Don't Fuck in the Woods (2016) User Reviews

I dunno what everyone was expecting given the title...

[aridalebelmont · 4/10 · 20 May 2017]

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...

One of the worst movies I've ever seen

[tyrionisthecat · 3/10 · 20 January 2017]

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.

Don't get your hopes up.

[BA_Harrison · 3/10 · 12 May 2017]

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.

I don't think people watch it for the complex plot....

[LLgoatJ · 5/10 · 12 April 2018]

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).

A mystery more than a horror.

[andy_ryan84 · 1/10 · 30 April 2017]

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.

Obviously terrible

[lukasmcsherry · 1/10 · 28 October 2018]

Obviously bad. Watched it because I heard it was bad, but I expected it to be bad on purpose. It was bad because some guy tried way to hard to be a jack black type character and it made me want to curl up and die

Attention grabbing title doesn't mean it's good.

[redrumjj · 1/10 · 8 February 2018]

Caught this film at a screening. It's definitely low budget and it shows. Amateur acting and bland cinematography. It's another "group ventures out to the woods to camp and are attacked and killed off." Typical to modern horror films, most of the characters are unlikable cliches and long, drawn out scenes of dialogue between them quickly lost my attention. It takes too long for anything really to happen in the film, though when it does, there are some inspired moments of gore.

I feel like this film definitely would not be getting some of the attention it is if it's title wasn't "edgy." It's typical amateur, low budget stuff that is instantly forgettable.

Sometimes the Title of the Movie is the Long Distance Runner...

[abandonsorder · 2/10 · 30 April 2017]

...I couldn't refine my sensibilities to ignore the movie when I saw the title. Several characters resembled the lost youth in my neighborhood; I stayed with the movie out of pity. The antagonist is not explained, but I don't think plausibility could justify this production. T&A from kids whose parents are completing the name-change paperwork as I type these words. Dull.

SPOILER: The movie lasts an hour. The bloopers last ten minutes. I last saw that imbalance in a Dana Carvey movie. YIKES.

Had to turn it off, like a amateur porno metal movie

[justind-5 · 1/10 · 14 May 2017]

Well, I am not quite sure how this stuff even gets produced, the visuals are so bad and acting so terrible, it makes you think how OK those movies you hated previously really were. It's like a college made metal porno movie so be honest. The opening scene has what looks like a predator type alien in the scene. Looks like its in 360p it's that bad, I don't turn off many movies or delete them but this one will get deleted and I had to turn it off. It's worth a 1/10 at best.

Great title hides a disappointing time

[huffmanhorrors · 3/10 · 24 February 2018]

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.

Deserves an Oscar.

[sakram · 10/10 · 27 March 2019]

I went into this with such high expectations, and oh boy did it deliver. It has everything a movie needs- Love, Sex, Drama Thriller, Comedy, and most importantly, great acting skills. With such a low budget thrown into the mix, the director turned it into a masterpiece ! I never regretted my popcorn and the time spent on this. Absolutely terrific !!

This movie changed my view about indie movies, and my view about movies in general, don't trust the bad reviews, this is a MUST-WATCH !

(im lying please end my life)

Horror Cinephile's Delight

[davidnhewko · 6/10 · 2 May 2019]

I am a bit of a horror movie nerd. I went to film school with the best of intentions only to wuss out and find a job with a more secure future and regular work schedule. That said, I enjoyed this and I am a little jealous of the filmmakers for pulling this one off. They kind of knew what they were doing and had fun with it. It felt like they made it because they wanted to, they weren't looking for awards or trophies, they were looking for a good time and it looks like they got it. Memories for life! It even had some funny moments where they clearly tell the audience what they're getting into, hell, the title says it all. If you were expecting more then why did you hit the play button?

I like natural girls and Motionless In White, both are present here.

To keep this brief-ish. The acting wasn't painful to watch, the dialogue made me laugh and the characters weren't the type that make you want to reach through the screen and slap them around for being so stupid. Clearly this movie was made with effort over budget and a passion for the genre. Making movies is hard because there are so many details that the audience will only notice if you eff it up. I didn't notice too many eff-ups in this one. Grab some munchies and spark a j because you found what you were looking for.

Watched on tubiTV, 2019.

