Dead Birds
| release date | September 13 2004 |
| studio | Silver Nitrate |
| director | Alex Turner |
| writer | Simon Barrett |
| starring | Henry Thomas, Patrick Fugit, Nicki Lynn Aycox, Michael Shannon, Muse Watson, Mark Boone Jr. |
| tagline | There are worse things than dying |
| site | e.bell.ca/filmfest/2004/filmsschedules |
8 Comments
The premise sounded different, a Civil War ghost story. I liked the film, it had some good jump spots and it was well filmed.
If you get the chance watch this one.
Good gripping, spooky story. I really enjoyed it. And I like the ghosts in this, they were creepy.
I’m a bit disappointed. It could be better…
I loved this movie!!!! It was Really scary.. my 14 yr old brother is hard to freak out and this movie had him wide eyed and pulling covers over his face lmao. I thought the effects were masterful and in my opinion is one of the scarriest movies I have ever seen. It’s a must see and it’s a shame this wasn’t on the big screen.
An original concept that delivers! The characters were impressive, as were the creatures that quite simply blew me away. In fact it was this image on the back cover of the DVD (evil child under the bed) that drew me to this film in the first isntance. Although there wasn’t an over-reliance on gore, but there was enough to satisfy the horror buff despite some dodgy CGi effects. It’s always nice to have an ending that isn’t predictable and I sure didn’t see this one coming.
Definite elements of both TCM (the visuals on the house) and Children of the Corn (the corn!). Enjoyable film, although still scratching my head as to the title (why ‘Deadbirds’?!?).
Few days ago, a tasteful Flixster user told me that Dead Birds was somewhere described as “the most atmospheric horror movie”.
So obviously, I had to give it a go.
Obviously, the above quote is an overstatement.
But that does not mean that this isn’t clearly one of the most eerie atmospheric ones to come out in the past few years (Asian horror aside).
This movie can in fact raise some hairs in the back of your neck. You just need to create the right setting around you and you’re set to go. This is clearly the best achievement of Dead Birds, along with the way the story unfolds until a particular moment.
The acting is uncompromising for the most of it, and that’s good enough for such a story, which is not (let’s face it) that original, though they surpass this detail with the way they chose to pick it up. It’s not a fast paced movie by any means, so you’re very likely to be disappointed if you watch it with such expectations. But its pace is another great accomplishment of it. It starts off slow, stays on slow and you don’t even find it incredibly fast when the whole thing blows up in your face.
And that’s where they mostly got it wrong, IMO.
Simply put, there are some movies which should only have the single purpose to suggest, rather than to show. This is one of those, as most atmospheric ones are.
It ends up showing too much, and telling too much, and that’s its biggest flaw.
There’s also some awkwardness felt when you hear suposedly XIX century’s characters saying things like “No shit!”, I suppose.
But you get over it quickly.
If you’re a fan of horror atmospheres, then you should definitely give this one a go, even if the last half of it does not match the first one in terms of build up.
If you get a chance to watch this movie then do so as it w`ont let you down. A very creepy, atmospheric horror with splashes of gore thrown in.
DEfinitely worth watching once, creepy but not too gory. It was different.
Poor marketing and poor dvd cover really makes this film underated to the masses on that already, but this is one to surely spread from good sites like this to say how good this film really is. I enjoyed it alot, i might be watching it a second time very soon all over again.
i didnt think it was that good
Kind of slow but rocks.
shot well great make up fx,but just boaring i never got interested?
Dead Birds is a thrilling and intellectually stimulating horror drama that warrants at least one viewing. That being said, there are a few ways in which it falls flat.
There are a number of positive aspects of this film. The scares make you jump out of your seat, and the atmosphere in this movie is so unsettling that more than once I looked away from the film at the room around me, just to make sure that there weren’t any unspeakable horrors lurking nearby. The film really makes you want to find out exactly what’s behind the rash of terrors that are experienced by a ragtag throng of Confederate Army deserters/bankrobbers at the height of the Civil War. The acting is good, and the movie has an air of mystery and intangibility that can’t help but be noticed.
The areas in which Dead Birds doesn’t fair so well is in the pacing. The beginning is interesting, but after the first scare there’s just a bunch of arguing and plot setup by characters who you don’t really care about. Also, gorehounds will be mildly disappointed by the lack of gibbage and thick, red liquid present in this film. Probably half of the gore takes place in literally the first 5 minutes, and it’s in no way related to the mysterious horror that the protagonists eventually encounter. My main problem, though, is that the film doesn’t really tie together many of the things it hints to look out for at the beginning – namely, why the hell is this movie called ‘Dead Birds?’
You should watch this movie, but just keep in mind that the middle part of Dead Birds is quite weak, and it’s no ‘Braindead’ when it comes to the gore department. Even so, it’s worth checking out at least once.
