Don't Fuck in the Woods

But when I see a title Don't F in the Woods in the horror genre, im assuming the title speaks for itself. If your not interested in seeing some skin, or anything else the title & genre clearly gives away then yeah I guess stay away. Otherwise enjoy the comedy/horror. I mean any1 expecting oscar worthy anything from screenplay down to acting-c'mon man

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.

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).

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.