VALUTAZIONE IMDb
2,9/10
1938
LA TUA VALUTAZIONE
Un gruppo di amici va in campeggio per festeggiare la laurea. Ma una volta entrati nella foresta, il gruppo viene attaccato da una creatura.Un gruppo di amici va in campeggio per festeggiare la laurea. Ma una volta entrati nella foresta, il gruppo viene attaccato da una creatura.Un gruppo di amici va in campeggio per festeggiare la laurea. Ma una volta entrati nella foresta, il gruppo viene attaccato da una creatura.
- Premi
- 1 vittoria e 1 candidatura in totale
Chris J. Neal
- Customer
- (as Chris Neal)
Char Stone
- Ash
- (as Kayla Morgan)
Recensioni in evidenza
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Lo sapevi?
- QuizProduction was shut down after a hornets nest was disturbed and sent one of the actors to the hospital.
- Curiosità sui creditiAfter the actor credits have passed, there is a long blooper and behind the scenes reel.
- ConnessioniFollowed by Don't Fuck in the Woods 2 (2022)
- Colonne sonoreMass Perversion
by Eyes on Orion
I più visti
Accedi per valutare e creare un elenco di titoli salvati per ottenere consigli personalizzati
- How long is Don't Fuck in the Woods?Powered by Alexa
Dettagli
- Data di uscita
- Paese di origine
- Siti ufficiali
- Lingua
- Celebre anche come
- Ormanda Sikişmeyin
- Luoghi delle riprese
- Aziende produttrici
- Vedi altri crediti dell’azienda su IMDbPro
Botteghino
- Budget
- 10.000 USD (previsto)
Contribuisci a questa pagina
Suggerisci una modifica o aggiungi i contenuti mancanti