Dead Birds (2004) User Reviews (150)

Hit and miss

[johnsamo-1 · 5/10 · 20 May 2005]

In terms of production value, the film looks great. It's got better actors than most horror flicks and the FX and monsters are good. It also has a good creepy vibe to it and some good scares. The problem is, the script doesn't really go anywhere after they get to the house... Its basically a series of creepy scenes where the cast dwindles as we go along, but you don't really have a sense of escalating tension.

The first half worked fairly well, but it doesn't change much as it goes along. We get some backstory as we go that wasn't that creepy to me, and its also pretty clear they didn't know how to end it. The ending they have just doesn't work at all.

My biggest complaint though is the soundtrack which is way too repetitive and is basically a ripoff from the Shining soundtrack.

Its okay if you want to get some decent scares, but its not going to blow you away.

It's watchable, not as bad as other's have portrayed it

[slake09 · 7/10 · 27 March 2005]

This isn't great horror, but it's definitely good enough to watch; I would watch it again in a minute. Certainly the territory has been covered before with shock horror and a twist ending, but I wasn't expecting some great burst of originality, just a decent movie experience, and I found it.

There are the standard horror clichés; people where they shouldn't be, ignoring all the warning signs and acting somewhat stupidly. You've seen it before, you'll see it again, and it's here in all it's splendor - however, that doesn't spoil the movie. There are decent special effects, some good shock moments, and a twist at the end to fulfill your expectations and keep you from falling asleep.

It's worth a rental if you're in the mood for some horror and nothing else catches your eye.

Interesting if anything

[dunnypop · 6/10 · 14 September 2004]

I just watched the film at the Toronto international film festival (during the midnight madness screening), and I didn't know what to think going into the film.

So the plot goes like this. A bunch of civil war renegade/criminals rob some confederates for gold, and then venture to a hideout place (huge abandoned mansion) that was recommended by someone. But something is wrong with this place... something very wrong.

The movie is similar to the lines of an Evil Dead style horror film. People go into a house, something is wrong with the house. Many conventional elements happen within the film as well, and some interesting ideas come as well. There were some jumps, but unfortunately there could have been more, and it could have been more suspenseful with a bigger payoff.

The problem that I found with the film, was the character development. there was some substance with each character, but they didn't expand on much of it. They didn't expand too much of about the monster / villain the film either. It was kind of a let down. Defiently compared to another low budget horror film, that I just saw at the festival (Creep).

With such a low budget, the special effects were great. The film has a decent look to it and the music was fantastic. Overall, I had a good time, but if it was in a normal theater, it would be a huge let down. 6 out of 10.

A gang of bad guys meet something even worse than them.

[DigitalRevenantX7 · 4/10 · 13 October 2013]

Story Synopsis: Fairhope, Alabama in the year 1863. A group of army deserters rob a bank, causing a bloodbath that takes the lives of several people, including a young child. Fleeing from the authorities, the gang decide to take refuge at an abandoned farmhouse that was recommended by a now-dead soldier. As they stay in for the night, a mysterious & malevolent ghostly presence begins to pick off the robbers one by one. With tensions in the group rising, the remaining robbers must battle not only the demonic entities but their own prejudices in order to survive.

Film Analysis: If you ever wondered what on Earth happened to child star Henry Thomas, star of E.T. – The Extraterrestrial, consider your question well & truly answered. His return to the film industry after a long hiatus should have been celebrated, given his iconic status.

Dead Birds is a ghost story set during the American Civil War (for international readers who don't know, this war occurred when the USA split in two over a dispute stemming from the US government's attempts to abolish slavery), where the heroes of the piece are a band of army deserters (& a nurse) decide to improve their lot by robbing a bank & fleeing to Mexico with the loot. If only they decided to change their transit hideout instead of staying at a haunted farmhouse…

The film, despite a creepy opening credits sequence, never takes the viewer by the throat – instead opting for a relatively subtle atmospheric approach. This should have worked well with this film were it not for the fact that the script needed some revising. Until the climax arrives, all we get are a bunch of ghostly apparitions (with some pointless CGI work done to their faces that looks very silly) & the gang's mistrust of each other leading to their downfall.

