best movie i've ever seen.

if their story seems completely bonkers, almost like a feverish work of fiction, you ain't heard nothing yet.

The story, direction, characters, and writing/dialogue is akin to taking a tranquilizer shot to the neck, but everything else was so well done.

what a terribly boring film. I'm sorry but this is absolutely not deserving of best picture and will be forgotten quickly. Entertaining and engaging cinema? No. Nothing performances with flat faces and mistaking silence for subtlety.

The effects waver between awful and decent, the acting as well, but overall it's an okay no-budget movie with a few good laughs mixed in with the amateurish shoot. I've seen worse movies with 10000X the budget, so this is worth checking out if you like RLM.

This film was a lot of fun for me to watch. The filmography and effects were really good for an armature filmmakers project. The lighting during the action and horror sequences was very well pulled off. The story is fun and I found myself really caring about the characters. However my only complaint with this film were the jokes. A lot of really cleaver jokes fall a bit flat due to the tone and sightly off comedic timing.Overall this was a very fun watch and I would recommend it to all aspiring small film fans and of course to all fans of RLM. I have found that this film is best enjoyed with a group friends.

As a fan of Red Letter Media's Half in the Bag series and Star Wars reviews, I really wanted to like this film. Mike Stoklasa and Jay Bauman are respectable men who seem to be making movies purely for love of the art form. That is very admirable. So giving this movie a bad review is painful, but the truth is, it's not very good. There are three main areas in which the movie is weak, and all three are crucial: Acting, dialog, and humor. First, acting: If you're not willing to make sacrifices in terms of performances, you're going to be disappointed. The directors themselves play major roles. Bauman (Martin) is definitely the more talented actor and does well, but Stoklasa (Carl) turns in a performance that's false, unbelievable, and apathetic. He comes off so flat and careless I would genuinely like to know if he was actually trying. I vaguely suspect that he was attempting a "so bad it's funny" shtick, but if so, it didn't work. Gillian Bellinger (Christine) does well enough in her role, as does Ron Lipski (Jesse), and their Mary Jane/Peter Parker dynamic is one of the most compelling things about the film, but ultimately their scenes are hampered by the movie's other problems.The dialog, in a word, stinks. Not quite on the level of George Lucas, but it's hardly stellar. Over and over I found myself frustrated by how unnatural and stilted nearly all of it was. Real people just do not talk like the characters in Feeding Frenzy. Bauman and Stoklasa have talent, but clearly no ear for dialog. Watching it, you think that if they had just said the lines out loud to themselves once and asked if it sounded realistic, the whole movie would have been improved. But in the end, we're stuck with dialog so bad it prevents the viewer from being immersed in the story.Lastly, the humor. In a movie where you have to forgive the acting, budget, and dialog, the humor is the only chance it has left. But it falls flat there too. Sometimes you'll even be asking yourself if what you just saw someone say was supposed to actually be a joke. The entire movie made me lightly chuckle maybe two or three times. It's just not funny. Much of the humor of Red Letter Media's Half in the Bag and Plinkett Reviews is solid and hilarious, so I found it jarring that the comedy was so flat.There are other problems. The characters can be inconsistent. The "dumb jock" stock character goes from being dimwitted and barely able to speak in one scene, to taking the lead in a dangerous situation and giving detailed, rational explanations in another. Jesse, the protagonist, can somewhat waver back and forth between being a doofus and being an able everyman. Also, the movie tends to introduce characters that you would expect to be unimportant background players not likely to be seen again, only to have them return in a major way that leaves you wondering if you were actually supposed to care about them.Some low-budget movies can be good enough to transcend it (look at El Mariachi or the original Night of the Living Dead), but Feeding Frenzy is not one of them. In short, it's poorly acted, hindered by its budget, and not funny. It's possible that the creators wanted to make a "so bad it's good" movie, but Bauman has said that he dislikes movies like that, so it's not likely.Again, I'm a huge fan of their other works, so it's very hard for me to write this, but it's the truth. The movie could have been vastly improved with more believable dialog, better acting, and better humor, but as it stands, it's not worth the ten dollars. If you want to see a movie by Stoklasa and Bauman, see The Recovered. They seem to hold it in a lower regard than this one, but it's better written and more convincing.

The film hits all the notes of a B-movie horror classic. Messy/unbelievable gore, ridiculous looking monster effects, off beat dialog and out of place erotic scenes.But the movie has some features that most B-movies don't have: Good acting, a plot that makes sense, a lot of funny moments(intentional ones), a good pace, great camera work and a well used score.There is pretty much nothing to be scared of in this film though and it seems to just be making fun of or holding a candle to 80s horror films like Gremlins, Critters and Deadly Spawn.Overall I enjoyed this film and would recommend it to anyone who enjoys monster movies(especially the low budget ones) or the comedy stylings of red letter media. But I wouldn't recommend it to anyone outside those groups. If you are outside those groups... lighten up and get into one of them.