This is a good risk good reward movie… If your into dark movies and go into this movie expected nothing this movie can surprise you… Not overly impressive with anything, but the story goes and I definitely enjoy buying it, watching it, and didn’t feel like I wasted a cent. You should watch it see it for yourself…
i saw this at a birthday party along with exorcist:the beginning, so at the time it seemed lame, but in hind sight, it was pretty fun.
not bad, not bad
This film had an interesting story, great atmosphere, and a beautiful setting. Definitely worth checking out.
A fast intro puts on the brakes for most of the body to delve into more of a dark and slow burning character driven horror flick. It works because of the caliber of cast involved—if a lesser cast was employed, then this absolutely would have been a far more tedious and less involving story. There are sparse thrills, but the few that be are put in the right places and done well. Dug the Civil War era setting, and the decent if not odd storyline was different and interesting. Low on the blood, kills, and thrills, but a good enough flick to watch more than once.
This is an OK film, I was not a fan of it at all. It is one of the most slowest paced movies I’ve ever seen. Let’s start with the pros and onto the cons.
Pros: It felt like an independent film.
It was very well shot and acted.
A few of the effects were pretty cool.
There are two sexy men, but I dig William.
Cons: Very slow paced (In a un-interesting way)
Most of the characters, except a few, were dull and lame.
The plot didn’t have my interest, until the last 30-40 minutes.
The film was very boring in it’s first 45 minutes.
Overall, it’s an OK film. Nothing special and it’s worth watching once.
“Dead Birds” is the kind of flick that you want to like, yet don’t end up very disappointed when it turns out that you don’t. And believe me when I said that I didn’t like the film; but also believe me when I say that it’s better than it needs to be. It was essentially another one of those direct-to-video horror films, but it’s more watchable than say, “The Sick House” or “The Hills Run Red”. This is a well-made, well-acted, interestingly conceived film that lacks the story-telling and proper character development that could have made it a winner. I admire what it’s doing and what the filmmakers are trying to do, but with a bit of luck, I think they can do a little better.
So I’ll try to be as optimistic as possible about the movie. I have no doubts that some horror fans will be all over it for its choice to drown us in jump-scares and “atmosphere” instead of gore. However, this is a haunted-house movie, and it’s a better-made one than most, but most of it is purely visual; thus, nothing is ever truly scary. No thought goes into the horror, and no thought goes into the story. It’s simplistic, and at the same time, it tries to be something more. But as I said; it’s a decent movie. It is competent, but it just kind of fades, not long after you’ve seen it.
The film starts out interestingly enough with a party of named-but-uncharacterized bandits robbing a bank and escaping town, thus evading the law. The weather is not on their side, and it begins to rain that very night. They camp out in an old, abandoned mansion; which is close-by a creepy cornfield; reminiscent of most classic movie creepy-cornfields.
However, after a game of cards, some love-making, and a whole lot of pointless exploring; the bandits soon discover that they’re not alone. Something terrible occurred in that house and in those cornfields; a murder, an execution, and demonic possession. Beings from hell now inhabit that house, and they are very much prepared to do battle with the heroes of the story.
I wouldn’t have a problem with that being “it” for the film’s story, since that pretty much IS “it” when it comes to that, but the film consistently hints at making itself some complex, well-researched…thing; but it’s just not that. I wouldn’t say it’s necessarily lazy when it comes to building tension, but it never gets that feel that it’s edging towards the entire time. It’s not scary, it’s not always eerie, and it’s basically just a visual orgy of undeniable creepiness; but that isn’t enough for me.
I was overjoyed to see talented actors such as Michael Shannon and Patrick Fugit involved in the film. Each talented actor is indeed talented; and they bring…at least their B-game to the film. Yes, you won’t find anyone’s “best performance” here, but for a not-so-well-known and more-so-obscure horror movie, you’ve got to give the director credit for at least containing these performances and these actors.
There’s some good cinematography, some decent effects, and some first-rate ambition. I’d say that more could be done with this premise, and I mean it, but I don’t necessarily want a remake when I say that. “Dead Birds” might as well be good for what it is, but I found the characters so grossly undeveloped, and the story so absurd at times, that it just wasn’t believable enough. It wasn’t aiming for camp; it was clearing trying to be a real, scary movie; something that it’s not. Critics say it has scares, and I wonder what they mean by that. Do they refer to the demons with the hollow eyes and the sharp fangs hiding under the bed? Do they refer to the demonic-dog-thing that pounces on the heroes in the beginning of the film? None of that should be considered scary. There is a difference between jumping and being truly frightening. “Dead Birds” is not the slightest bit thought-provoking, and at the same time, it’s not the slightest bit dumb. I have sympathy for it, just not too, too much.
I have seen enough bad attempts at Horror/Western movies and thankfully, something has changed. A solid cast of well known B-actors, great locations and quick-cut-scares makes “Dead Birds” a worth your time watch. The direction of the movie ends up being a bit confusing towards the end, but it was still simplistic and effective.