User reviews

"Birdeater" a new indie Australian film making its feature debut, presents an interesting but slightly messy journey. The movie skillfully blends different genres while tackling the tough subject of a toxic relationship, leaving viewers feeling a bit uneasy yet engaged.

The standout moments come from its captivating fever dream sequences, adding a fantastic visual layer to the story. The plot follows Irene, who joins her fiancé Louie's unorthodox buck's party weekend, leading to unexpected and unsettling events. Louie's groomsmen's actions take the celebration into a wild, drug-induced ride, painting a darkly humorous and thought-provoking picture of young Australian men.

Although "Birdeater" isn't flawlessly executed, its willingness to explore challenging themes and the imaginative use of fever dream sequences make it a noteworthy contender in the indie film realm. For those intrigued by boundary-pushing storytelling that blends genres, this movie might just be worth checking out.

Billed as an Australian psychological thriller, whose inspiration clearly and proudly comes from one of the great grandfathers of iconic Oz cinema in the form of Wake in Fright (eagle eyed viewers will spot that films poster appearing in this film), filmmakers Jack Clark and Jim Weir herald in their directional debuts with the impressive if equally frustrating experience that is Birdeater.

Celebrating successful festival runs over the last 12 months and launching recently into select Australian cinemas, Birdeater embraces its "feral" moniker in parts as a planned to be quiet bachelor/bucks party weekend goes off the rails when past and present trauma between soon to be married couple Louie and Irene comes to the surface in a stereotypically boys only environment that has on this occasion become something else.

Building its early foundation with a great set-up, with Clark and Weir beginning their debut affair with some fantastic mood setting courtesy of memorable work by DOP Roger Stonehouse and some hugely atmospheric score work by composer Andreas Dominguez, Birdeater really races out of the blocks with a narrative loaded with potential but sadly the narrative juice at the core of this exploration of toxic relationships, mental health, male fragility and psychological warfare runs out of steam well before the half-way mark, a huge problem for this two hour exercise that is unable to sustain its early momentum.

There's still a lot to like here and it's not hard to see why the film became an audience favourite with attendees at festivals such as SXSW Austin, the Melbourne International Film Festival and the Sydney Film Festival as Birdeater is unafraid to tackle some fairly weighty (if perhaps overly used themes in Australian products) and the performances and filmmaking craft on display here are undeniably above average for a low-budget independent film made on Australian shores.

Getting a lot to work with in a feature that prioritizes dialogue above all else, all cast members of Weir and Clark's darkly comedic dramatic thriller acquit themselves well with leads Mackenzie Fearnley and Shabana Azeez in particular standing out with some well-rounded performances while Ben Hunter as wildcard and the slightly unhinged Dylan making a mark as a character that you're never sure of motivational wise or ability wise.

Standing out from a crowded marketplace filled with similarly aimed independent offerings that often struggle to find notice in Australia's not always welcoming local marketplace, Birdeater can be commended in a multitude of ways but there's no escaping that there's a noticeable inability to maximise what could've been as this initially gripping feature gives way to one you will be anticipating finishing more than once throughout.

Final Say -

There's a lot to like about Birdeater and there's evidence on display here that Jack Clark and Jim Weir have what it takes to make a mark locally and abroad but after a bright starting point, their film becomes more of what could have been not a contender, disappointingly failing to become a must-see it at times showcases to be.

3 dinner toasts out of 5

Jordan and Eddie (The Movie Guys)

I watched this movie yesterday and have to say it was a struggle to sit through almost two hours of mind-numbing action, if you can call it that.

In a nutshell, a guy invites his fiancée to a bucks' night (along with another girl so she doesn't feel too alone); during this time, with the booze and pills flowing freely, uncomfortable 'secrets' emerge as the participants snipe at one another (when it gets heavy, they fight physically). I came away not quite understanding what their issues were - partly because they often mumbled, their dialogue often seemed meaningless, not to mention their drug-induced hallucinations.

The movie's aim is to reveal the toxic relationship of the engaged couple, but the only thing I deduced was that she was super needy and hoping to get a permanent visa through marriage. The other characters are dislikeable, unattractive, loud-mouthed (when they aren't mumbling) and often rambling on about stuff that doesn't seem to have a bearing on the plot - such as it is.

The music is dreadful, often drowning out the conversation. The plot is all over the shop, fluctuating between scenes of boys being boys, or couples fighting, and verbal attacks coming from nowhere with no apparent reason. And then of course the hallucinatory scenes.

At the end, we aren't quite sure what has transpired and the end result, because everyone is being incomprehensible and moody. As for the title, does anyone know what the significance is? There is a scene with birds in the first half, but that doesn't give a clue.

