Carnage Park (2016) User Reviews

Really Enjoyed The First Thirty Minutes, Got Pretty Bland After That

[HorrorOverEverything · 5/10 · 4 July 2016]

Carnage Park is a brand new horror film from Director Mickey Keating. Keating put out two pretty solid horror films last year, Pod and Darling, so I was pretty excited check out his latest offering. Plus from the trailer the film looked to have a grindhouse type feel to it, that combined with the fact that the cast featured Pat Healy (Innkeepers, Cheap Thills, Compliance) and Ashley Bell (Last Exorcism, Last Exorcism Part 2, The Day) was enough to make me want to see this on it's release.

Almost immediately the film had me interested, the opening scene does a good job of setting the tone of the film, then from there they jump right into a homage to one of the great scenes from Quentin Tarantino's "Reservoir Dogs". The first thirty minutes or so were very Grind house esque, I liked that a lot. The first character we are introduced to (Scorpion Joe) is a very cool character, the type of character that we usually don't see in horror films like this. Then we are introduced to our leading lady Vivian (Ashley Bell), Bell plays the part well but her character was pretty uninteresting in my opinion. Unfortunately though right at the thirty minute point the film started to get pretty bland. The Grind house style is thrown to the side and instead we are treated to a rather familiar scenario of a cat and mouse game between an attractive female lead and a crazy psychopath. Pat Healy does a decent job as the Killer, he is under used though and does not get enough screen time.

Of Keating's three most recent films (Carnage Park, Pod, and Darling) I would say that Carnage Park is the weakest. It really borrows too much from other movies and fails to do much to stand out. It's not a terrible movie, as I said the first thirty minutes were done very well, but the last hour or so of the film is just basically a rinse and repeat of so many other cat and mouse type flicks. Probably worth watching for die hard horror fans who need their horror fix, but outside of that I think most people will find "Carnage Park" fairly bland and boring.

Slasher in the desert

[searchanddestroy-1 · 6/10 · 23 October 2021]

This lousy, lame movie belongs to the survivals, slasher which take place in the wilderness; a topic not really new since several decades now. It is not DESIERTO, nor HUNTING PARTY I warn you, but it remains fun and entertaining, rather fast and not boring at all. For horror fans, especially slashers. The good thing here is that you won't die of a brain stress trying to understand the story.

You Missed

[nogodnomasters · 5/10 · 29 October 2017]

Vivian Fontaine (Ashley Bell) is taken hostage during A robbery of Mackin Bank (Macon already done) in southern California 1978. Prison escapees Scorpion Joe (James Landry Hébert) and is Mice and Men side kick Lenny (Michael Villar) pass through the private property of Wyatt Moss (Pat Healy) a one man militia where trespassers are hunted. At this point you get the idea as Vivian must fight for her life.

This is a me-too film which starts off rather well, Tarantino grindhouse style and peters out very quickly when the only guy with personality is killed off. Vivian has a flashback to the bank, but no clever flashbacks to her time as a dirt farmer giving her skill and courage for survival.

Guide: F-word. No sex or nudity.

A nutcase hiding in the desert with a sniper rifle. Sounds fascinating. The end result wasn't as fascinating.

[peterp-450-298716 · 3/10 · 31 July 2016]

"Brothers burn faster when they're burning together."

The only positive thing about this film was Pat Healy as the crazy ex-marine Wyatt Moss, who set up his own personal amusement park somewhere in the bone-dry desert in California where he lures lost backpackers and hunts them down as a real psychotic hunter. He gratefully uses his talent as a sniper during these chases. The few times he speaks in this movie, show that he's ready for the nuthouse. Especially the dialogue with his brother, Sheriff Moss (Alan Ruck), is a memorable moment with that intonation and those facial expressions. Wyatt gave me the chills here, acting as a real psychopath. Just because of this scene, I'm planning to watch some more films with Healy playing in it.

I also thought that the sometimes eerie soundtrack and sound clips reverberating from the megaphones weren't so bad. They emphasized the insane mind of Wyatt. But otherwise this was a meaningless crime film, starring a madman fascinated by religion, who has his own safari park where victims try to survive. Thus a typical survival film. The last victim here is Vivian (Ashley Bell). She was kidnapped by two layabouts who tried to rob a bank and ended up in Carnage Park. It isn't very original and to be honest, there isn't happening that much essentially. It's during her stumbling flight that Vivian discovers other victims. And surely you can expect some fragments that are similar to those in other famous horror movies.

The thing that amazes me every time, is the stupidity of the main character. When you take matters into your own hand, make damn sure you do it thoroughly. Such a madman wouldn't get a second chance with me. But no, Wyatt with his gas mask (which reminded me of a CD cover from "Therapy?") resurfaces once again and the cat and mouse game restarts. And a cat could well have an advantage in this game, because it was largely pitch dark in this film. Several times I checked if the power went down, because in the end I couldn't see Jack sh*t most of the time. Also, the attempt to emulate the feel of a 70's movie wasn't really successful.