The reason behind the ghostly phenomena is not explained until you reach the very end & even then you don't get the full picture. Instead you start to put the pieces together after the film ends, with each piece of information making sense once you re-watch the film (the human-looking scarecrow, the footprints that change shape, the demonic ghost children). The only part that doesn't fit is the skinned creature that appears when the bandits reach the farmhouse. As it is, the film doesn't quite fulfil the requirements needed for an entertaining horror film. Dead Birds instead makes an interesting but ultimately pointless haunted house tale.

On the acting front, everyone gives a serviceable performance. Henry Thomas, despite being forever associated with his iconic role as Elliot in E.T., actually makes a good actor in his adulthood, even if he is never given much room to work in.

Not bad, but not great either... a wasted opportunity!

[BA_Harrison · 6/10 · 20 March 2006]

In the wonderfully bloodthirsty opening to Dead Birds, a gang of ruthless criminals hold up a bank, killing everyone inside and getting away with a fortune in Confederate gold. They travel to a deserted farmhouse, where they intend to spend the night, before travelling to Mexico to share their ill-gotten gains.

But, in the tradition of many a horror film, this particular house is home to some hideous demons, unleashed by the owner in a black-magic ritual gone wrong.

Director Alex Turner is content to take his time building the tension and setting the mood, and this is perhaps his undoing; by the time he is ready to unleash the demons and let the horror truly begin, the audience has had to sit through far too much chatter from the thieves and watch their aimless wandering around the spooky old house. A few effective shocks (using pretty good CGI FX) are thrown in to liven up the proceedings, but it just isn't enough – even a few more gory moments do little to improve matters.

After a promising start, I thought I had discovered a real treat. Alas, it turned out to be nothing more than a so-so affair.

Good horror film.

[fedor8 · 6 April 2007]

Much better than most of the horror stuff that gets thrown our way these days. The premise of a deserted house in the middle of nowhere being occupied by supernatural forces is hardly a new one, but it matters not. What does matter is the appropriate soundtrack, a good atmosphere, and a gradual but effective set-up of events. Yes, the movie does tend to be a tad too slow in the first half, but as long as there is a sense that something ominous i.e. interesting will happen that is never a problem. The effects are good, the direction is skillful, and the dialogue and acting are above-par for a horror film. The creatures do not look too original, but at least they're not an n-th rehash of "Alein" monsters, which I think we can all do without. There are smaller problems with how certain characters react in certain situations. The ending is interesting: have they all become demons the moment they entered the property? Or was that symbolic of the fact that they were all sinners i.e. murderers hence automatically demons in a sense? The Civil War setting is certainly fairly unusual.

could of been much better

[RickHarvey · 5/10 · 5 May 2010]

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.

A solid addition to the horror genre

[SGAngel · 6/10 · 17 September 2004]

I saw Dead Birds Thursday at noon at the Film Fest and it scared me silly. The story line is simply bank robbers during the 1860s enter a haunted house as a hideaway during a nasty storm only to discover the deadly secrets that lay within. I found the backstory to be interesting, especially compared to movies like The Ring. Either tell me enough or don't tell me at all. I thought the Ring was silly since once Naomi Watts solved the puzzle in the videotape, she still was poised to die. So why explain the story? It seemed more a tool of exposition, than as a living part of the film.

Here are some highlights:

I really enjoyed how the director was able to keep the house fresh for the entire length of the movie, although I agree with previous reviewers that some parts lagged from too much exploration of the house. Luckily the house is scary enough to warrant the set up of mood. If the rooms in the house had more function, perhaps it would feel less slow. It's hard to explain without spoiling any of the secrets of the film, but the rooms are laboriously set up to explain the backstory later. Each room has an event tied to the backstory. The performances were just pitch perfect. I liked that there was no modern references and the accents stayed pretty consistent. I don't know how much character development a haunted house story requires. They are robbers. If the learn something through the experience, it sort of cheats the purpose of the story: that is, them getting their butts kicked all around town by this ghoulish house.

Now, some negatives:

I kinda wish there weren't so many loud noise boo scares but they still scared me silly! Unfortunately, I also knew when they were coming. In fact, every major scare comes with a sound blast. Also, although I thought the backstory was too clear (albeit interesting), one audience member in the crowd asked for clarification. So I guess the film can't win. The film repeats the backstory nearly thrice.

*Spoiler alert*

But I thought after the appearance of the father to Patrick Fugit an hour in it was pretty clear what happened.

*End spoiler alert*

Anyhow, I loved the ending which was a perfect way to finish it off and it does have a twist, although it doesn't overshadow the film. The movie is one of my favourites from the festival because of how it set up mood and tone and since this was the director's first film, I think he'll only get better and more confident in letting the material scare the audience, opposed to the sound effects.