To sum up, one star - because it ends, eventually.

OK, where do I begin?

At the beginning of the movie they have a warning to the audience saying that there's toxic masculinity and an acknowledgment to the aborigines people that they were on their land or something?

I had read this was a horror movie. There was no horror in the movie. I also read a couple of articles where the journalists were apologizing for the toxic masculinity in the film. I didn't see any of that either.

This is one of the weirdest films I have ever seen in my life. This is one of the stupidest films I've ever seen. 99% of this "horror" movie is a group of kids sitting around talking.

Please save yourself nearly 2 hours. You'll thank me later.

1/10 very odd movie.

Very difficult to understand what anyone saying in this film because the dialogue is so muffled. At first I thought it was a British film. I got so excited when I heard the Australian accents because I adore Australian cinema. This is an exception to that rule. The plot had no direction whatsoever. Very confusing. There was no protagonist which makes this film even more uncomfortable. You don't know who you're supposed barrack for. They're all very strange undesirable characters. I didn't like one of them. So had no interest at all in one of them. It annoying to watch because of this and in all a poor attempt at film making.

Birdeater throws Irene (Shabana Azeez) headfirst into a nightmare. What starts as a bucks weekend getaway for her fiancé Louie (Mackenzie Fearnley) and his mates quickly spirals into something far more sinister. The film cleverly avoids revealing its hand too early, building an atmosphere of dread laced with dark humour as the true intentions behind the trip become clear.

Birdeater courageously delves into the dark side of masculinity. The blokey camaraderie on display curdles into something toxic, fueled by excessive drinking, questionable decisions, and a pervasive sense of entitlement. The film reminded me a bit of Wake in Fright, another Australian classic that explores similar themes (there's an explicit reference to it in one scene if you watch carefully). But Birdeater injects a healthy dose of surrealism into the mix. Think of waking dreams and hallucinations that blur the lines between reality and psychosis.

The performances are solid, with Azeez holding her own as the increasingly isolated Irene. She believably conveys a growing sense of fear and confusion as the weekend unravels. The rest of the cast falls into familiar archetypes - the loudmouth larrikin, the nervous follower, and the quiet observer. While they're effective in creating an unsettling group dynamic, there's not a lot of room for nuance in their portrayals.

The real star of the film is the editing. It's sharp and frenetic, mirroring Irene's escalating anxiety. Fast cuts and jarring transitions create a sense of unease, leaving you perpetually on edge. The camerawork is similarly effective, often lingering on unsettling close-ups or lingering on empty spaces, adding to the overall sense of dread.

The film's greatest strength lies in its atmosphere. The Australian outback becomes a character in itself, vast and unforgiving. The use of colour is particularly interesting. The initial scenes are bathed in warm, golden hues, suggesting a sense of normalcy that quickly gives way to a cold, sterile palette as the weekend takes a dark turn.

However, Birdeater's plot takes a while to get going, and some of the dream sequences felt a little indulgent. The ending, while ambiguous, left me wanting a bit more resolution.

Overall, Birdeater is a compelling, albeit uneven, film. It's a slow burn that will stay with you long after the credits roll, thanks to its chilling portrayal of a toxic relationship and its exploration of the darker aspects of masculinity. If you're looking for something atmospheric and thought-provoking, Birdeater is worth a watch. But if you crave a clear-cut narrative and a satisfying resolution, you might want to steer clear. I walked away feeling unsettled but impressed by the film's visual style and its unflinching portrayal of uncomfortable truths.

I don't know what that was all about.

I normally can point a few good things out but this time can't. I even read the other comments to understand this movie but that was in vain I'm sure anyone rating it higher than a 4 worked on the film.

I wasn't behind the scenes, I wasn't writing it nor directing. But you would think at the first audition or table read that someone did not put their hand up and say " I don't get"?

Some directors, writers just can't seem to make a decent enjoyable movie without it being overly over the top "complicated."

It might have worked worked as a short movie rather than 1 hour and 55 minutes.

What happened to the characters? Why was that woman dancing in nude. How about that ending ( scratches head).?

I read it was their first time directing or writing but you're only as good as your last film. I hope they getter better for a mainstream audience. However this TEAM has the skills and tools to do a better film. The actors I hope to see more off.

All the best on your next project.( make sure your audience can understand what's coming from your mind to script.

This is one of the best Australian films ever made. That's the first anyone has said that in many years since we usually don't make anything THIS good.

