<![CDATA[surprisingly well made]]>Archived from the IMDb Discussion Forums — The Flesh Eaters

john-1451 — 17 years ago(July 10, 2008 04:47 PM)

I know that this movie is ridiculous in a lot of ways, but it shows creativity and skill in many respects. For instance, the photography. There is a lot of well done forced perspective shots in this (such as the one with the shoes in the foreground) and the special effects are excellent for a low budget film made in the 60's. Check it out and see if you don't agree.

]]>https://filmglance.com/discuss/topic/180631/surprisingly-well-madeRSS for NodeTue, 12 May 2026 15:16:48 GMTTue, 28 Apr 2026 09:09:42 GMT60<![CDATA[Reply to surprisingly well made on Tue, 28 Apr 2026 09:09:44 GMT]]>Woodyanders — 10 months ago(May 24, 2025 02:51 PM)

The cinematography was very impressive in this film. It's really well shot for a low-budget indie flick.
You've seen Guy Standeven in something because the man was in everything.

]]>https://filmglance.com/discuss/post/1517073https://filmglance.com/discuss/post/1517073Tue, 28 Apr 2026 09:09:44 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to surprisingly well made on Tue, 28 Apr 2026 09:09:43 GMT]]>capkronos — 16 years ago(November 16, 2009 11:17 PM)

I just watched it and thought it was great. The premise is very creative, much of the dialogue was well-written and genuinely funny and the cast was great (especially Martin Kosleck and Rita Morley). I also agree the photography was great at times, though it seemed to go from day to night back to day again in the same scene a couple of times.

]]>https://filmglance.com/discuss/post/1517072https://filmglance.com/discuss/post/1517072Tue, 28 Apr 2026 09:09:43 GMT