Still, I'd take this over RE2 or Alien V Predator any day.

Good story, poor execution

[Jess-Dellen · 5/10 · 11 June 2022]

Painfully long bits punctuated by cheap jump scares. Underutilized cast. Story was interesting but it wasn't told well.

Did someone recommend this to you because you like The Burrowers? They're not your friend.

Why such a low rating for this film?

[SlimAdey · 7/10 · 31 March 2006]

Anyone reading the rating for this film (5.6) would assume this is a slightly better than average horror flick.

In fact its only the way IMDb calculates the weighted average that gives it such a low score - the median average is 6.6 which still too low for this film.

This is a way above average horror flick.

Setting the action in the time of the American Civil War works brilliantly. The story moves at a delivered tempo due to the excellence of the largely unknown cast, the spooks are spooky, the shocks are shocking but the real tour de force is the soundtrack.

From early on in the piece the music gives the film an edge - remorselessly maintained throughout yet never intrusive.

A high quality watch. Not a classic - not an award winner just a thoroughly enjoyable 90 minutes of escapism.

You wont be disappointed.

Wasted opportunities

[jet66 · 2/10 · 18 August 2008]

This is a classic example of a semi-competent film in need of a story. A great deal of work was put into atmosphere, and the actors work very hard. But the plot - if you can call it such - is a tale full of sound design and furious art direction, signifying nothing. In short, I think the writer - if there was a writer - had to be lit like a Roman candle when he or she typed out the disparate story lines here (which are never developed and only hastily resolved in terribly brief, unsatisfying scenes). Most of the action involves the usual "let's split up and search" trope, and the "scares" from creepy things jumping out at the viewer.

Sad, sad sad waste of perfectly good film.

A fun little horror picture.

[Ky-D · 8/10 · 17 March 2005]

I have long felt that the western genre was ripe to be mixed with the horror genre and it's nice to finally see someone agree with me. Mixing the elements alone wouldn't have worked if the film was lacking, fortunately that is not the case.

During the civil war period, a gang performs a violent bank robbery and then steals off, heading for the border with Mexico. Along the way they stop for rest at an abandoned farm. During their stay it begins to become increasingly clear that things are not right with the house and the land it occupies. Before long survival becomes the only question.

The set-up itself is not original, but the time period most certainly is. It takes an already violent period in history and puts an even darker twist on it.

Complimenting the action well is an overall nice cast that seem to fit their roles and avoid chewing the scenery. I give biggest props to the creature designers; though there is precious little footage of the beasts, what you do get to see is unique and frightening.

One of the better horror films in recent years, combining atmosphere and suspense with some good-old-fashioned visceral scares for max effect. The only glaring problem is a prodding mid-section of the film that runs on a little too long without much happening.

Quality scares worth a look.

8/10

Great Twist Ending

[moviemaniacslash · 6/10 · 22 May 2005]

With a film that deserved to play in theaters, horror fans will now have the pleasure of seeing what is truly a surprising film. Packed with great performances, a great hook, fantastic special effects, and a twist ending that will surely please the most jaded film buff, Dead Birds deserves a place in your DVD collection. Taking a well worn premise, Dead Birds fashions it as a period piece and deliberately builds slowly to maximize tension and frights. While not a monster fest, the director wisely and selectively trots out his beasts for the most dramatic impact. Henry Thomas gives an astounding performance and makes you question why we do not see more of him. Overall, an intriguing experience all the way to the final frames.

Creepy but deeply flawed

[Leofwine_draca · 4/10 · 19 March 2015]

Wow, DEAD BIRDS starts off on a strong footing, with an well-staged bank robbery and subsequent trek through the countryside by a band of renegade soldiers who've abandoned their army during the American Civil War. The film boasts strong production values for a low budget, and plenty of atmosphere in its depiction of the war-torn countryside. The cast is pretty interesting too, with the likes of former child star Henry Thomas, a pre-fame Michael Shannon, and Isaiah Washington excelling as the soldiers-turned-outlaws.

I really thought we were going to be in for something special here, because for the first hour DEAD BIRDS puts every foot right, especially thanks to a wonderful soundtrack. It's all single, extended notes and distorted noise, and it builds up a superbly creepy atmosphere as the gang reach a haunted house in the middle of nowhere and bed down for the night.

