I saw a box-set of 3 films i had never heard of that was only £6, so i picked it up.

They are basically b-movie monster movies.

The trilogy actually starts off pretty well. It's an effective little low-budget horror with an engaging start. Basically you're in a remote bar and the camera pans around it introducing the folk present. They have a line or two of dialogue with each other and then a freezeframe with a caption describing them.

Particularly amusing are -

Name: Bartender
Occupation: Duh.
Fun Fact: Shot three times, stabbed twice. Was once bitten by a squirrel.
Life Expectancy: Dies horribly in 70 minutes.

and

Name: Pete
Occupation: Cripple
Fun Fact: Hates juice.
Life Expectancy: They wouldn't would they?

Once these vignettes are over, a blood-splattered guy walks in with a shot-gun in one hand and the head of a monster in the other. He plonks it on the bar and says "These fuckers are coming. Get ready." Then the film starts in earnest.

Great start. As things progress and things happen, a couple of characters get new captions showing how they've changed and new odds on their survival.

There are a few scenes where taste is doubtful, but generally the monsters are the bad guys and the victims band together to overcome them. Any screwing over of other people is generally unforseen or an accident.

This is where the second and third films fall flat. First off, only 1 of the survivors of film 1 return (even though it follows on from the finish of the first film) and the new cast are just a bunch of arseholes who throw each other to the wolves in order to survive. Where the first film had moments of genuine tension, black humour, as well as squick, the follow ups are more interested in squick and not morally dubious decisions, but out and out douchbaggery. One guy gets all heroic and rescues a baby, only to throw it to the monsters when they start to chase him. Could have been darkly amusing, but just ended up being a scene that could have been dropped. We have dissolving grannies being used as test dummies for a capapult, a biopsy scene where the scantily clad biker girls get drenched in monster come, midget wrestlers getting torn in half, people being left for dead, an injured person being thrown off a roof to distract the monsters while others run for it. The list goes on. Taken in isolation, any of those things can be darkly comic, taken as a whole, it's uninteresting compared to the first film.

So, in closing, for £6, not bad. The first film is pretty good, the other two pure exploitation flicks with nothing like the cleverness or tension of the first.

The Feast films came out of Project Greenlight, as I recall, and was the only success of that ill fated attempt to bring 'new blood' to Hollywood by giving first time writers and directors a shot at going pro.

The problem, as I understand here, is that the same dude is responsible for all three.

Figures. Still, the first effort is decent enough.