| Index | 4 reviews in total |
7 out of 8 people found the following review useful:
Incredibly funny!, 25 February 2002
![]()
Author:
jchokey from Silicon Valley
I had never thought much of Andy Warhol as a filmmaker. The thought of
watching a motionless movie of the Empire State Building (his movie
Empire)
or of watching somebody eat (this one) something just seemed to me to be
pointless, pretentious and tedious. But then again-- I had never actually
seen one of his films. This was just an opinion based on what I had heard
about them.
However, a few years ago, I was visiting the Andy Warhol museum in
Pittsburgh and I happened to stumble across _Eat_ playing in the cinema
room. And then-- I got it! This stuff is supposed to be funny, amusing,
and
playful-- not taken with high church seriousness! Or at least _Eat_ is.
Watching the guy in the movie take 30 minutes to eat an apple (or a peach
or
whatever it was) sounds like it should be tedious, but it's not. In
truth,
it was actually one of the funniest things I'd ever seen. He takes a
bite,
he chews, he chews, he chews, he pauses, he chews some more, he looks at
the
apple again, chews some more, swallows-- no, he's still chewing.... Yeah,
it
sounds really dull to hear me describe it like that.... but really, if you
actually watch it, it's incredibly comical. The other two people who came
out of the movie room when it was over were also in hysterics. I know it
sounds crazy, absurd, and unbelievable-- but this movie really is
incredibly
funny. You have to watch it to see why, though.... it really just can't
be
communicated in words.
11 out of 16 people found the following review useful:
The most useless film ever made..., 29 October 2001
![]()
Author:
MRBICKLE from Reus, Spain
Is normal to have curiosity about the attempts on cinema of such an
interesting personality like Andy Warhol, but "Eat" is such an idiotic,
boring and uninteresting film that any interest disappears. But well, after
all it's an experimental film made by someone with real anxiety for
discovering new ways of express his art.
"Eat" are 40 neverending minutes watching a man eating a mushroom (later a
cat appears but basically that's the plot). A peace metaphor? A
contemplative experience? 40 minutes of wasted celluloid? I'll let everyone
be the judge.
4 out of 6 people found the following review useful:
A beautiful film portrait., 27 June 2005
![]()
Author:
Jon Noel Shelton (noelartm@hotmail.com) from Lexington, KY
What can I say about this film that hasn't been said already? Well, if you add some Velvet Underground music to it, it makes a great music video. Also, John Cale put out a CD with music for this film and A.W.'s KISS. The film seems to change depending on what music you play to accompany it or if you just watch it silent. Like A.W.'s other "screen tests", the face seems to change if you stare at it for any length of time. So A.W. was taking the portrait to a whole new level. It's one of those simple yet profound ideas that had many artists saying "Now why didn't I think of that?". It's not hard to imagine an art gallery event with films like this playing on flat screen TVs while people mingle and music plays in the background. So rock on Andy Warhol!
5 out of 9 people found the following review useful:
A Guy Sits And Eats, 7 August 2002
![]()
Author:
alexduffy2000 (alexduffy2000@yahoo.com) from Hollywood, USA
EAT is a guy sitting on a couch and eating what looks like bread rolls for more than half an hour. It's black and white and silent. If you've never seen one of Warhol's experimental films, this one might be a good place to start, but it might turn you off from seeing any more of them. Still, it's something you wont forget soon, it's a lot like the films from the 1890's just showing someone doing something mundane, except it goes on a lot longer. But art it is.
| Plot synopsis | Ratings | Plot keywords |
| Main details | Your user reviews | Your vote history |