Glucedee It's hard to see any effort in the film. There's no comedy to speak of, no real drama and, worst of all.

Neive Bellamy Excellent and certainly provocative... If nothing else, the film is a real conversation starter.

Kien Navarro Exactly the movie you think it is, but not the movie you want it to be.

Cassandra Story: It's very simple but honestly that is fine.

Rodrigo Amaro Andy Warhol's experimental film "Eat" is all about a man eating mushrooms in its almost 40 minutes of projection, only interrupting such act to joyfully play with a cat and have some deep inner thoughts which the audience must imagine since there's no dialogs whatsoever and silent above all. This is another fascinating experiment coming from the same artist who made us watch a man sleep, another getting a hum job, and couples kissing, among other precious works. Boring to some, futile to others, or amazing to few fortunate viewers, "Eat" is just what it proposes and nothing more, and that's why it is quite a good film. What Warhol gives us, other than the just an almost frozen image of a man sitting eating mushrooms, is the imagination, it's the small details, it's trying to figure out what this man is thinking and each viewer will create his/her own conclusions. And the director couldn't find a better actor for the job. The man eating the mushroom is played by Robert Indiana, a very expressive figure who sadly only appeared in this short film, but he makes an impressive acting. Take a look at his facial expressions while eating, staring at the camera for brief moments, his love for the cat that suddenly appears on his side, and his genuine and affective smile that reveals a true joy that unfortunate it might be invisible to us. Is he smiling because someone told him to? Is he seeing something funny we cannot see? Or eating mushrooms cause such sensation? I don't know. What I do know is that he's perfect for the role and he's born under my star sign, one of the most patient signs of all (if not the most), Virgo and be patient to perform in something like this is completely necessary, not very easy to do. One could get easily distracted, bored in just sitting in front of a camera and keep on eating something for more than half an hour. I wouldn't be shocked if viewers find "Eat" a boring film. But no, Indiana has Job's patience, moving a few times and enjoying himself. If you're open to real yet unusual film experiences and don't mind to focus your attention on a men eating, "Eat" is a good way to know about Warhol's underground films. I'm only rating this lower than "Blow Job" because that was a more challengeable film while this was almost like an exercise, presenting us an simple act extended to a long period. 7/10

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!

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.