Carnifex

I will say that I found the cover for the 2022 horror movie "Carnifex" interesting enough to pick it up. And with "Carnifex" being a horror movie that I had not already seen, nor even heard about, of course I opted to watch it.

The storyline in the movie, as written by Shanti Gudgeon, definitely had potential. However, the movie was just too slow paced and ineffective. It was clear that writer Shanti Gudgeon and director Sean Lahiff were aiming at tension and atmosphere, more than they opted for a traditional gore horror movie. It didn't really play out all that well in my book, especially because you have to wait 56 minutes before you get a glimpse of the creature. And by that time it was just too little, too late, especially since the movie ran at 93 minutes in total.

"Carnifex" is a slow paced movie with a narrative that actually doesn't offer all that much to the audience. But if you consider watching three people walking around in the wilderness, looking at camera traps exciting, then you are definitely in for a treat. I was expecting a tad more than just that, so I found "Carnifex" to be somewhat of a swing and a miss.

And with nearly 1 hour into the movie before things start to happen, I have to say that my patience and interest in the movie was fast waning.

This is a movie with a very small cast ensemble, so there was an additional amount of pressure on the performances delivered by Harry Greenwood, Alexandra Park and Sisi Stringer. They actually fared well enough, taking into consideration the lack of a properly engaging script and storyline.

Visually then "Carnifex" was okay. I mean, you don't get to see anything interesting before 56 minutes into the foray. And with less than a couple of minutes, perhaps 2 or 3, of screentime, then it made for a rather dull creature feature.

Sure, the atmosphere and tension in the movie was good, but the narrative was just too mundane and slow paced to keep things interesting.

My rating of "Carnifex" lands on a very generous four out of ten stars.

Neither awfully bad nor fantastically good, Carnifex has the misfortune of being okay at best. That said, it is largely unmemorable when compared to other, similar films (Animal, Sasquatch, Exists, Bear Country), some of which may be more worthy of your time.

Grounding itself in a real-world tragedy (the 2020 bushfires that engulfed much of Australia), two biologists; Grace (Sisi Stringer) and Ben (Harry Greenwood), accompany a director, Bailey (Alexandra Park) into the bush, with the intention of raising awareness about endangered fauna.

Little do they realise, human interference has forced the Carnifex - a supposedly long-extinct animal - to move closer to civilization in search of food, with the three travelers wandering into its territory.

It should be said the film's locations look superb - the Australian wilderness looking especially beautiful. This tranquillity, along with the revelation that most Australian animals are nocturnal, means the film's first half, most of which is set during the day, does little to create tension or ambiance; two things almost entirely absent from the movie.

The film's editorial decisions - like cutting between two characters, revealing an almost mirror image of their conflict, is effective. Though characters are provided some minor development, at least to the extent we feel confident in their professionalism, they also suffer the brain-dead disease many in horror movies do.

The worst example of this is when an ultra-violet camera is used; one person is covering another, to make sure the creature is not around, and after using the camera for a second, they decide that using their eyes, in the pitch blackness of the night, is the better option.

Another major issue with the film is the monster itself. On one hand, I'll give credit to the filmmakers for creating something that not only looks quite amazing, but also appears like it could genuinely be part of the Australian ecosystem. That said, we never see the Carnifex until the last few minutes, and by that moment, it is too little too late.

Despite seeing a couple glimpses of shadow and silhouette during the introduction and the second act, it is difficult to create stakes when we don't know what we're meant to be afraid of. Many may recall the 'bigger boat' scene in Jaws, which happened around the movie's half-way mark; I think Carnifex needed something similar, because it is impossible to fear something that may be little bigger than a squirrel. It is not helped that the creature has a habit of changing its vocals on a whim, reducing its authenticity.

As a film that addresses the state of the Australian environment, Carnifex may be seen as a half decent project - however, a horror movie, this is surely not. Carnifex isn't so bad that it should remain extinct; but it is also unable to compete with other films that can genuinely make us afraid of entering the woods.

Australia has 2 kinds of horror: that which involves mostly torture on screen, and the creature type.

Now I have to say, as much as I dislike the torture/gore genres, I absolutely love monster movies. So here is where Australia, land of plenty, shines. They brought us good such productions ever since Razorback (1984) and continued doing so with, Rogue, Black Water and now Carnifex. I think of all these mentioned, Carnifex had the smallest budget, and you can see that here, but other than that, I have to give it credit.

It got itself some nice views, good actors that delivered, one different monster than what I've seen before, all wrapped in a little in the back forest horror that worked quite nicely for what it is.

Thus I shall recommend this one, because horror isn't just mainstream, it's also productions like this one, delivered from passion, that maybe doesn't make the biggest splash, but it's still a nice way of spending 90 minutes.

All in all, definitely recommended for creature movie fans, it works quite viewed late at night. Cheers!

I enjoyed this movie, even though eventually it seems like it falls flat.

First of all, I enjoyed the scenery, forest trip, campfire, nature views, light conversations - I liked that part, it seemed happy and easy, and entertaining to me.

I liked the actors and the characters, they played well.

The suspense build up was good, felt some "Predator" vibes there, you know, at some point the pressure grew like characters were being stalked and in danger, while being unaware of it. That was executed well as per my opinion.

The ending is really when the movie should've risen to its peak, but instead it fallen flat. Some bad decisions have been made during this movie creation, I guess. So, characters suddenly became silly even though as biologists they should've probably known better how to act around predators and kept safe.

Moreover, as the creature is in the center of this movie, it should've been well written and thought throw, etc.

But instead, we get this creature with overall bad design. I'm not talking about the CGI (although they were pretty lackluster in half of the scenes), but mostly its behavior, motivation and history. There is no justification in movie itself about how this could've all be possible.

So, yes, I enjoyed this one.

Still, I was a bit disappointed, because I really saw the potential for it to be so much better in the end with just a little more work.

Wow ... this one ... well I have conflicting thoughts ... but in the end there is just so much more bad than good. OK, GREAT locations, and the scene direction is actually really good. Turning off the sound and watching the scenes go by would actually have made this more enjoyable.

That said, the script was AWFUL. Is it so hard for low budget producers/directors to understand that this is one of the most cost effective way to take a movie from crappy to excellent? So if you settle for something you scrawled out while on the can, well you should have left it in there. And audiences do want to be preached to, STOP IT!

The absolute overuse of crud moves (as one reviewer described them as 'jump scenes') ... oh my, what a waste.

It bugs me when some reviewers give high marks when they consider only one or two factors. Yes, I agree the scenery is great, but if the rest of the components of a good movies aren't there, you should not get high rating.