Unfortunately, the film falters when it comes to diving into the character of Robert Bowery. Email the Krypt: jon kitleyskrypt. Micro budget horror film Child Eater is scary, smart and exceedingly well produced In the realms of micro budget cinema, the goal is to make a dime look like a dollar. Things start not making much sense and gets silly, with one of the most ludicrous and easily foreseeable endings ever. Further issues are that it was clear that it was written in haste.
The plot appears to me to be an underdeveloped urban legend thought of for this film and therefore even the good points of this short paled to a story that should have been better written. Based on his 2012 short film of the same name, Thoroddsen decided to expand that into a his first feature length project and I think he knocked it out of the park. But in an odd way, that practical, controlled setting works. It's pretty evident Child Eater is inspired by the many '80s horror films that we all grew up with. The story of Child Eater is relatively simple. With that said I give Child Eater a 3 out of 5. With only an hour and twenty min run time the film lacks some and wish it was longer to explain the creature more.
But the father was forgettable, the entire police force was laughable, and Helen's ex-boyfriend or whoever he actually was was just dead weight. Ultimately, the short did more for me because I feel like the story was fine in a more abbreviated delivery. The story is decent but could use better back story on the creature we could also use more screen time with it too. At a time when many Horrors movie seem to flounder by trying to be too broad with their style and their subject matter, as if the production crew prioritizes quantity over quality of themes explored, Child Eater benefits by how concentrated much of the production is. Maybe a miss for some but I feel it will be a decent film for most.
He has now turned the short into a feature film, and it screened for the first time at the Brooklyn Horror Film Festival on Sunday October 16. I will, though, look forward to the next film he directs. Usually bad sound recording is the most distracting factor in these sorts of pictures, but the audio here is immaculate. Helen thinks nothing of the boy's fear, but it isn't long before he vanishes into the night and Helen runs off into the woods to find him, running straight into the creepy Robert Bowery Jason Martin , the child eater. Soon Lucas goes a-vanishing and Helen has to nut up and venture into the woods to retrieve him from the clutches of the eponymous terror. Robert believes that eating the eyes of children would make his eyesight return. Another poor point was the uninteresting, amateurish clichéd kills.
This review originally appeared on the website Reviews From the Mind of Tatlock. Lucas Colin Critchley likes horror movies and claims there is a man in his closet, the same one he saw outside, who can get in through the hole in the basement. We then jump 25 years later. But then Lucas vanishes into the night. Felt kinda fresh in all honesty, I'm just sadden by the fact that it didn't lay some kind of rules down.
I'm guessing it was just in the movie because they needed more kills and the town was as empty as a cookie jar in a kindergarten class. Sure, overall we have some data about it, and it does respect all said but I think it could have provided a lot more tension if we had more to work with. Albeit, there is nothing new here, it's all familiar territory and executed in old-hat fashion. Helen Cait Bliss has a busy night of babysitting Lucas, a young boy who loves horror and thinks a monster lives in his closet. This helps add the creepiness of the character and the effectiveness of the story.
The film doesn't develop any characters except for Helen, and she was done rather poorly. Lucas is played by Colin Critchley and does a great job here, acting well beyond his years, enough that it has you worrying about his safety. Thoroddson doesn't waste any energy on unnecessary humor and there's plenty of room for gore and bloodshed next to the eerie suspense. If you are a child may be this movie will scare you, but if you're over, let's say 11 or 12, you'll have a hard time feeling the least shiver of fear. The one funny realization I had while watching this was thinking about how much I would have a hard time soothing my own scared child. It might be a low budget movie, and there is nothing wrong with that, but that doesn't mean it has to be of mediocre quality, and unfortunately it is.
Even the camerawork and framing are full of moments where Lucas is leaning into empty frames, feeling small, and the visuals emphasizing his powerlessness. Because usually the actor ends up overacting, which some of the actors do in this film. You can feel there was passion here and a genuine attempt to making something fun. According to local lore, decades prior a crazed killer went blind and hid out in the woods. Without giving too much away, it centers on a monster that gets his kicks chowing down on eyeballs, and milks that visual for everything it is worth.
Movies that bring to life eerie monsters that were initially invented to petrify little children, but then turn out to be frightfully real for kids and adults! Watch it in the dark. A mature and effective horror film that is calm and intelligent, only occasionally resorting to cliche. Join 227 other followers Sign me up! There were some jump scares that worked effectively, especially involving a bear trap. During the atmospheric opening sequences, the camera follows around a blond little girl who wanders around all alone in the woods. After Lucas disappears from his home, Helen, the local law enforcement and a mysterious unstable gun toting woman are all on the lookout for Lucas.
Beer Four Though the film was creepy, most of the attempted scares fell flat. The creepiness dissipates completely fairly early on, with the horror, suspense and tension being nowhere near enough. Although I did get a kick out of the closet shock. The acting is not amateurish, but it's also fairly unremarkable. And another poor point is the uninteresting, ill-conceived, amateurish, clichéd direction of the plot. It gives the film a level of refreshing visual and tonal consistency; people lose their eyes, and that is enough for one film.