Don't Fuck in the Woods 2

The rating is based on what it is, not what soaring movies can be as this certainly is not. There is plenty of nudity, and also plenty of tattoos. Some of the nudity one may wish they hadn't seen. There are copious amounts of blood flowing at the key points in the movie. It is a summer camp, and Gil is a caretaker, who is also a felon who served 5 years in prison, let out for good behavior. But a local sheriff (?) who is very fat wants him back in prison. The camp counselors are present, but none of the kids. There is something evil in the woods, and it is transmitted by a slug type creature, but that is not its only form. As expected, little of the acting is good and it has the low budget vibe throughout. Gil probably does the best acting job. They are isolated 50 miles from anywhere, and the sat phone got broken so they cannot call for help. And the body count increases. If one has actually been able to stay to the end, there are out takes in the credits that shows they had fun making the movie. Oh yes, it ends with the potential for a sequel.

A naked woman gets raped and impregnated by a monster in the woods. Pine Hills is a rundown summer camp opening for a new season. The young camp counsellors arrive to get the place into shape although their focus is not always on the work. The final girl from the first movie is walking the woods. A tattoo lesbian couple is doing that thing and gets attacked.

The first movie looks like a DYI project with a bunch of small town friends. They decided to pick up a camera one weekend. It's barely a functional movie and not even a full length one at that. This sequel is a low grade sexploitation B-horror. It delivers the nudity and bloody gore. It's an actual movie and well below average one. The acting is passable to weak. The writing is simple. The filmmaking is poor although slightly better than the first movie. That's what this movie is. It's slightly better.

Whereas the 2016 predecessor was actually an okay horror movie ruined by an unnecessary amount of nudity and lewd scenes, then I must admit that I wasn't exactly harboring the biggest of expectations to the 2022 sequel from writers Shawn Burkett and Cheyenne Gordon. Yet, I still opted to watch it, as I had the chance.

The storyline in this 2022 sequel wasn't particularly thrilling or entertaining, so it was a step back from the original 2016 movie. And that was a shame really, because they had opted to tone down the pointless nudity and lewd scenes here.

Sure this movie was watchable, but you're not in for a particularly outstanding moment in horror cinema. The movie was, at best, forgetable actually. Yeah, it is one of those a-dime-a-dozen type of horror movies that brings nothing new to the genre, and just basically does what a thousand other movies had done before it.

But hey, if you enjoy semi-lewd 1980s horror movies, then you will probably find some enjoyment in director Shawn Burkett's 2022 movie.

The acting performances in the movie were fairly okay. And it was definitely nice to see a cast ensemble of all unfamiliar faces and talents. Just a shame that they didn't have a more solid script to work with.

Visually then this 2022 movie is a step up from the 2016 movie, no doubt about it. But special effects can only do so much for a movie, you know.

My rating of this 2022 sequel lands on a four out of ten stars. I watched all 87 minutes of it, but was only mildly entertained. And this is not a movie that I will be returning to watch a second time, nor is it a movie I would recommend for horror fans to rush out to get to watch.

In fact, I've seen worse acting in major studio productions, even worse dialogue. The one thing that is definitive about this film is the effort and commitment put in by cast and crew. Kenzie Phillips has genuine screen presence while all the rest of the actors give it their best but aren't as convincing in their character portrayals. There is some dialogue that is misplaced, but most of it works and serves its purpose fine; the camera shots almost seem to get better once the action gets moving into the horror scenes, as before that much of the character-building feels standard film shooting; some humorous moments, not so much in the jokes or quips, but with special effects being overdone on purpose and splattering the characters.

The actual horror element beyond the gore and monster mutations is surprisingly well done, but it doesn't arrive until very near the end; the rest is a slow build-up but when the gore kicks in, it really kicks in!

I don't think you'll miss anything by not watching this film, but the next time you sit through a 2hr40m major Hollywood production that seems interminably boring, long-winded, and actors are just phoning in their performances, remember there are some films out there that offer simple 1hr30m enjoyment with far more conviction and genuine love towards what is being produced. It doesn't take huge budgets to make good films - just passion and commitment.

Holy mother of god! Who the hell thought it was a good idea to dump some cash on this thing?

This movie must be highly listed on the Screenplay Highlighting Inferior Talent index. I have to warn you about this dribble, and I have to have a minimum of 600 characters.

You would be better off watching Evil Dead (1981) or Evil Dead 2 (1987), at least they did it correctly.

Lot's of boobs, couldn't spot any plastic though. Only one scene where the thing entered a girls clacker and a bit of girly bits can be seen.

Bad acting, forgotten lines, bad set, it's all here. The story was passable, with polish and a decent budget, this movie could have risen in the ratings. Sorry, not recommending this one.