Not so bad

[jeanxgrey · 5/10 · 11 October 2019]

Short runtime (around 59-60 mins without credits), somewhat funny indie flick. Go watch it for yourself if you have nothing else to do.

Read the title, best part of the movie

[jackmeat · 3/10 · 28 May 2017]

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.

Hate you 2

[nogodnomasters · 4/10 · 15 September 2017]

Young adults have sex in the woods and are killed by something in a cheap "Predator " costume. The film was similar to said "Predator" except it is kids in the woods and not Arnold.

Characters were not developed. There was some humor in the dialogue, but nothing worth repeating. The film was an hour long with about 10 minutes of bloopers. No real story line.

Guide: F-word, sex, nudity (Nadia White, Brittany Blanton, Brandy Mason, Kayla Stone.) 4 stars for the nudity.

Don't Waste Your Time

[dcarsonhagy · 1/10 · 9 March 2018]

This trash (trying to pass for a movie) won't get much of a review from me. I thought I would give it a chance because with a title like that, I was hoping for some camp. That was not the case. I don't know how this ever got funding because (plain and simple) it is nothing but vile.

Ugly, fat women--all looking like they're auditioning for a role in a porno film; ugly fat men, lesbians with way too many tattoos, no reasoning for what (and why) is in the woods--this will be a story these bimbos hopefully won't bother sharing with anyone. If those involved would have TRIED for "camp," the film might eventually have fallen into the "so-bad-it's-good" genre, but what you get here is what is implied in the title of the film.

WARNING: Parents be warned. This is not a movie for anyone under the age of 18. It really isn't a movie for anyone...PERIOD...but you get my drift.

Movie Lack Originality

[blashyrkh1985 · 1/10 · 30 August 2019]

This movie suffers from a identity crisis, it lacks to be something original and was clearly heavily influenced by 1987 "Predator" from ripping off the sounds of the predator to a poor attempt in reenacting the classic scene were Arnold is hiding by behind a tree before final battle. There was even a reference to the movie predator HUG NO.. NO.. Every kills in this movie were just HORRIBLE, majority of them were not even shown and the ones that were had really poorly done effects. The rip was poorly excustated, the guts that were ripped out from that chick, was just a cloth covered in fake blood it just looked ridiculous. the throat rip was probably the better of them all. It's a real shame because i feel this movie could of been better then what the final results were if they would of just invested a little money in there effects it would of gone a long way. Some of the camera angles especially in the tent were extremely zoomed in and you couldn't even tell what the hell you were watching, a better approach would of been to cut one side of the tent to be able to film better shots. (kinda funny cause all that camping gear was from walmart ) so i'm assuming this film was done in pocket change budget. The creature could of worked better had they not shine light to it exposing how bad the costume really is. I was really diggin (Brittany Balton) character "Jane" cause she really stood out up into the point when her charter had a transformation into "Dutch" Then the ending credits coping Predator once again ehh.. I love predator but they really dropped the ball trying to copy it instead of making the film its own movie..

I couldn't resist, after seeing the title, but I should have.

[Zbigniew_Krycsiwiki · 3/10 · 8 June 2017]

I'll admit, I kind of liked the first fifteen minutes of this one, in a so-bad-it's-good way, but after that, it grew very tiresome.

The girl in the opening scene ( Brandy Mason ) was cute, and gets fully nude, before she and her boyfriend are killed by a forest glob creature ( I'm not even sure what it is supposed to be, and I don't think the filmmakers know either, as it is never explained ) . After the terrible nu-metal theme song mercifully ends, and the idiotic dream scene, we get two decent looking girls in bed together, talking about this weekend's camping trip. End my amusement with this movie after that.

The following aerial shots look like they were taken from YouTube, and they likely were, considering this film's zero-budget. Moron lead characters, blabbering in the car, on their way to the camp site, is filmed through the rolled up windows, so we're looking at reflections of the forests they're driving through for this entire sequence. More blabbering when they get there, before this muck creature ( which looks like it was doused with pancake syrup ) kills most of them, playing all the film's cards in that single scene. This leads to a " final girl " showdown, with exploding arrows, because of course they have exploding arrows, and the final girl's fate is then left unresolved, as she is last seen wandering through the woods, in a state of shock.