Then, sadly, it falls apart. Nothing much is explained, and instead the group are picked off one by one by barely-seen spirits. There are some gory bits, and some more creepy bits, but none of it makes much sense, and it stays like that till the very end. I loved the Lovecraftian flavour of the unfolding incidents but with a better story this could have been something special; as it is it just sort of lapses into nothingness.

Fly to see Dead Birds

[senschick · 17 September 2004]

I thought the pacing was excellent! I was hooked from the very beginning when the first possie of soldiers road into town.

Really great. Ominous. The music was fantastic. So much so that I wanted a mute button because it got me shaking in my seat. The acting was strong - I had a soft spot for Michael Shannon - he has a Christopher Walkeness about him:) I have to tell you that I hid my eyes every time the music reved up for a "BOO" moment so I didn't see all the special effects!!!

I was with a friend who is a big horror fan and he said that he really enjoyed it.

So would I tell my friends to see this movie? the ones that I know are Thriller/horror fans YES!

Much to do about a truly horrible movie!

[monstershow-1 · 3/10 · 20 April 2005]

First off, the title DEAD BIRDS has no context within the story whatsoever, except for a close-up of one dead bird. Genius!

I do not know how to explain the overly kind and blushing reviews for this film other than to question if they were crew generated. It is difficult for me to believe that audience expectations have dropped to such an abysmal level. DEAD BIRDS though having had some apparent care taken in its production, lacks drama, is virtually plot less and not clever at all. An amateur story at best, had DEAD BIRDS been shot on digital video (for say, FULL MOON STUDIOS) I think hit squads would have said it was absolute garbage. I guess people are mesmerized by the fact that it was shot on film. Which leads me to question how this film even got made ... much less, at a budget that I believe was two million dollars? How did this movie get distributed by a major player?

An hour into the film and things are just meandering along. Yeah, it's got your standard spooky music, spooky lighting and a thunderstorm but it is missing any real narrative or story structure. The characters are cardboard and uninteresting with no character development and their actions are consistently illogical. Strange, supernatural things happen in the story but, for much of the film, there is no suspense because there is no reason (or even a foreshadowing of a reason) given as to what caused these thing. Sure, it's got a weird, foreboding house but is that enough? DEAD BIRDS comes across as a uninspired, compilation of scenes that the fan boy writer lifted from legitimate scary movies. Worse, when the reason "why" is finally revealed ... nobody cares. The surprise, twist ending that follows is just as pointless. Give me EVIL DEAD any day!

Another beef of mine. DEAD BIRDS is a very gory, rated "R" film and the director even asks (in the DVD "Making of" ) that the FX people actually ADD exposed genitals to the main monster's body. Yet, during a love scene, it is apparent that production could not convince the plain-looking actress to show anything but her naked back. In an "R" rated film with a love scene, either deliver, at least, some of the goods or pass on the love scene altogether. In the afterglow of the love scene she's wrapped up so tight in the bed sheet that she could be a mummy. Network TV has hotter love scenes than DEAD BIRDS.

Save your time and money and just watch a re-run of any TWILIGHT ZONE episode ... you know, back when writers knew what they were doing.

Reasonable Low-Paced Horror Movie

[claudio_carvalho · 6/10 · 30 October 2005]

In 1863, in Fairhope, Alabama, a group of former Confederate soldiers robbers a commerce bank and kills many clients and employees. While escaping to Mexico, they spend the night in an isolated house that belonged to a dead soldier of their company. When weird events happen in the stormy night, they find that the dwellers are demons.

"Dead Birds" is a reasonable low-paced horror movie. The watchable and forgettable story has good special effects and entertains, without being special. Indicated for a rainy weekend only. My vote is six.

Title (Brazil): "A Casa dos Pássaros Mortos" ("The House of the Dead Birds")

What in the world?

[nyw_21 · 1/10 · 17 August 2005]

I did not like this movie at all. I have no idea why anyone would say that they liked this movie or understood it. It had no point and I still do not understand the title "Dead Birds". Where are these dead birds at? Are these humans mixed with birds? What do birds have to do with this movie? The movie was very confusing by who was dead and who was alive and what was happening to these people. It as dark, demented, and sickening. The synopsis of this movie that encouraged me to rent this movie was very misleading and incorrect. The only thing scary about this movie was how loud the noises were and those ugly people with no skin on them jumping out all over the place. Other than those facts this was neither horror or a thriller. This movie was so bad that it put myself and my guests to sleep. We got up the next day to try and watch the movie again, while barely staying awake, we managed to choke down this god awful movie and it's entirety. I wish there was some type of way that you could get a refund on movies that you rent that you are completely dissatisfied with. This movie would be on the top of my list. Do not waste your time renting or purchasing this movie.