Actually, you can compare this with Mickey Keating's previous creation "Pod". Also, a so-called horror with potential. Good intentions are clearly present and there are also some positive aspects can be seen, but ultimately it's all vague and disappointing. Even downright violence and bloody fragments can't prevent it's becoming pretty boring and tedious halfway. Not to mention the announcement that this film is based once again on true facts. That won't make it an exciting movie, unfortunately.

More reviews here : http://bit.ly/1KIdQMT

Boring n unnecessarily lengthy. The shaky cam, flickering lights n blank dark screens will give u headache.

[Fella_shibby · 3/10 · 18 October 2016]

The movie started well. Killer with a sniper gun. Pat Heally acted like a true psychopath. His facial expressions n accent is good. The deserted highway, bank robbery, hostage, all these gav me hope that this might b another Wolf Creek or another good thriller. I was wrong. The movie went downhill. Inspite of being only around 77 mins, i found the movie very tedious. At times i felt like switching off the movie. The soundtrack is awful. Larry Fessenden is jus there for few mins. Some of the scenes were so badly shot that I felt like turning my face away. Shaky cam, hand held, flickering lights in darkness were too tedious for me. Some scenes jus went blank (dark screen). I don't know what purpose does that serve. So many clichés. 1)When u take down/beat up a villain/creature/psycho, make sure that they r dead or completely down. 2)Whenever the main lead is terrified he/she accidentally stabs a scissor or a knife in an innocent person.

The ole' college try

[rosecalifornia · 3/10 · 16 July 2016]

You can see they really gave it a good try with this film. In a very broad sense,as a hiker I can see the idea of a sniper up in certain hills here in Southern California and that would be horrifying.

But the thing is, you can see that in every single scene the writer, director, even the cinematographer had been influenced -greatly- by other films they had watched and he shows.

This movie is almost like multiple movies thrown together and not linked well at all. Another thing to note is the audio/sound guy, you have to wonder if he is self-taught in the garage? It seems he is trying to create or copy a certain type of effect from Goodfellas for instance - but it ends up sounding extremely amateurish.

Better once it stops trying to be a Tarantino film

[jtindahouse · 7/10 · 14 July 2016]

'Carnage Park' starts out a very different film to the one it finishes as. It starts out trying to be overly stylish with slow-motion shots, flashbacks, over the top characters and music blaring over the top of scenes. All things you'd commonly see in Quentin Tarantino films, the only difference is that he has the ability to pull them off. So the film wasn't off to a great start. I've scene directors attempt to replicate his style before, usually for the entire duration of a film, and it is simply unbearable. Luckily for 'Carnage Park' it gives up on that pretty quickly and settles into a fun little film.

I think the element of using a sniper as the killer in films is under utilised in Hollywood films. It really is a creepy little device. You can never be entirely comfortable (or at all for that matter) when there is a sniper around. You are simply there one moment, gone the next. There's a bit of a 'The Hill Have Eyes' feel to this one, only with a slightly more realistic villain. Every scene is intense and a lot of them would fit nicely into any modern horror film. There's actually a lot to like here and if people push through the first 15 minutes or so I think they'll find they're quite enjoying themselves.

Derivative

[mysteryman7162 · 1/10 · 3 July 2016]

I spent 90 minutes of my free time watching Carnage Park. Five minutes in a voice inside my head kept saying "Turn it off!Turn it off!" Now I wish I had. It's not that Carnage Park is offensive or reprehensible, it's that it just was so derivative. There were bits of many much better films all ripped off and slung together. Seeing reference to: Wolf Creek, Fargo, The Hills Have Eyes, The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, The Getaway, Dusk Till Dawn and even House of a 1,000 corpses (not that the last one is a good film) just reminds of how good horror can be and how poor this film ultimately is. Clearly the film was going for a seventies vibe, but it never go it. By all means watch this film, but then watch one of the films I mentioned and see what I mean.

only the darkness of the mines bothered me

[trashgang · 7/10 · 16 December 2016]

Made as an ode to flicks from the seventies this flick sadly do has it flows. It all starts pretty well with the future and the past perfectly blend into each other but the further this one goes it turns into a few problems.

I can dig the whole story so-called based on true events a bit like they did wit Texas Chainsaw Massacre (1974) even the color grading used reminded me of those good old exploitation flicks.

But it's the ending, especially in the mines that took a bit too long for me because naturally it's pitch black in mines but it's also filmed that way. So many moments the only thing you see is a black screen.

But luckily the effects used were above mediocre. There aren't that many in it but the shooting in the head and the results are really a must see for gorehounds. Don't get me wrong, it is still worth picking up but as said, the mines could have been a bit shorter, it would made it a perfect flick.

Gore 1/5 Nudity 0/5 Effects 3/5 Story 2,5/5 Comedy 0/5

Keating; Cutting his teeth, or just not cut out?

