Forest of Death

If I could give it negative stars I would. This was horrible. Horrible characters, horrible acting, horrible timing, horrible pacing, horrible dialogue, horrible decisions made by the horrible characters. I'm so annoyed I watched it all the way through.

If I ever see the name Brendan Rudnicki on a movie again I'll know to stay far, far away. Don't even bother with this nonsense. By the end I was telling every one of them that they deserved what they got. To me, it's not exactly a good sign if you're rooting for every single character to die by the end of a movie so it will just end and the torment will be over. Cannot recommend even a little.

Ashley is the lone decent spot in this film. I'm frustrated that I rented this movie based off all the 8, 9, & 10 ratings on IMDb. The biased reviews shouldn't be allowed on this platform.

The way it was directed and put together really was disappointing. The plot and storyline had potential. The acting was rough to watch and cringy.

Basically if you do watch this film expect a budget amateur film and appreciate their enthusiasm in making the film. There is alot of room for improvement and I hope the improve the audio & editing in future movies. In the script writing please try to explain they why questions. Why does this thing want to kill?! Just because?

There's indie films, and then there's whatever this is. I've googled DBS Films and I'm aware of how they operate. You'd think the whole "casting your fans" for EVERY ROLE is a bit of a misstep, but they keep doing it and it has not worked and it will probably never work. The writing is 3rd grade level and the acting is somehow worse than Tommy Wiseau's "The Room" but it isn't even bad in a funny way, it's just bad. The most remarkable part of this movie is that Amazon allowed them to price it at $5, which is $5 too much. Do yourself a favor and listen to me: Save your time, save your money, the correct rating for this movie is 1/10, not the absurd high rating it currently has.

I can only hope my $5 rental was the only copy available and no other human will have to ever see this (this would be a better plot than this movie, even as a sequel to The Ring). Clearly I was the only one who actually watched it because there's a bunch of reviews insinuating it's watchable and not a complete hot pile of garbage. The actors all say the lines like they're reading them for the first time and have no idea what is going on. The one exception is the southern hillbilly redneck moonshiner (they couldn't decide on a stereotype), he was actually good. When the budget is so low you have to make a fake deck of cards out of printer paper, just don't make the movie.

Clearly the majority of these reviews are planted by people involved with DBS Films. How do I know this? Because they keep mentioning DBS Films. Unless it's Blumhouse or A24, most people don't know what production company made what they just watched. Yet 75% of the rave reviews mention DBS Films. (They also mention "good acting" and "fast-paced", and neither of those things are in evidence.) DBS Films is "fan-driven", which means a whole bunch of people who have no concept of how to make horror films are treated as "quality monitors" in the process of making these films. Because these people are given a little "ownership" of these generic projects - oh, the number of films they have done with "Forest" or "Haunting" in the title! - they feel they have a stake in its outcome, which causes them to rush to sites like this to gush over whatever dreck they "made happen". What is this supposed to accomplish? Will horror fans see a garbage movie and be fooled by these reviews? Of course not. The only things these reviews have done is make this horror fan remember the name DBS Films so I know to never watch one of their amateurish movies again.