Spooky but that's about it.

[jmbovan · 6/10 · 16 September 2019]

Good acting, and interesting concept. But this ends being just spooky. Didn't really go anywhere but in it's own circle. Time period isn't relevant as it is only about the mystical happens that took place before and are still present. Not bad for a late night watch.

Intense but..

[blumdeluxe · 3/10 · 15 January 2019]

"Dead Birds" tells the story of a group of Bank robbers who try to hide in a lonely house where they are haunted by the souls of a number of innocently murdered people and begin to disappear one by one.

I watched this movie at nighttime alone and I will admit that it has its atmosphere. Even though some of the effects are horrible and should have been left out, you begin to be drawn into the plot. However, as much as I admire that the producers at least try to make some sense of what happens, most of it is just plain nonsense and I'm generally tired of demons and lost souls wandering around. I think it could have been a far better movie if they just noticed they're in a murderer's house and began to fight over what to do about it.

All in all this is not a flop but unfortunately follows the path of hocuspocus and supernatural horror that is not very believable. For those who like this genre, I would even recommend it, for others it can be a fun distraction from more serious titles.

It had its moments, but could have been better...

[paul_haakonsen · 6/10 · 15 July 2019]

Initially I wanted to give "Dead Birds" a mediocre five out of ten stars, but given the fact that the movie does have a Civil War backdrop to it, and because of the cast, then I am upping my rating to six out of ten stars.

"Dead Birds" is your average horror movie, essentially, when you look at the greater picture. It is fairly generic and straightforward, offering no twists and turns along the way. At least not before the very end. However, to the movie's defense, then the twist at the ending was so enjoyable. And also one of the reason why I upped it from five stars to six stars.

The storyline is about a ragtag group of Confederate soldiers whom rob a bank and seek refuge in an old, reclusive mansion, which is long abandoned. It doesn't take long before the bandits come to realise that they are not entirely alone at the mansion. In fact, something dark and sinister is there alongside with them. And as things slowly start to unveil itself, the dark past of the mansion, the bandit soldiers find themselves at the mercy of dark, wicked forces.

So essentially a fairly generic storyline and script from writer Simon Barrett.

The movie has some pretty familiar faces on the cast list to perform for the various roles and characters, with the likes of Mark Boone Junior, Isaiah Washington, Patrick Fugit and Henry Thomas.

The special effects in the movie were fairly good, just a shame that the director, Alex Turner, didn't make too much use of special effects throughout the movie. A shame, really, because it could have boosted the movie's overall enjoyment quite a lot.

"Dead Birds" is watchable and enjoyable enough for what it turned out to be. Just don't expect a grand masterpiece in the horror genre.

Excellent film for a straight to video release!!!

[RICKYD2000 · 5/10 · 27 April 2005]

Definitely worth renting. Amongst all the Hollywood crap released week after week, I strongly recommend checking this film out. No CGI special effects but rather going back to the basics seen in old 80's horror movies. Decent script and acting for a straight to video release. Refreshinfly different, and even worth purchasing for DVD collectors. If there was an award show for straight to video releases, Deadbirds would be nominated if not win most awards. I realize that this is not saying much but trust me and just give it a chance. Definitely a hidden gem. I don't understand why it did not get any distribution in theatres.

Damnation and Doom at the Plantation of the Dead!

[hitchcockthelegend · 8/10 · 19 May 2013]

Dead Birds is directed by Alex Turner and written by Simon Barrett. It stars Henry Thomas, Nicki Aycox, Isaiah Washington, Patrick Fugit, Michael Shannon, Mark Boone Junior, Harris Mann and Muse Watson. Music is scored by Peter Lopez and cinematography by Steve Yedlin.

1863 and it's the back end of the American Civil War, a group of Confederate deserters rob their own army's gold being delivered to the bank of Fairhope. Leaving a bloody trail in their wake, the group set off for Mexico but must stop for rest and recuperation at a deserted farm mansion over looking a long dead plantation. With a storm moving in and tempers among the thieves running high, it soon becomes evident that something otherworldly resides at the house and the surrounding area.

