Eat

"Eat" is pretty much the one-man-project of a bloke named Jimmy Weber, and he clearly has A) a sick & twisted sense of humor, B) a hatred towards all the typically fake Hollywood glamour and C) a rather negative perspective on human behavior in general! The ideal personality to make a low-budgeted and independently spirited horror movie, in other words! "Eat" is an admirable and, at least for the largest part, entertaining B-movie with an original premise, vivid acting performances and a handful of truly grueling and nasty make-up effects. Moreover, it's an unpretentious little gem that doesn't take itself too seriously and I, for one, was relieved to see such a simple horror flick amidst all the wannabe-shocking backwoods/murdering rednecks movies nowadays. Novella McClure is a thirty-something actress with cute blonde looks and a catchy-sounding artist name, but the painful truth is that she hasn't scored a half-decent acting role in over three years. She struggles financially, but luckily has a motherly type of landlady. Her wild friend Candice takes her out clubbing but they only drink at the expense of random men they encounter, which also brings them in hazardous situations. Purely out of stress, Novella starts nibbling on a little wound on her thumb, but the bad habit turns into a disturbing and uncontrollable craving to eat her own flesh! Isn't that "food" for psychiatrists? Weber's script foresees a few very ingenious and unpredictable twists, and you genuinely feel empathy for poor Novella as she continues to sink deeper into misery, but then unfortunately it goes downhill during the last 10 minutes. The ending of "Eat" is disappointing, and surely Jimmy Weber must have considered more suitable and realistic conclusions to his wicked idea? Nevertheless, I can recommend this peculiar "cannibal" film, at least if you have the stomach for it! The scenes in which Novella feasts on herself are guaranteed to make you shiver, even despite the jolly and playful music score.

A little bit of body horror goes a long way. What begins as a small, unfortunate habit steadily progresses to more severe, cringe-worthy indulgence. In between instances of worsening blood and gore the movie is initially far more conventional - the portrait of a woman down on her luck, and struggling personally and professionally. As if that slant weren't enough of itself, the picture is pristine in its image quality, and seems at times to have a sheen to it - boosted further by the protagonist's impeccable makeup, and the very ordinary personalities of each character. These snapshots of Novella's life are unremarkable, but enjoyable - and almost give the picture a fairytale quality that contrasts sharply with the spiraling darkness the feature increasingly represents. It's not perfectly engaging, but 'Eat' is certainly good fun.

Filmmaker Jimmy Weber wears many hats here - writer, director, editor, composer - and he dons each pretty darn well. From a technical standpoint the movie looks great, including vivid blood and gore - kudos to the effects and makeup artists. Though not outstanding in the truest sense of the word, I really enjoy Weber's score. I don't think there's a specific weakness to cite. It's just that the mashup of story beats - the common and the grisly; the beauty and the beast, if you will - doesn't entirely jive in this screenplay. This isn't to say I think there's a particular deficiency; only that, however satisfying, 'Eat' doesn't come across as essential. That doesn't mean it isn't entertaining, because it certainly keeps our attention well.

Like the movie overall, the characters don't especially leap out in any way, but the cast embodies them well. Scene writing is solid, and the narrative further stirs a small measure of psychological horror into the mixture. While Novella's habit grows more demanding, the feature remains less about her state of mind, or what she does to herself, than about the life coming undone; the horror elements are just flavor on top. It's an interesting approach to a genre picture, and challenging to pull off with just the right ratio of the constituent parts. I think Weber definitely succeeds, if incompletely; 'Eat' just isn't as engrossing as it should be - the whole isn't quite the sum of its parts.

To be honest, though, I may be nitpicking. Ultimately the film does what it sets out to do, and it's a matter of a viewer's individual experience as to how invested one feels. For my part, I think Weber has made a fine film, with a strong approach to the narrative, that just doesn't wholly captivate. Still, 'Eat' is a highly enjoyable blend of genres, executed well, and if the premise in any way entices as a story to your liking, then this is worth watching if you have the chance.

Eat. What could I say about this movie. It's not well made. There's issues in everything. The script, the acting, the flow of the story. Even I could tell the lighting and production stuff was in disarray.

But I really really liked it. It's a really sick and disgusting take on Hollywood and I don't know. To be honest, I have no idea why I like this movie now that I think about it.

It just has a cool slow to it. The actress is attractive. And she's trying to make it in Hollywood. But she's kind of a slacker. And she eats herself.

It's cool. You gotta just watch it.

You might not like it. But it's truly one of my top ten favorite movies of all time.

7 stars

5 of 10. Had the post-credit scene happened at the end of the film, I'd give it another point. After a film like this, however, it's asking a lot for people to stick around through the credits and the film really needs some form of release after grueling gore and tension.

The main problem is that the writer really needed a skilled director rather than serving as both. While the actors did what they could with the script, the casting for several of the key characters was off and could have easily been switched.

The other part of it that wasn't setup well was the psychological element. Too often, it felt like unbelievably stupid characters rather than a mental disorder.

It's not a B-film because of the special FX, which was very believable and didn't look cheap. It's B because of the writing/directing that made many scenes feel like TV soap opera melodrama, unlike a recent smoother, more finished blood-gore film Julia (2014).

I saw this film a couple of years ago at the Denver Film Festival, and I thought it was interesting, however at moments it did feel a bit unnecessarily gory. At times it just felt if it was meant to satisfy all the demographics, who might like the similar, yet different elements of this genre.

Although I am a fan of low budget indi films, and even though the concept of this film was very interesting, the story however felt a little convoluted with unnecessary twists, that didn't really add to the actual quality of the film.

The performance of the main two actresses Meggie Maddock and Ali Frances were well done, however, the other performances didn't seem to stand the same ground. Like for instance, the performance by Jake Make, who played the character of the doctor, somehow just felt dry and two dimensional, hence loosing believability that I think was crucial for such a character.

Overall, for the genre this film is portraying, and the low budget it was made for, I believe this film stands its ground when it comes to its uniqueness.