I love this movie so much

It's entirely possible that sending the audience out feeling lousy was intentional

It's a good bad... and worth a popcorn matinée. While it's easy to lament what could have been...

This is a small, humorous movie in some ways, but it has a huge heart. What a nice experience.

I can't argue about this film for one reason. it only cost me One quid to buy. Now with one pound, you can end up buying films such as " the swamp thing" or the one with the giant tomatoes or any early Nicolas Cage film. However, Dead birds is not all that bad. Don't let the title put you off or the DVD case. Sure the title and cover art is cheap but the film itself is very polished.The film is based in the American civil war era and I rather enjoyed that as there not to many films that focus on that era. The opening is dramatic but after the first ten minutes, the film's pace slows right down. You end up having to watch a bunch of outlaws wondering around a deserted house for half an hour with very little dialogue and character development. This can put many people off but during this part, The director creates a brilliant, spooky atmosphere that is helped with great music . The camera work doesn't contribute to the atmosphere as it lacks any creativity . But visual, the film looks great.The huge drawback is that there wasn't to many scares. You watch these men ( and woman ) wonder around the house to only be let down by cheap jump out scares. the effects are mediocre at best. The acting is great all around but it all goes to waste. You watch them do nothing for the whole of the film until the last 15 minutes. The back story of house is told in about, 45 seconds which happens in a flashback.I can't help but feel that this film could of been so much better. The atmosphere was spot on and the acting was good but the film doesn't really do any justice. It weren't the worst film ever but either was it the best. Would i watch again? most likely not. For me it was a just a miss.

During the U.S. Civil War, a gang of six crooks would rather rob banks than defend the Confederacy. They are: handsome leader Henry Thomas (as William), sensitive brother Patrick Fugit (as Sam), pretty nurse Nicki Aycox (as Annabelle), greedy racist Michael Shannon (as Clyde), scruffy boozer Mark Boone Junior (as Joseph), and sensible ex-slave Isaiah Washington (as Todd). You can expect some conflict between Mr. Shannon and Mr. Washington, of course. Also, Mr. Fugit nicely plays some desire for Ms. Aycox, who is otherwise occupied with Mr. Thomas.The Alabama Civil War setting starts the picture off interestingly, with a blood-splattering western-style shoot-out. After this, it becomes a very different, haunted house horror tale. The story might have worked better if it had been set in the present, making the plantation owner and his family more distinct. Then, "Belle" would be Aycox' ancestor, and so on… We only see one of the "Dead Birds" referred to in the title. Fugit steps on it as the gang of six enter the old dark house - and, watch how it makes his face twitch! The figurative title "Dead Ducks" applies more. Considering the film's intents and purposes, writer Simon Barrett delivers more than delivers the goods, new director Alex Turner and photographer Steve Yedlin give it the creeps, and Peter Lopez' spooky musical score mixes nicely with the atmospheric sound. With a short shooting schedule, and limited budget, the cast and crew make "Dead Birds" fly, if not soar.****** Dead Birds (9/13/04) Alex Turner ~ Henry Thomas, Patrick Fugit, Nicki Aycox, Michael Shannon

"Dead Birds" is a movie that I neither liked nor hated. After watching it, I really couldn't care less about it. What's interesting is why I watched it. I never really watch movies that haven't been released in theaters, as those are notoriously awful. But I don't know. Something about a movie called "Dead Birds" just intrigued me in some way. I knew I was going to end up seeing it, but I was somehow reluctant.But that's beside the point. In the end, "Dead Birds" is just too unmemorable (in any sense of the word) to really remember, much less see. I wouldn't recommend seeing it, but, if for some reason you have a compulsion to see it, it's not the worst thing you could do.A group of bank robbers (at least I think that's what they are, they didn't seem to come out with any more than they came in) escape from a big score and take refuge in a safehouse. But something evil resides there...Not much happens in "Dead Birds." This is a movie that has to rely on atmosphere and a connection between the audience and the characters on screen. Unfortunately, first time feature film director Alex Turner isn't able to accomplish this. Part of this is because of the poor screenplay, but Turner can't establish an ominous atmosphere, and that's what is so crucial in a movie like this.The acting is adequate at best. Henry Thomas (yes, Elliot from E.T.) is the most effective, but he's really not given much to work with. Isaiah Washington looks positively bored, and would probably rather be anywhere but on the set of this movie. Patrick Fugit, who shined in "Almost Famous," does what he can, but that's not much. Michael Shannon, known for playing creeps and borderline psychotics, is in the same boat. No one else is worth remembering.One of the more noticeable flaws with "Dead Birds" is that the ominous presence isn't fully explained. Neither the characters nor us know what we're dealing with, and that severely hinders the film's effectiveness.To be fair, "Dead Birds" has some creepy moments, but they don't last long, and they aren't that effective anyway. But all in all, it's clear that this is a low-budget first feature from a director. It's okay, but you could do better.

So I after seeing the trailer and reading some decent reviews, I was expecting to be screaming, crying, or at least kinda scared to go to sleep that night, or SOMETHING. However, all I really got was a few instances of sudden shocking images and way too much suspense for my liking.The idea and the story behind the movie was pretty good. But when you have a 90 minute long movie and nothing happens until the last 30 minutes, you're bound to flop. I wanted them to get into the story, to get into what was going on, but I was very much disappointed to find out that all I got was some shocking images and about 2 minutes of explanation of what had happened in the house.If you have some spare time and this is all you have to watch, then sure, watch it. But if you could find a better horror film, I would say try that first.