Feast III: The Happy Finish

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.

Even though I have seen all the FEAST films this one is the first of the series I have commented on, I liked both FEAST 1 and 2 but this one, was too overdone and by that I mean the outrageous gross out humor, in the first one it was gross true but it was always unexpected, in two where they took it up a notch it was also still unexpected even if it was more gross, now with three there was no humor it was just gross and when the film gets around to the part where our favorite group of survivors starts to crawl around in the sewers, its so dark the only thing you can make out during the action scenes is screams and roars because you can't see anything.

If you look at the acting you'd probably say these people need to find another profession but if you look at the material you'd think if any of these people can keep a straight face in a film like this they deserve an Oscar.

Overall, this film had the potential to be hugely entertaining, but the execution was simply put to stupid to make it so, and thus it is the weakest entry in the series

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.

Better than II or worse then II? There is some debate on that.

At least we can clearly see the monsters in this one.

The gore is worse than ever with decapitations, and the monster eating the head whole, and then, I kid you not, eliminating the uneaten head.

If you have epilepsy, you might not want to watch the last 10 minutes or so. It flashes on and off and it made me dizzy.

It was better that Feast II, but not by much. It was a gore-fest with lots of action, but it was hard to follow exactly what was going on most of the time.

The ending was a real shock!

Loved the first two, very unpredictable and amusing.

This one feels formulaic and dull. You can't really tell what is going on (as mentioned elsewhere) most of the scenes are in darkness with flashing lights and shaky camera work.

I had to constantly prize my finger away from the fast forward button as the characters twittered on or trudged down another pitch black sewer.

It feels like this film is the unwanted runt of the litter, undernourished and unloved.

The ending was so bad I wonder if the director has grown bored of the Feast franchise and hammered nails into its coffin so he wouldn't be bugged about making a fourth.