Forest of Death

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?

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.

Forest of Death has to be one of the better films DBS has produced. Something about the cinematography was my favorite part of the movie. The setting of the film looked beautiful. The acting was decent; some lines were clunky so the delivery could have been better. But that didn't take away from the story. You may have seen the story before but you should still watch it. It's always fun to see new takes on stories you know. And this film wasn't a bad take at all. There were some moments when the editing seemed a bit weird, but they happened so fast I don't believe most people will catch it. The movie is just barely longer than an hour, and what else are you going to be doing with your time? If you don't mind B movies supporting new actors, writers, and hell film studios, please check this out-a good watch.

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.

Seems everyone involved has written a review giving this poorly made film a high score. The storyline is weak, the dialogue is childish, and the acting is abysmal. Nothing happens for most of the movie, and when it does it's not scary of surprising. Annoying teens in a house (not a cabin) do the exact opposite of what they're told not to do. The "special" effects aren't special, and the ending is laughable. Not clever or different, just low budget and poorly constructed. A waste of the cost of renting this boring, predictable, drawn out mess. Felt like a bunch of friends decided to make a movie, but shouldn't have.