PiraBit if their story seems completely bonkers, almost like a feverish work of fiction, you ain't heard nothing yet.

Brendon Jones It’s fine. It's literally the definition of a fine movie. You’ve seen it before, you know every beat and outcome before the characters even do. Only question is how much escapism you’re looking for.

Orla Zuniga It is interesting even when nothing much happens, which is for most of its 3-hour running time. Read full review

Gary The movie's not perfect, but it sticks the landing of its message. It was engaging - thrilling at times - and I personally thought it was a great time.

Michael_Elliott Death Bed: The Bed That Eats (1977)** (out of 4) Hear me out. A bed that is possessed by a demon eats anyone who gets on it.Yes, that's pretty much the story of this film, which was written and directed by George Barry. This one filmed turned out to be the only film Barry ever did and it's certainly unlike anything else out there. I've read several reviews about this film including a few in books that discussed the worst movies ever made. I also read about it in Stephen Thrower's Nightmare USA where it was given a different point of view. Personally speaking, I can see why some would call it one of the worst movies ever made but at the same time you have to admit that the film is original and it does contain some fresh ideas.DEATH BED: THE BED THAT EATS is a very strange and surreal movie. There's a certain European feel that hangs over it and there's no question that it has a certain atmosphere that is hard to explain. The entire idea of a movie about a bed that eats people is ridiculous but at the same time how many times do you watch a horror movie and then bash it for being the same old thing that we've seen countless times? You really can't say that about this movie because it is original and there's nothing else like it.Obviously when you're dealing with a movie about an eating bed, there's not too much that can be done in regards to a story. There's very little plot here and the majority of the running time are just short vignettes that have a variety of people show up at this castle, sit on the bed and get pulled in. The special effects certainly aren't anything great with the "bubbles" coming up and then we get a cut-away of the people inside the bed. The visual images of "inside the bed" are decent for what they are.The performances are pretty much what you'd expect out of a low-budget exploitation movie. There's some decent blood throughout as well as some nudity so the director at least knew how to build up the movie. I'm not sure if it was accidental or not but I did find stuff here to enjoy. It's certainly a very weird movie but I thought it was at least mildly entertaining.

ironhorse_iv Honestly, this is one of the strangest movies I ever saw. It felt like absolutely surreal, dreamlike cult film. At the edge of a grand estate, near a crumbling old mansion lies a strange stone building with just a single room. In the room there lies a bed. The major imaginative thrive of the movie is that it is narrated by the Victorian artist Aubrey Beardsley who is held captive inside the wall behind one of his paintings next to the bed. Born of demonic power, the bed seeks the flesh, blood and life essence of unwary travelers. My favorite victim in the film was the gangster who tries to shoot the bed with his gun, as if that will help. Well, three girls then arrive on vacation, searching for a place to spend the night and find themselves sleeping on the bed that eats people. George Barry's uniquely weird journey into horror through a world of carnivorous furnishings was a bit out of this world! Comedian, Patton Oswalt once quote that this movie was one of the most awesome movies he ever saw. By watching it, I can clearly say, he might be putting a bit of a sarcasm tone into that. Still it was pretty entertaining. Who knows, a bed can drink Pepto Bismo, fried chicken and orange soda?! The bed can also make flowers grow out of a skull, lock doors, give jewelry to dead people and even masturbates for some odd reason. This movie is a true testament that every horrible idea for an object-based horror movie has been nearly done. I wasn't scare at all, but laughing. The movies take it-self so serious, but for me, it felt like a comedy horror. It could have been better, with a better writer. The concept is good. Truly a bed that eats people can be scary in the right hands. A good example of that is 1984's Nightmare on Elm Street with what happens to Johnny Depp's character. In this film, the writing is a lengthy, monotonous, rather incomprehensible story, related by the ghost about two-thirds of the way through the film, about how the bed came to be a bed that eats people. There is another strange series of scenes displaying a woman inside an underground coffin on the estate of the cottage and nearby mansion that I have yet to figure out how it fits into the story. The gore effects in this movie were pretty bad. I like how you can clearly see where the pins connect one fake bone to the other on the clearly fake skeleton hand on the guy after the bed eat him. The sound mix is a bit annoying. The acting is dreadful. The actor who speaks Beardsley's voice is a little bit better than the other cast. His pacing, accent, and inflections are hypnotic alright. Pay attention if you buy this, the dad from "Boy meets world" is in this as one of the characters brothers. In fact, I'm more awestruck by the fact that they started shooting in 1972 and took 5 years to finish this movie. Then nobody would release it for two more decades after its completion. When it finally came out, according to the DVD extras, Barry seems to have even forgotten he made it. It's one of those movies, so bad, it's good. So give it a try, and sleep on it.

Tromafreak Never has the words "hidden gem" been so accurate. Bad movie lovers might search all over for the next hidden obscurity, sometimes coming up short with stuff like Weasels rip my flesh, but other times, luck will prevail and you might end up with something like Death Bed, then hopefully realizing it's not a bad movie at all, it just has a bad title, and not even a bad title, but a humorous one that might throw you off, but Somehow Death Bed obviously still fits into the "bad" category, and there just ain't no way around that. With a vibe that's somber and empty, Death Bed is a true masterpiece of low-budget horror, reserved only for those fortunate enough to appreciate such a dark shadow of a vision.Death Bed involves an incoherent, yet intriguing relationship between a demon in the bed and the sympathetic ghost trapped in the portrait, who only wishes he could spare someone from the awful fate of being devoured by the yellow suds. Although not all that scary, considering it's about a killer bed, Death Bed possesses the qualities that make for successful horror. A dark, desolate vibe, confusion, an eerie, subtle score and that dream quality that this masterpiece almost flaunts. Such a quality, or vibe usually seems unintentional. Not only is it intentional, but from what I've read, Death Bed is based on an actual dream, George Barry, the director, successfully transferred dream to film, only a genius could accomplish such a task.Old mansions make for good quality horror, as do portraits. Not sure what to make of the killer bed with its killer yellow liquid. A bizarre dream, indeed. Also, this isn't quite the brand of B-horror I was expecting, considering the cheesy title and all. Before viewing this Gothic gem, I expected something more like Class Reunion Massacre. Now thats a bad movie, if you've seen it, you know what I'm saying. After considering all of the above, I feel like Death Bed deserves eight stars, but the mysterious charm of this one lingers long after the arrival of the internet era, which counts for something. 6/10

innocuous When I attended college in the early 70s, it was a simpler time. Except for a brief occurrence in 1994, I've been totally free of the influence of illegal substances ever since and I've never regretted it...until now. DB:TBTE has got to be, hands-down, the best movie to watch when stoned. The odd, dreamlike state it creates is very strange when you're not smoking anything, but I'm sure that it would seem completely normal after a big doobie. (Not that I'm recommending this, you understand.) The soothing narration, provided, as it usually is in quality cinema, by a TB victim trapped in a painting, would be ideal to help the stoned viewer to follow along as things get complicated. Plus, everything in the film is pretty organic...from old-fashioned natural breasts to the bucket of fried chicken.Now, there's also no question that the young man with the (ahem) "hand problem" is absolutely sailing away in the film. At one point, you just KNOW that he's going to say, "Hey! When I move my hand, it leaves trails!!" Trust me...you'll know when you get to that point.The only other thing we have to address is this: How good can a film be when at least half the budget was spent on moving a huge bed frame around for interior and exterior shots? Definitely a must-see for horror aficionados, but suitable for the general audiences under the right conditions (if you know what I mean, and I think that you do). It only earns four stars because I can't actually say that it took any talent to make.