The movie proper ends at 60 minutes, which is then padded with thirteen minutes of blooper reel footage, then the words " Thanks for watching " appear, and remain on screen for a further eight minutes.

Literally nothing more than amateur porn stars ( Nadia White's sex scene looks genuine and unsimulated ) filmed using an iPhone. Several scenes are silent, with no sound whatsoever, which makes ​me wonder if this film was ever fully completed

Just....don't!

[ant36au · 1/10 · 12 May 2017]

What can I say except ,this is a truly,truly awful movie! It's simply so bad I want money back,and I didn't even pay to see it! It's about a bunch of ,what look to be,washed up tattoo'd rejects from the porn industry,trying to pass themselves off as teenagers,on a camping trip,doing a lot of drinking and sex and getting killed by a man in a plastic looking suit and a terrible mask,doing an awful job of acting as a monster. The worst thing is...the monster is the good looking one of the film! The cinematography is terrible,the acting is worse,the writer should be made to eat his script and the producers should be jailed for perpetuating a fraud on the public. The best thing about this offering is the title.

Wow... I see a Sequel is coming to this terrible 'movie'

[vampture · 3/10 · 2 February 2020]

I'm all about a slasher flick with copious shots of boobs. No prob but... did they even write a script? The pacing of the movie is worst of all time. It's awkward moment after awkward moment. Terrible directing... 'actors' look on-screen like they're not sure what they're supposed to be doing. Also again, the pacing is worst of all time.

I'm sure they had fun and some good laughs making this but unless you were there, no way this will entertain you.

You're prob thinking... oh this sounds so bad it's good! Nope... I live for trash movies, this ain't that.

But congrats to everyone involved. At least you made something.

Good indie horror hommage

[raphaelclayette · 9/10 · 21 August 2019]

First, this movie was done by passionate people for under 10 000$ budget, so don't watch it with other expectations (and then bad rate it). And for the budget i find pretty nice. Typical teenage (monster) slasher. I loved some references. And once again, impressed y what people can do with no money. So please appreciate it, at its just value.

For a low budget film, it is pretty great

[acedj · 7/10 · 22 November 2022]

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.

If Horacio Sans had a son...

[DuskShadow · 5/10 · 10 October 2017]

... and that son looked almost exactly like him, it would explain the portly dude in this film. Whom was hilarious.

In the vein of all the sexy scenario slashers ( triple S instead of X) that are a mainstay of the movie biz, we have what I at first though would be utter trash, but was surprised to be fair to decent for having almost no budget.

Things that won me over: the funny fat guy worked in a retro video game shop; was the stereotypical druggie and horn dog, but amusing. Then there was a saucy, sultry blonde minx with a buxom set on her that were more appealing than in most slashers ( plus nice to see a fab pair that are not in porn. Such is the world now roflol). Plus piercings on the ladies.

But aside from the son of godzilla looking monster that does NOT approve of peeps doing it in his neck of the woods, I gotta give it up for one of the last broads standing whom pulls a veritable alien hunting/ ambush attempt a la Arnaldo in Predator. That was an hilarious attempt. Aside from some racy love scenes, and pretty good lighting in the middle of the dark forest, the movie didn't do much for production, and that seems to be the point of the company that made it. Thus with almost no budget, as mentioned in the opening creds, yet so many things that were good, and some that were so bad they were good in that classic b movie fashion, I give this a solid 6/10 cause it seemed like a buncha friends having a blast making a movie thats better than most B class films of late. And a BLOOPER REEL! ^~^

Porno in the woods

[mhorg2018 · 1/10 · 15 October 2019]

The danger of the video camera is that would be filmmakers create crap like this. What could have been, based on the title, a funny movie is basically just a bunch of tattooed pinheads in a porn film disguised as a monster movie. The monster looks like Mr. Hankey on steroids. The gore effects would be OK for an 80s film. The acting as one can predict is horrible, but what can one expect, based on the title.

I enjoyed it

[robkeithl · 5/10 · 25 April 2021]

Amateur movie. With bad acting. That aside, it's not awful. Kinda sucks you in. The survivor girl and the chubby comic relief guy were great and made the movie. I enjoyed it.