IMDb रेटिंग
2.9/10
1.9 हज़ार
आपकी रेटिंग
दोस्तों का एक समूह स्नातक कॉलेज का जश्न मनाने के लिए कैंपिंग ट्रिप पर जा रहा है. लेकिन एक बार जब वे जंगल में प्रवेश करते हैं, समूह पर एक जीव द्वारा हमला किया जाता है.दोस्तों का एक समूह स्नातक कॉलेज का जश्न मनाने के लिए कैंपिंग ट्रिप पर जा रहा है. लेकिन एक बार जब वे जंगल में प्रवेश करते हैं, समूह पर एक जीव द्वारा हमला किया जाता है.दोस्तों का एक समूह स्नातक कॉलेज का जश्न मनाने के लिए कैंपिंग ट्रिप पर जा रहा है. लेकिन एक बार जब वे जंगल में प्रवेश करते हैं, समूह पर एक जीव द्वारा हमला किया जाता है.
- पुरस्कार
- 1 जीत और कुल 1 नामांकन
Chris J. Neal
- Customer
- (as Chris Neal)
Char Stone
- Ash
- (as Kayla Morgan)
फ़ीचर्ड समीक्षाएं
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.
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.
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...
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...
Meg and her boyfriend Luke are camping in the woods. They F and get attacked by a monster. Their friends follow them a day later. They F and get attacked by a monster. It seems to be attracted to sexual activities.
It's micro-budget indie amateur filmmaking. The lighting at night is poor. The road flare may be the best prop in the entire movie. The dialogue is generally poorly written if it is written down. They do have a discussion about horror films while doing the video rental clerk thing. They seem to be renting VHS tapes. Other than no cell phones, there is no effort to define the time period. The girls are no supermodels, but they are showing T&A. Supposedly, they are taking a break from school although they are too old for high school and not the college type. It is bad although I've seen worst. It's barely an hour in total and it feels it.
It's micro-budget indie amateur filmmaking. The lighting at night is poor. The road flare may be the best prop in the entire movie. The dialogue is generally poorly written if it is written down. They do have a discussion about horror films while doing the video rental clerk thing. They seem to be renting VHS tapes. Other than no cell phones, there is no effort to define the time period. The girls are no supermodels, but they are showing T&A. Supposedly, they are taking a break from school although they are too old for high school and not the college type. It is bad although I've seen worst. It's barely an hour in total and it feels 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.
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.
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.
क्या आपको पता है
- ट्रिवियाProduction was shut down after a hornets nest was disturbed and sent one of the actors to the hospital.
- क्रेज़ी क्रेडिटAfter the actor credits have passed, there is a long blooper and behind the scenes reel.
- कनेक्शनFollowed by Don't Fuck in the Woods 2 (2022)
- साउंडट्रैकMass Perversion
by Eyes on Orion
टॉप पसंद
रेटिंग देने के लिए साइन-इन करें और वैयक्तिकृत सुझावों के लिए वॉचलिस्ट करें
- How long is Don't Fuck in the Woods?Alexa द्वारा संचालित
विवरण
- रिलीज़ की तारीख़
- कंट्री ऑफ़ ओरिजिन
- आधिकारिक साइटें
- भाषा
- इस रूप में भी जाना जाता है
- Dont Fuck in The Wood
- फ़िल्माने की जगहें
- उत्पादन कंपनियां
- IMDbPro पर और कंपनी क्रेडिट देखें
बॉक्स ऑफ़िस
- बजट
- $10,000(अनुमानित)
इस पेज में योगदान दें
किसी बदलाव का सुझाव दें या अनुपलब्ध कॉन्टेंट जोड़ें