A psychological thriller with no violence, blood or gore. All verbal. That's something which I find very fascinating about this film. It has the guts to expose the reality of how people act, especially here in Australia where other films depict it very cliche. It's not afraid to make the viewers feel uncomfortable and red faced. Every situation in this film feels like one you've been through, and every character is someone you've hung out with. It's mentally insane how relatable all of this is - in good and bad ways. Each metaphor, each meaning, expands to something much larger. It's incredible.

The long breathable shots allow the audience to be impacted by such strong and raw performances from all of the cast especially during the dialogue heavy sequences specifically the dinner scene where it puts the audience in an uncomfortable position for an extended matter of time. I fell in love with the fast-paced, musically queued editing with those familiar Banjo-Kazooie and Microsoft error sound effects. After six viewings, the soundtrack has been on repeat daily. It will make my spotify wrapped next year 100%.

Give this film the support it needs to help the duo's next feature which is a schoolies thriller.

This was a film that caught my attention when I saw the trailer at the Gateway Film Center. When I realized this would be borderline horror, I confirmed that Letterboxd listed it that way. I caught this at the theater. Something that I'll get to is whether this is in genre. I've also now watched it a second time to see where I sat with it as well.

Synopsis: a bride-to-be is invited to her fiancé's bachelor party, but when uncomfortable details of their relationship are exposed, the night takes a feral turn.

We start this by seeing trees in a red light. It then shifts to what I'm guessing is this couple when they first met at the beach. Louie (Mackenzie Fearnley) is staring at Irene (Shabana Azeez). We see as they hook up, then spend time together to the point where she lives there. This is sped up as a montage where there is something strange that keeps happening. He tells her he is doing different things at night, gives her a pill, she passes out and he goes to the driving range. There is one night where he meets with Murph (Alfie Gledhill), asking for his help with something.

It is after that visit that Louie invites her to his bachelor party. She pauses and he convinces her that his friends are excited. We see that might not be the case though. Joining them on this trip is Dylan (Ben Hunter), who is wild. Charlie (Jack Bannister) is bringing his girlfriend Grace (Clementine Anderson), so that way Irene doesn't feel alone as the only woman. Murph is coming as well. There is also one last person to invite, Sam (Harley Wilson), who Irene might have dated in the past or at least was attracted to.

There are odd and tense moments that happen throughout. Louie doesn't want Irene to reveal to the group about the pills that she's taken. This gets revealed over dinner what it is and it goes in a direction that none of them could have predicted. Other secrets are revealed here as this becomes a surreal, drug fueled night that none of them will ever forget. There are also things that people here will come to terms with as they're all pushed to their edge of what they'll allow.

That is where I'll leave my recap and introduction to the characters. Where I want to start then is bringing up whether this is a horror film. It isn't in the traditional sense. What we are getting is a look at toxic people, relationships and like I said at the end of my recap, a drug fueled nightmare as people come to terms with secrets. The tension is high. It is uncomfortable. I'm still going to include it on my lists, but just know that if it wasn't listed on Letterboxd as in genre, I would leave it off.

Now that I've said that, let me treat this as if it was in the genre. I want to first discuss our lead couple. Something happened between them. There was an accident of sorts where Louie has a scar around his ear and Irene no longer drives. A comment gets made about him only marrying her so she can get her visa to stay in Australia. That gets said early on after arriving and it comes back up later when we see something in a flashback. As different things get revealed, there is much more to this situation. I love that we see this fateful event that puts this relationship on the path that it is. There are things that get introduced as we go as well, so I'm constantly shifting which side I'm on. It ultimately ends with me in the middle. I'll say that this relationship is toxic. Louie is a scumbag for something that he is doing and advice that he gives. I also don't feel bad for Irene with what she decides to do. Credit to both Fearnley and Azeez for getting this reaction out of me.

Let's then look at other characters that join them. First is Dylan. They present him as this odd alpha male who is ready to party. There is a peek behind that facade that is good. It was this second watch that has me wondering about his sexuality. We also have Charlie and Hope. She knows how toxic Louie and Irene are, but stays out of it. She tries to help but runs into an issue with her own relationship. Let's just say that Charlie and her are supposed to be saving their virginities for marriage. I'll just say 'pot meet kettle' applies here with their resolution. Sam is shocked that he's invited. He tries to 'save' Irene and how he factors into an important event was interesting. Everyone here complicates situations, along with Murph and I'd say that all the performances are good to once again, stress me out.

Since this is a character study and seeing how isolating everyone can raise tension, let me go over to filmmaking. This is where it goes close to falling into the genre. The cinematography and framing capture different things. This can be difficult but what they're able to do is excellent to make it feel surreal. I'll also include the sound design and music. People are drinking and using drugs, so that adds to it as well. Making us feel like we are there with them. I also love this opening shot of trees with a red light and how that factored in later. We are limited on the effects that are used, but it also isn't that type of movie. The music also helps with the atmosphere. This is well made overall.