Dead Birds is a little cracker, a straight to video horror film that to my mind puts to shame some of the big budgeted piles of crap that get released to the multiplexes on a seemingly weekly basis. Of course, horror is very subjective, where along with comedy it forms a pair of genres guaranteed to produce films that will never ever please everyone. Falling into the haunted house sub-genre of horror, Dead Birds, in spite of its unique Civil War period setting, has been lambasted by many a horror fan for not being fresh, that it's a collage of other horror movies. There's some truth to that, but we could level that charge at 98% of horror movies anyway! But Dead Birds (crap title btw) does have a cult fan base, a fan base I'm very much proud to be part of.

Alex Turner, for his first feature length debut, has crafted a haunted house picture that positively pulses with dread, with its slow deliberate pacing and hushed conversational tones, the atmosphere crackles with unease. The opening credits are jet black and rise from the earth like spectral portents of death. Then after the fireworks of the robbery, things settle into a sort of ethereal rhythm. The gang make their way to their doom through a murky landscape until they reach what they don't know is their final destination; the plantation, a place that just reeks of death and disharmony.

The cornfield is long dead and home to a strange creature, the battered old scarecrow looks ripe for a fright and a dead bird on the floor is ominous. The house itself is a two story wooden type not used often in tales of this type. It looks moody, as does the servants quarters, there's also a creepy barn with its hayloft and a water well of course. These are genre staples for sure, but Turner gathers all the clichés and gives them a new lease of life in a new period setting. The secret is in the lighting, Turner and Yedlin (Brick/Looper) light from down low, giving off a wonderful eerie effect as the gang trudge around this place of misery. It may sound like an oxy-moronic statement, but this is one beautifully shot horror film.

Then there's the shocks, the boo-jump moments (sadly revealed in the trailer for those unfortunate to not see the film first), these are not frequent so as to make the film reliant on them, they are used sparingly and only to advance the plot as the plantation's history literally comes to life. The cast are on fine form (Thomas and Washington standing out), working well with a dynamic infused with greed, mistrust, jealousy and racism. Lopez's musical score blends foreboding rumbles with spine chilling shards of noise, while Turner slots in some oblique angles to further enhance the feeling of hopeless disorientation. It may cover familiar ground, that of a bunch of folk in a spooky house being bumped off one by one, with suspicions aroused, but Dead Birds is very much its own animal. Hee, literally. 8/10

Didn't come across any bird even after revisiting this movie.

[Fella_shibby · 6/10 · 7 September 2019]

I first saw this in 2005 on a dvd which I own. Found it to be slow. Did not recognize Michael Shannon then. Revisited it recently on Amazon Prime after one of my pal kept on praising it. I thot mayb I need to revisit it to check if I missed the birds. Ther still ain't no birds man. The film is still boring n Nicki Aycox's double chin is a bit turn off. She was good in Joyride 2 though. I am generous with 6 cos of the the creepy cornfields with the isolated house n the creature effects. The film Husk (2010) has some really creepy cornfields n scarecrows. I did not like this film cos they did not utilize the creatures, the kills were offscreen, specially the horses n the western set up is not at all explored n too much of chit chat n darkly shot scenes. The film Burrowers (2008) got some good creatures n kills n the western set up awesomely done in it.

The film is about a group of army deserters who rob gold from a bank n during the flee one of em gets shot. They come across an unusual creature n a creepy scarecrow in an abandoned plantation. They still rest in the nearby isolated house to avoid an incoming storm. Throughout the nite they experience strange n scary occurrences. As usual things gets complicated as everyone wants their share n to leave the place immediately but the leader doesnt want to leave till morning n doesnt want to do the distribution of gold before reaching Mexico.

Big fan of horror n western genre mash but this ain't a good mash.

Not impressed by this one.

[deloudelouvain · 5/10 · 7 December 2020]

Western and horror, not really a mix we are used to, so I was intrigued by what this movie was going to be about. After watching Dead Birds I can't say I was impressed by it. The plot is quite weak, not very interesting to watch and that despite they tried to create a creepy ambiance. To me they failed and it's not the couple jump scares that will change anything about that. The CGI's were of average quality, the monsters looked creepy but there was room for improvement in that sector as well. The cast consists of good actors but that's not a guarantee for a good movie. The sound effects, that are most important in horror movies, were mediocre, not really contributing to create an eerie ambiance. Dead Birds is a missed opportunity to create something special and different.