David wrote on 03/06/2010:

If you liked the others you will also enjoy this one. Apart from the two eye-candies who show front, their acting is okay, and Rebekah Kochan is awesome, very funny, as usual. I saw my friend`s DVD but I intend to buy one. Own the trilogy.

Paul Anthony wrote on 12/27/2009:

I am a believer in Chris Salvatore and he will continue to get my support in all his future endeavors. Finally politically correct portrayal of homosexuals I have longed to see. I also want to give credit to Ariztical Entertainment. You keep going with your ideas and you will be the standard by which gay films will be made. I thoroughly enjoyed watching this film and will watch it again and again. Thank you all

two4699 wrote on 12/25/2009:

The third in the line of Eating Out series is a really good light-hearted romp showcasing a bevy of very good-looking, well built young men, with the return Tiffani (resident slut). This movie never pretends it is a major dramatic/romantic Hollywood blockbuster, but instead asks us to suspend disbelief for 80 minutes and delve into the dysfunctional world of a very cute, nerdy Casey (Daniel Skelton) and studly, handsome Zack (Chris Salvatore).
With the mis-guidance of Tiffani (Rebekah Kochan), Casey is lead down a path of doom, and gloom in his quest to be Zack's boyfriend. Along the way twists and turns produced from Zack's jealous ex-boyfriend, and Tiffani's ex-boyfriend are woven to keep Casey and Zack apart.
With the addition of two seasoned actors, Mink Stole, and Leslie Jordan we hear some pearls of wisdom, as they impart their craft to this film.
The Eating Out series is fun, audacious, irreverent, and cram-packed with one-liners, dirty jokes, and sexual imagery.
Buy the series, it's a laugh out loud good time, with a few heart warming moments thrown in to make them all good movies.

Green Giant wrote on 11/17/2009:

i thought the first film looked like someone shot it with a camcorder
on his lunch break. so i was pleasantly surprised that the second film
looked like it had an actual budget and in my opinion is one of the
all time great gay sex comedies. so i was stoked for the third film.

boy was i ever disappointed. while it had decent production values
and frontal nudity the script and acting was no where near as good
as in #2. plus the characters played by Jim Verraros and Emily Bird
Hand who i got to like are killed off before the film even begins. also
according to this film there are apparently no masculine or straight
gay guys in L.A. in other words the main set of characters are wayyyy
to stereotypical to be funny.

usnjake wrote on 11/13/2009:

Okay, I am not too sure the film was worth waiting for, but.. here goes.

I am a little uncertain what I can say about this movie. It has cute guys, it has a rather innocuous theme, some suggestiveness and sexual playfulness, and did I mention it had some cute guys? However, somehow its sum parts just didn't seem to add up to cohesive whole.

First off, I guess I was put off by how the main characters from the first two chapters were written out of the current story (no spoilers here). Secondly, Rebekah's character has become just a bit too risque for my tastes...

I think what bothers me most about this third chapter is that is has all too easily slid into using sex and jokes in lieu of a stronger plotline. The film is more of a softcore porn film than it should have been, although I would be a liar if I didn't say that the nudity in this film wasn't too easy on the eyes, especially Chris Salvatore (he has the most stunning eyes I've seen on screen in quite some time).

Some of the sight and word gags worked fine. It did do an interesting job of playing up Casey's innocence.

Now... that said, I am not totally slamming the film. I thought the acting was okay considering what the actors were given. Its low budget roots clearly show more strongly this time around.

The leads were all nice to look at and seem to have some chemistry and had fun together making this film

What the film is, is a light-hearted sex romp... and that is not necessarily a bad thing... what it is not, is a serious contender for anything being relevent. It is not quite as clever as the first two films, but in itself, the film is more than passable... I've seen better films and I've seen much, much worse!

All in all, I guess if I were giving the film a grade I would say it a weak B-. Easy on the eye, easy on the mindset, not too challenging and maybe just a bit of a guilty pleasure. I'd say it will probably sell well as its heart is in a good place, I just think the script needed (maybe) one more polish before going in front of the camera.