Unhappy Birthday

Words fail me. This review will not seem to bear any resemblance to the 10 star reviews above; subjective as the world is, this truly was one of the worst films I've had the misfortune to sit through. Are they acting we asked? Is it irony, we wondered? Was it improvisation? No, it is none of these. Hammy acting, a series of unconnected scenes with a 40 minute lead up to nothing and a hideous stereotyped gay man coming across like a mix of that horrid character from Gimme Gimme Gimme and Ian Beale. What I would say is that some of the time lapse photography ain't bad - what I'd also add is if the director (was there one?) wanted to avoid make up on the 'actors', natural as that may be flattering it certainly ain't! Avoid.

I am not going to write a very long review but, what I am going to write is that while it is indeed a strange movie the acting is above par. and the camera work is beautifully done. The movie comes off as professional and not cheesy. I gave it a 10 because it was well worth my time spent viewing it. but you have to be of the mind that does not have to be satisfied very quickly, some adults are like children and must have the pay-off right then and there and cannot wait this is not a movie for those of that mind set.

This movie is slow paced and builds to the end which I did not expect.I was slowly drawn into the movie by the clever writing and great acting. I forgot I was watching a movie at some point and felt more like a voyeuristic peeping tom watching some persons personal tragedy unfolding before my eyes.

It is extremely perplexing to me that a film as good as "Unhappy Birthday" could possibly be running a 2.4 rating on this site. Huh? I personally think it's one of the best small-budget horror films of the last 10 years-- dread-filled, well acted, and beautifully shot. I just watched it last night on On Demand and was blown away.

The only thing I can think of that might explain the low rating is that there is a very frank sexuality to the film, both hetero and homosexual. Maybe that was too much for some folk? For me, it is the rare film where sex is an integral part to the overall story and characters, not just thrown in for titillation (and easier distribution).

Otherwise, I am at a loss as this is a perfectly awesome little gem of a horror film that is really affecting and haunting.

I did not manage to sit through the whole film. I don't know how anyone could.

This is truly one terrible film. The direction and editing are all truly awful. Whoever edited this film has on idea about timing or what kind of duration is appropriate for shots. The camera work is rubbish.

There is no sense of suspense. Visual clichés are everywhere and are badly executed. The dialogue is badly recorded and the soundtrack is full of relentless clichéd tension building sound which does not build tension at all. Even the costumes are awful. One character wears an outfit which is so hideous to look at that I wanted to stop watching it on for that reason alone.

I don't know what happens a the end and I don't care. Some say it is like the Wicker Man. Well the original 1973 Wicker Man is a great film, so if you are considering watching this, do not, watch the 1973 Wicker Man instead.

A low budget film like this gets reviews all over the map, but even great films have critics that didn't like them. The Kid With a Bike got reviews in the papers of 2, 3, 4, and 5 stars. You wonder if they are watching the same movie.

This is a first effort for writer/directors Mark Harriott and Mike Matthews. They evidently worked hard to present a film with an atmosphere that is really creepy. The music and sound really matched the scenes and keep the tension high.

The sexual scenes are intense, both heterosexual and homosexual, as Rick (David Paisley) brings his boyfriend Johnny (Jonathan Keane) along with his girlfriend Sadie (Christina De Vallee).

It had a strange, but no unexpected ending that really drove the insanity home.

The acting was very good, and it was a compelling story.