapin' helpin' of naked ladies, might enjoy this.

I'm all about a slasher flick with copious shots of boobs. No prob but... did they even write a script? The pacing of the movie is worst of all time. It's awkward moment after awkward moment. Terrible directing... 'actors' look on-screen like they're not sure what they're supposed to be doing. Also again, the pacing is worst of all time.

I'm sure they had fun and some good laughs making this but unless you were there, no way this will entertain you.

You're prob thinking... oh this sounds so bad it's good! Nope... I live for trash movies, this ain't that.

But congrats to everyone involved. At least you made something.