Greenes Please don't spend money on this.

Maidexpl Entertaining from beginning to end, it maintains the spirit of the franchise while establishing it's own seal with a fun cast

Aubrey Hackett While it is a pity that the story wasn't told with more visual finesse, this is trivial compared to our real-world problems. It takes a good movie to put that into perspective.

Zlatica One of the worst ways to make a cult movie is to set out to make a cult movie.

Jon Noel Shelton 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!

alexduffy2000 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.

jchokey 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.

MRBICKLE 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.