There isn't much more to truly delve into so I'll say in conclusion that this isn't a horror movie, in the traditional sense. This will be a divisive one that will split those that see it. I fall into the camp where I don't necessarily think it is but due to it being listed on Letterboxd, I'm keeping it in. None of that is saying that this is a bad film. It is bleak. It is tense and uncomfortable. I'd also say that it is a challenging film. The acting is good to bring the characters to life and get a reaction out of me. This is also well made with the cinematography, framing and sound design leading the way there. Not one that I can recommend to everyone. If what I said here sounds interesting, then give this a watch.

My Rating: 7.5 out of 10.

I was so bored watching this, this is certainly a VANITY project - made by filmmakers for themselves, Aussies dont even care what an audience will think or FEEL in this case - you feel nothing because no surpises but there isnt a PLOT here. PLOT = STORY- this has none of that , a bunch of disjointed svcenes with mubbling dialogue is NOT a story. I implore the filmmakers and the people at BREATHLESS to study screenwriting. 30 minutes in and nothing has really happened.

But then searching online I find the guy who started the SFF Sydney Film Festival is a cofounder of the production company. So, the fact that all BREATHLESS film were accepted into the festival Not based on their merit is a CONFLICT of interest. And there have been far superior films made in SYDNEY that didn't get into the festival - explain that? Thid film is trying to be artistic, trying too hard to be different, so it has a unique voice. BUT to do that you need STORY, and this lacks that as well as the super loud sound design and music that drowns out the mumbling dialogue. On that note that sound design is too weird it wrecks the atmosphere of an already doomed picture. There is no strong anything here at all, the actors seem uncomfortable and the chemistry between the 2 leads is so awkward and is bad casting. And once again we are in the middle of the bush with a bunch of white people with the one token black girl, no diversity at all. The lead is not chiasmatic or interesting or engaging, just wooden and 2 dimensional. The film is shot well, so that's all I can give marks for. And 2 hours for this is way too long when you have no story to tell, using the film reference Wake in Fright as inspiration or in Homage to is just so wrong as it doesn't even come close. In the final 10 minutes the film tries to invoke a LESSON but it's too late when there was no story to begin with. People will say that you didn't understand the film but that's rubbish, in closing don't waste your time. Read my other reviews to see how supportive I am of the film-industry in Oz, I go and rent and buy all Aussie films and even go out to all the Q&A's so read my reviews and you will see what the very best of OZ Cinema has.

Clark and Weir, the co-directors of this small Australian film, are intent on wringing the most out of their premise, which keeps a cast of six in a single (albeit outdoor) location for >90% of the runtime. Their cinematography has a lot of surprisingly inventive shots - an early highlight is when we see Dylan, the bearded, tense dude keeping the others on edge with his behaviour light a cigarette. A totally ordinary moment made into something more when the camera captures the flame of the lighter being reflected in his eyeballs.

Dylan is someone we are naturally predisposed to dislike from the start, yet grow to appreciate more as we see him act more restrained than one might assume initially and as we learn the completely justifiable reason for why he acted that way. He is far from the only example - after we get about two-thirds of the way in, our perception of virtually every character has undergone a transformation.

Unfortunately, the resolution just doesn't feel commensurate with that new knowledge. While the directors do achieve a tense ending sequence with almost no budget, that kind of ending is itself contingent on the inaction of virtually everyone else, which just doesn't feel plausible in the face of something as extreme as the scenario presented to us. Even in one of subplots, the way the script treats the concepts of forgiveness in the face of hypocrisy also comes across as more than a little self-serving.

Consequently, it a fairly interesting, subdued film which is ultimately simply not as meaningful as it could have been.

The only point to this film was to prove that anyone can make a movie. And here we see that doesn't mean they should.

All the reviews giving this film one or two stars explain why it deserves zero. Everyone who reviewed this film negatively is a better writer than whoever wrote this screenplay.

So many others have panned this film so well for it's unforgivable garbage content. I agree with EVERY low review for their accuracy.

This film had no plot. And when something semi-resembling a plot appeared, it was quickly lost in a film trying to be interesting. None of the characters are likeable, and perhaps that's supposed to be the point? Even the big reveal was disappointing. It just made the film seem even more inane, unnecessary and unappealing.

This wasn't entertaining at all, it was an exercise in futility, self gratification (for the makers) and annoyance.

ALL REVIEWS FOR THIS FILM ABOVE TWO STARS WERE PROVIDED BY PEOPLE WHO WORKED ON THE FILM.

That's obvious. Given they describe and compliment things about the film that it DOES NOT contain.

😂👌👍

Charlie Kaufman's psychological thriller 'I'm thinking of ending things' has a lot in common with Birdeater. I watched Kaufman's masterpiece 5 times. I watched Birdeater two times so far. I have schizophrenia so I see things differently to many people and I'm awarding Birdeater a 9. Kaufman's work I rated a 10. Both films have weird tangential interludes which are out of time or sequence with the main story so you need to concentrate and stay focused on what is happening and build the story in your head. If you're looking for a fast burn horror thriller, this is not for you. You need to decide is the protagonist gay? For example. 😀

Underneath the sun-drenched facade of the Australian Outback, the film unfurls like a flower laced with venom, exposing the dark undercurrents of love, trauma, and the unquenchable thirst for hedonism.

In the vast tapestry of modern cinema, *Birdeater* threads an unsettling narrative into the fabric of bachelor party escapades, crafting a visceral experience that challenges the very construct of relationships and the fragility of human psyche.

At the heart of this unsettling narrative is our ostensibly jubilant bride-to-be, whose effervescent smile conceals a labyrinth of unresolved trauma and emotional turmoil. As the group embarks on what should be a classic celebration of impending nuptials, the irrepressible chaos initiated by copious amounts of alcohol and indiscriminate drug use soon gives way to an unnerving unraveling of their relationships. We witness a meticulous disintegration-nuances of discomfort and hints of masked malice skimming along the surface of joviality.

The film bespeaks its thematic ambition, intertwining the enigmatic consequences of trust -- both freely given and inadvertently violated -- and a cynical predicament of partner swapping. Irene, ensnared in a web of her own trauma, embodies the psychological complexities that permeate the narrative.

Through deftly penned monologues and a masterclass in dialogue, the screenplay manages to elevate the mundane exchanges to harrowing revelations. The standout 'best man' speech is a glorious encapsulation of the film's intent: it's both hilarious and horrifying, revealing the abyss that lurks at the edge of their perceived revelry.

As an astute observer of human behavior, *Birdeater* beckons the audience to contemplate the insidious ways men can leverage emotional and physical damage-often inflicted by their partners-against them, manipulating them to reaffirm their own sense of control. This creeping malevolence is delicately intertwined into the fabric of the film, demanding cerebral engagement without granting easy exposition; the dialogue floats like a silken thread, ultimately clutching the viewer's attention as we navigate the intricate dynamics between each character.

The film's pacing, while occasionally meandering, serves as a deliberate apparatus to enhance its psychological torment. The initial act stretches interminably, setting an expectant stage, before unleashing a trio of plot twists that send shockwaves through the narrative construct. The revelations come fast and furious-ones that reverberate through one's mind like a dark nocturne. Even as the viewer may anticipate certain turns, the deft execution leaves one breathless, pondering the overlain moral ambiguity of alliances and enmities among the colorful cast.

Visually, *Birdeater* is nothing short of a masterclass in cinematography. Captured through a suggestive lens that dances upon sensuality and intrigue, the framing and transitions parallel the frayed emotions of its characters, transitioning from exuberance into an unsettling disarray. This juxtaposition of beauty and horror draws the audience deeper into the visceral experience, providing aesthetics that are not merely ornamental but are integral to the unfolding chaos. The cinematographer's understanding of body language enhances the film's psychological weight, transforming an innocuous celebration into a magnetic dread.

Adding to the film's atmospheric prowess is its eclectic score, which deftly navigates the tonal shifts-from the joyous to the sinister. It serves as an auditory compass, guiding the viewer through moments of levity into dark recesses of existential doubt, all punctuated with an 'Aussie flare' that lends authenticity to the narrative.

The cast, in an ensemble effort, is strikingly effective-each character meticulously crafted, bringing to life the juxtaposition of humor and intensity that the film demands. Their performances oscillate between comedic relief and profound emotional resonance, punishing the audience while simultaneously enthralling them with their relatable human flaws.

In summation, *Birdeater* is a striking examination of the precariousness of relationships and humanity's inclination towards self-destruction. It's an evocative narrative that challenges its audience to confront discomfort and engage with complexities that transcend surface festivities. While its story may not cater to all tastes, the wicked dance between indulgence and revelation renders it a noteworthy contribution to the genre of psychological thrillers. With striking cinematography, layered character arcs, and meticulously crafted dialogue, the film stands, albeit imperfectly, as a twisting journey through the unforeseen horrors that lie beneath the surface of seemingly cheerful debauchery. Overall, I'd give this film a 77%.