Death Bed: The Bed That Eats

It was a particular killer podcast (wink wink nod nod) that brought my attention to the George Barry 1977 lost horror film, Death Bed: The Bed That Eats. I had never heard of the film previous and any mention in conversation over beds that cause death, I would immediately recall Johnny Depp's fate in A Nightmare on Elm Street.

My curiosity was peaked with the premise. It sounded as ridiculous as Rubber (2010) possibly as outlandish as El Topo (1970), so it was a quick and easy purchase as I turned to Amazon to add to my collection.

Death Bed is simply that. The plot surrounds a bed that eats. Our interest is mainly in the humans to which it consumes, but apples, bottles of wine and even a Pepto Bismol container are all part of the bed's diet throughout the 77-minute running time. It eats through an acidic sudsy substance that overtakes objects laid upon it's mattress.

The bed is fittingly located in a remote area of the countryside and we learn of its history and its thoughts (?) through the narration of a spirit that is imprisoned within a painting kept in the same room as the killer furniture piece.

Mostly, the bed feasts upon travelers, and more specifically during the mid-chapters, on three vacationing women searching for a bed for the night.

We could not ascertain whether writer/director/producer George Barry was looking to make a serious film or if he instead had designs on cinematic glory. But considering the film's overall tones and serious approach to the ridiculous premise, we would suggest the intention was sincere. And with adult moments that included various scenes incorporating female nudity, our case is that much furthered.

Our appreciation for Death Bed: The Bed That Eats might be more of a surprise than the film's plot points. We appreciated the movie for what it attempted and we enjoyed the crunching and munching Mr. King Size did on his adventures. Screened in 2013, we could hardly take it seriously. But it was with a satiric eye opened that we were kept entertained and we understood the cult epic that was unfolding in line with Eraserhead and Pink Flamingos.

Yes, even at under 80-minutes the idea runs its course and outstays its welcome. And yes, there were holes larger than pillowcases that brought out the WTF in us while screening.

Still, the title of the film doesn't hide what George Barry was trying to create. Our world might not be better having watched it, but we are glad we now have a new conversation piece at parties that is designed to garner attention.

www.killerreviews.com

This is a very odd movie. From what I gather, a demon becomes infatuated with a woman and somehow magically conjures up a bed for him to satisfy his carnal desires with her. But the woman dies and that causes some blood to fall upon the bed and suddenly come to life--with a desire to devour any human who sleeps upon it. I guess it's what beds that are conjured by demons do. Anyway, in order to eat a person the bed secrets some type of yellow fluid (which I suppose is an acid of some sort) and essentially engulfs the person. However, there are a couple of people who apparently intrigue the bed so much that it behaves very differently toward them. For starters, there is an artist who painted a portrait of it and because of that he has been trapped behind the painting overlooking the bed. His comments are then given freely during the movie to clue the viewer in to what is going on. Trust me, they are definitely needed. Likewise, there is a woman who has eyes that resemble the woman the demon lusted after and as a result the bed is initially scared of her and bleeds inside whenever she is around. At least initially. Now, if the plot wasn't weird enough, the characters are pretty dumb too as they don't seem to say-or think-very much. They basically see a bed in the middle of nowhere and want to sleep on it. Naturally, they get eaten and in some cases flowers grow on the ground outside of the building where the bed is located. I'm not sure why but perhaps it has something to do with Newtonian physics. Or maybe not. In any case, like I said earlier, this is a weird movie and because of that I recommend it only for those who either like bad films for some odd reason or have plenty of beer (or other type of alcoholic beverages) on hand. Failing either of these conditions you might want to skip this particular film all together. Below average.

Exactly what one would expect from a title like that, 'Death Bed: The Bed That Eats' focuses on a possessed bed at an outskirts cottage that dissolves and eventually consumes anyone unfortunate enough to sit or lie on it for extended periods. Considering the noticeably low budget, the special effects are surprisingly decent and the film comes with the odd artistic touch or two, such as a great shot of one victim's dripping blood extinguishing a candle beside the bed. The film also features a lot of uncanny elements throughout, not all of which necessarily gel well. More bizarre than anything the evil bed does (or anything its victims do to futilely stop themselves being eaten) is the poetic voice-over narration throughout, delivered by one of the bed's victims, trapped behind a painting in the room. His eloquent narration is not necessarily a detractor, but it is certainly very, very weird in a possessed inanimate object movie like this. The film's most significant drawback is the acting with the precredits couple in particular offering amateurish turns. If one can get over the second rate acting, strange voice-over narration and such oddities as the bed being spliced into old newsreel footage (!), this is an undeniably unique horror film, and one that - at the very least - manages to makes its possessed object seem sinister without the need to talk or move.

The premise- a demon falls in love with a maiden and assumes human form in order to make love to her. She dies as a result of this preternatural union, and the mournful demon cries tears of blood upon their carnal bed. The blood is absorbed, bestowing the bed with a predatory animate existence. Nestled within a ramshackle guesthouse, it lies in wait through the ages...a bloodthirsty canopy bed which consumes anyone unfortunate enough to rest upon it. A strange concept for a horror film, indeed, but the presentation is far, far stranger...

This no-budget oddity was composed with a very peculiar artistic finesse...not so much pretentious as self-consciously esoteric, it merges trash cinema sleaze with flourishes of oneiric surrealism(it's largely narrated by the spirit of 19th-century nouveau illustrator Aubrey Beardsley, helplessly imprisoned within a painting on a wall opposite the killer bed). This eccentric admixture doesn't really gel perfectly, but that is certainly not to imply that DEATH BED is a bad film, just that it's very bizarre and obvious of its restrictive budget...I personally consider it one of the most original and inventive amateur horror projects I have ever seen.

Opinions about this one will be all over the board, but there's no denying that DEATH BED is unique. I recommend it strongly to all fans of outré cinema. 7/10.

The title brings to mind everything that made 70's-ploitation a thing of wonder. Yet, viewers are to find instead an oddly artistic film with what must be one of the most strangest ideas for a film in all the annals cinema.

Here goes: a demon falls in love with a girl, but she perishes and his sadness infects a bed which then becomes indestructible and develops an insatiable appetite for for pretty much everything, flesh in particular. The soul of one of it's victims now haunts a painting and comments on the carnage the bed reeks. Weird enough for ya? Sloppy, cheap and very amateurish, the film is really hanging at the bottom rung of the budget/talent food chain. The acting is mostly nonexistent (except for the trapped soul, who is pretty good), the sound quality is rough and the picture is faded. Also, the editing needs some serious attention as the pacing for the film is all kinds of wrong.

And yet, the film kept me watching all the way to the end. It wasn't the trashy 70's goods that held on to me (of which, there are actually very little), it was the controlled strangeness of the picture. Unlike many odd-concept/low-budget affairs, the film starts and stays weird, but keeps itself contained; it comes off more artistic than it does simply exploitive.

Technical limitations aside, the movie is interesting, if not all that entertaining. A less budget restricted remake would be nice, but try to take it for what it is.

6/10