Should you see it? Yes.
“It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds."
Monday, April 21, 2014
The Flesh Eaters (1964)
How bad is it? It's quite good, for the most part. The acting's weak.
Should you see it? Yes.
"Blood Feast" may have been the first gore film, but this British film came out the next year and is as gory, but infinitely better. A group of people involved mostly in sex films appear to have been responsible; the camerawork may be by Radley Metzger and it's very good. A scientist is experimenting with creatures that can strip the skin off a person in seconds and a group gets stuck on an island, forced to try to defeat them. Some of the effects are basic, such as scratching the film with pins, but the gore is still unsettling. Some of the dialogue is clunky and worth a few laughs, but the film gets exciting toward the end when the creatures combine into a supermonster (though a shoddy man in a rubber suit is involved).
Should you see it? Yes.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment