Feast III: The Happy Finish

I was looking forward for part 3 and the final of Feast. Again it's all in the same way of course of part 1 and part 2. A lot of gore again, bad jokes, tits and all what you want but sometimes it drops a bit. Don't get me wrong, it is still a good flick, but in the sewer it drops a bit, takes too long for me but overall again you will have a big laugh with farts and the way some are killed. Also you have to watch it while the end credits are running, the movie is still going on. Some people really have a problem with this trilogy, just watch the reviews, the first got a lot of reviewers and from then on it drops. If you really want a good feast than just watch, sigh, Feast. Even the ending is great. Nothing to do with the storyline but still the director got away with it. Really, an underrated trilogy!

Ask the best chefs in the world and they will say that 'presentation is everything'; it's an old adage that I really wish director John Gulager had applied when serving up The Happy Finish, the final chapter in his Feast trilogy. Style and attention to detail are in short order, the film being dished up with all the finesse of a pig farmer with a slop bucket; if it was the third course in a meal, it would result in a severe case of indigestion.

Like Beluga caviar, Marmite and Spam, the film's main ingredients—extreme gore, female nudity, offensive humour, rubbery monsters, and random perversion—are an acquired taste, but Gulager's scatter-shot approach results in a chaotic mess that even seasoned fans of trashy horror will be hard pushed to stomach. There are one or two tasty morsels on offer—some decent effects and a couple of genuinely funny gags—but these are completely smothered by the irritating editing, half-baked ideas, unlikable characters, moronic moments, and truly bizarre directorial choices (an entire scene lit by a strobe?!?!) all of which serve to kill the appetite quicker than a short, curly hair in your mashed potato.

When it comes to a true relic it's hard to give a review. All I can say is that this (literally) piece of s**t is good cinema.

Where this lacks in structure it makes up in substance. The substance being not the cruelty or injustice of the world, but the driving force of all humanity: fun and love.

Kaufman said that the cinema is a dead art form. Pure hubris. Of course that was after the fact that he'd just created one of the more meaningful pieces of art: Synecdoche New york. Cinema just needs to go boldly where no one has gone before.

Beyond theater, no matter how much as it hurts. Saying farewell to Shakespeare causes physical pain, but sometimes the pain is good. Or like on tn the case of a modern human being, necessary.

In cinema there's nothing to bind us. Nothing to keep us apart. The cycle begins again when nothing is given. Well, except our endless appetite for sex and violence.

Let me start out by saying i am not a horror film fan. I've watched the classics but some how given up on a lot of modern day scary films,as they rely too little on plot and more on nudity,gore, violence and the latter.

Now by saying that, I've watched all three Feast films. I was skeptical,as the reviews had me expecting very little from the films. Let me say,they're not as bad as people give them credit for. A lot of it is gross,and some of the situations are tacky,but i believe the creators of this film are giving the audience the intelligence to know that it's meant to be gross,tacky and out of good taste. With that being said, the movie was quite entertaining. I liked the new characters added to this one,as it follows directly after the second film.

The movie's distasteful points I'm ashamed to admit i found a lot of humor in. I learned that comedy does not need to be intelligent or witty or even crafty to find it funny. If you're expecting Schindler's List or even The Ring, you're definitely not going to get it here. But if you're expecting entertainment packed in a horror-comedy film about disgusting monsters eating humans and killing everything in sight,you will not be too disappointed.

Movies are supposed to entertain,and i think sometimes we get caught up in what's considered a "Good" movie, that we forget that if bad ones didn't exist,we would have little to distinguish the two.

But overall,i'd give it a 7,i would've given it more had they given the new characters more screen time ;p

The third and last Feast part didn't seem as bad as the second, possibly because it was more about running away from the monsters and less about trying to make the characters look funny. It is difficult to enjoy a movie when you can't make yourself to care about any of the characters. And when the gore and weirdness goes completely over the top, you just stop caring.

Bottom line: Feast was a movie I recommend to all my friends, but the second and the third installments are just bad. It is "I wish I would have cleaned the house instead of watching it" bad. It's really depressing to see a movie bring some originality in a tired genre only to try too hard by making sequels that lack the soul of the first and exaggerate everything that didn't matter in the first place.