Eaters of the Dead

We watch a lot of "No Budget/Low Budget films on Prime. Some are very good. Based on the number of reviews and rating on Prime we turned it on. There was little effort put into the effects, acting, or story line. Even if a movie is terrible you can look for something redeeming. It might be a great soundtrack, great audio or lighting, maybe some good acting or edgy ambience. This had nothing. There was a scene that introduced a police officer. Look at his hat. It looked like it was made out of some leftover black cloth at the last minute because someone forget to pick one up at the joke shop. The film then abruptly ends without any closure. I have to believe that anyone who gives this film any more than a 1/10 has an association with the film or cast. If you're looking to compile a list of pathetic films just start here.

Typically I use the IMDB ratings and reviews as a guide for choosing films. In this case, there were no reviews- which struck me as odd for a film over a year old- but the rating of 5.3 lead me to believe that Eaters Of The Dead would at least be a watchable indie horror flick. I was wrong, and therefore felt compelled to leave a review for future potential viewers.

First things first. I selected this as an Amazon Prime movie, knowing that worst case scenario I wouldn't be out any money. That said, I only made it through about 35 minutes before turning it off. It was THAT bad. I won't use the typical "worst film ever made" jargon, as I don't find reviews of that type helpful. I will attempt to present factual analysis on why the film earned a '1,' without the use of spoilers.

• The film is shot with a standard definition camcorder with very poor sound design. Actually, I doubt there was any true sound "design" or lighting work in this film, as is evidenced in both the dialog and overall appearance of the film (eg when doors open, the camera aperture momentarily flashes dark in order to compensate for outdoor or other ambient light. This would not be the case had even minimal lighting been utilized). The 30ish minutes that I watched were fraught with issues of this nature, including shaky camera work and extremely poor edits.
• As noted, the sound is likely the responsible of whatever mic was attached to the camera, and not a dedicated boom or multi-mic mix. I've seen some microbudget films that pulled this off effectively. Unfortunately, this is not one of those films. Boomy, echoey dialog is evident during indoor scenes, and washed-out dialog is present during outdoor scenes.
• It should be noted...I am a horror buff and gorehound. The description contained in the Amazon Prime version states that "the film contains scenes with graphic content. viewer discretion is advised." This is not a common occurrence so I was excited to (hopefully) watch a bloody good film. Once again, this is not the case. While there were a couple of violent scenes, the special fx were awful; completely unrealistic and even oddly colored. Again, I've seen many microbudget horror movies that contain decent fx so it's difficult to excuse this flaw. Heck...the blood color wasn't even right! There's a difference between films that were made cheaply and cheaply made films. This is the latter.
• I mentioned sound design. So...for nearly the entire first 30 minutes, Beethoven's 4th, 5th, and part of the 9th Symphonies play continuously in the background. It made no sense, offered no benefit, and in fact contributed to the "cheaply made film" stigma. Using public domain music is often a giveaway of a film's budget, but the director, producer, and writer (the same person) had no idea how to effectively use music as a mood enhancement, so he simply let it play the entire time. Terrible decision.
• The acting is not the worst I've seen, but it was bad. The lead character is not believable in his plight, and his delivery is wooden, which pretty much forces the film to implode. Even if everything else was good (which it's not), having an unbelievable lead would still doom the picture.
• Due to the low budget, the parts of the film that were shot in public areas contributed to the overall flaw count and laughability of the flick. Considering the plot, it doesn't work to have the story start out in a very nice, super clean, well furnished town home. Nor does it work to see the neighbor's air conditioner unit running on full. Just too many errors to overlook, and I typically keep an open mind when watching low budget films.

This film was a complete waste, in my opinion. Considering the IMDB score of 5.3 with NO reviews (until this one), I can only assume that contributors to the film offered high ratings. An average above 5 typically means a film, at minimum, has the basics of movie making covered, no matter the budget. I know nothing about the writer/director/producer for this flick, but judging by the first 30 minutes, he/she has a) no clue about anything more than aiming a camera, and b) didn't attend a single day of film school.

As noted, I typically have an open mind when it comes to independent flicks, especially B or C grade horror, and can offer redeeming reviews for just about anything. In this particular case, there is not a single redeeming quality in this flick. It is 1 of only 8 movies I have ever turned off and walked away from. Take that as you will, but I can not recommend this flick to ANY audience.

Ignore the haters, there's nothing to hate about this fun movie. Is it flawed? Yes, but it's also a lot of fun something many movies forget how to have these days. Yes, you can hear crickets and birds. Yes, the actors don't look starved, but have some imagination people, grab some popcorn and enjoy the ride. Save the nitpicking for your spouse or significant other.

Nope. Not good at all. Bad acting, poor camera work, laughable production all around. I've seen home movies of relatives that I'd never met that were more entertaining than this.