The final entry in the Feast Trilogy is probably the finest of the three films and certainly the most satisfying in a cinematic sense. Director John Culager has produced an epic finish to his work and in the process made an outstanding stand alone motion picture as well. Here he has perfected his stylistic technique, influenced by the French New Wave Extremity Horror films. Sensitively observed and arrestingly impressionistic, the tension and suspense is at times overwhelming as Culager creates an sinister atmosphere of fear and dread. He certainly gets great work from his wonderful cast and Clu Culager, the director's iconic father, gives what's virtually the performance of a lifetime as the grizzled, heroic bartender. The closing scene will be talked about for many years as it's quite reminiscent of Reed's The Third Man and Antonioni's The Passenger. It is a brave artist indeed who allows the drama and suspense to build naturalistically with a static camera as an actor's expression alone tells us all the audience needs to know. Culager obviously trusts and respects both the script and his actors. Powerful, horrifying, and quite a deeply fascinating cinematic experience, especially for those familiar with French New Wave.

I haven't read up on the making of, but this one feels like it was shot back-to-back with part 2. Actually it feels more like a successor (in tone and story-wise) to its predecessor than part 1 does with any of those two sequels. If you take into account that the first one was the best one, that isn't really a good thing though. But we have our written introductions back, which is a nice thing. Still worked best in the first Feast movie though.The subtitle of the movie is happy finish, but I kinda have a feeling they wanted to use "endings" instead of finish. I might be wrong, but that would have been more of a fit (especially thinking of "sloppy seconds" and its meaning). Some nice ideas and one theme towards the end, that reminded me of something out of a Monthy Python movie (and the Holy Grail that is). And because you can't satisfy everybody with an ending, we get the "wtf" treatment here. Same director as the other Feast movies

Loved the first two, very unpredictable and amusing.This one feels formulaic and dull. You can't really tell what is going on (as mentioned elsewhere) most of the scenes are in darkness with flashing lights and shaky camera work.I had to constantly prize my finger away from the fast forward button as the characters twittered on or trudged down another pitch black sewer.It feels like this film is the unwanted runt of the litter, undernourished and unloved.The ending was so bad I wonder if the director has grown bored of the Feast franchise and hammered nails into its coffin so he wouldn't be bugged about making a fourth.

Even though I have seen all the FEAST films this one is the first of the series I have commented on, I liked both FEAST 1 and 2 but this one, was too overdone and by that I mean the outrageous gross out humor, in the first one it was gross true but it was always unexpected, in two where they took it up a notch it was also still unexpected even if it was more gross, now with three there was no humor it was just gross and when the film gets around to the part where our favorite group of survivors starts to crawl around in the sewers, its so dark the only thing you can make out during the action scenes is screams and roars because you can't see anything.If you look at the acting you'd probably say these people need to find another profession but if you look at the material you'd think if any of these people can keep a straight face in a film like this they deserve an Oscar.Overall, this film had the potential to be hugely entertaining, but the execution was simply put to stupid to make it so, and thus it is the weakest entry in the series