[MK_Ultra_ · 2/10 · 12 July 2016]

I was hoping for more with Keating, moving forward from his first few lukewarm offerings.

I was not only let down, I was shaking my head at this one. I'm concerned his directing style needs some editing, and I'm not talking about his film. Everything about this film is a "distracting" quality.

The god awful Seepia, the terrible editing, the lack of tension, the music. Trying to remember where I'd seen just about every moment in this film before became the distraction, because not only does he lack execution across the board, (we're talking a mish-mash of unoriginal concepts and ideas) he flounders at story telling and making you want to watch. Keating may play the role of a "horror director", but he seems not well steeped in atmospheres or creating a level of dread that quite possibly, all the terrible films he lifted from, did. (in most cases). The concept of a B-movie horror film isn't even prevalent.

I gave it a 2, and not sure why? Someone put a bug in his ear, that he has talent and should keep making films. That someone needs a 3am wake up call.

What indie thriller cinema is all about

[horizon2008 · 9/10 · 3 July 2016]

I'm not sure what film the first reviewer here watched but it doesn't sound like the one I saw. Carnage Park is fantastic, with a great level of tension all the way through and while I've never been a fan of Ashley Bell (in her silly paranormal movies) she really was a revelation in this - her first appearance in the film not even looking that important until she takes over. Carnage Park is the kind of film Rob Zombie wishes he could make and while I wasn't that impressed with the directors last offering Darling (though many were) he knocked it out of the park for me this time. Thank god people still put effort into making movies like this instead of garbage and nonsense like The Conjuring 2.

Something different

[mjsreg · 7/10 · 29 November 2016]

Overall this film isn't bad at all. Thought has gone in to making something that is visually different - which makes a change from the usual formula lighting and angles so many other budget productions mimic.

Ashley Bell brings her unique acting style (and general gorgeousness) to the story - which complement the visuals. As usual, her acting is superb.

The performances of other cast members is equally superb, presenting developed believable characters.

My only criticism is that the story could have had more depth and we seem to go from the middle of the story to the end far too rapidly.

Being based on true events, I would think that the writers had more than enough material available to create something a bit more well rounded.

SPOILER: This Film Sucks

[atomicis · 1/10 · 29 May 2017]

Started out as everyone else said, appearing to be a grindhouse / "tarantino-esque" movie, but ends up ( and by ends up, I mean the last 2/3rds) utterly boring, predictable, and then unresolved. It poses as a documentary in the end, with a postscript of how the killer's body was NEVER FOUND (I'm scurred now) and that's just the cherry on top of this shite sundae. I LOVED "Grindhouse", Reservoir Dogs, even the campy "Texas Chainsaw massacre". This movie couldn't decide if it was dark humor or just dark feces, and it's the latter.

Tries very hard to be something,it is not...

[aramt-07935 · 3/10 · 26 June 2019]

Tries very hard to be something,it is not... the only good thing about this film is a great performance by the actress,who was also in The Last Exorcism ...the rest is very boring........

Started off so great, with so much potential!

[dainamariebradley · 3/10 · 9 August 2021]

I loved the '70s vibe, the old cars and style, with the sepia cinematography that doesn't always add to a film, but was amazing the way it was used here. After awhile though, it deteriorated into nothing but 'special effects' with muffled, crazy weirdness over loudspeakers that wasn't scary, then it became too dark to see anything (maybe it would be better viewed at night.) I heard a random possible gunshot here and there, but honestly I was bored through to the end. The first half was interesting, but the second was a big fat zero. I gave stars for the cinematography and the acting, which was excellent, for the first half, but ultimately, the film was a big fat disappointment. Seemed to try too hard at being "artsy" and that left a plot that fell flat, especially since it was based on a true story. I love desert horror/ thriller movies, usually. The 'Reeker' films were much more interesting to me, because they saw the plot through to the end. I'd give a sequel a chance, just in case there was a more engaging and complete plot, but would go in with low expectations.

Bizarre

[Saiph90 · 1/10 · 12 December 2016]

Around 20 minutes from the end I checked how long left and more or less kept checking how long left until this awful film came to an end, I thought we had an early release but then realised the screen had gone black for no apparent reason, maybe we were suppose to be scared at what we could not see, sometimes it is better to leave the monster reveal near the end.. The only good thing about the movie was it only lasted 77 minutes. So where do we start, we have a half baked back story for the kidnapped girl, I knew we were in trouble when 50% of the cast died in the first ten minutes, we had an attempt at a Tarantino cartoon type film, a hill's have eyes type etc, at times it was like someone who got a book of quotations for Xmas and uses quotes every other sentence, the director must have been giddy with all the nods to various other films. We had awful irritating music, insipid acting, a non existent script, a boring plot and some of the worst cinematography I have seen in a long while, long lingering sweeping views of chem trails in an appalling sepia nod to the 70's style. I have finally had it with horror films, this was the straw that broke the camels back. I know it is a harsh comparison but look at Hitchcock's 'The Birds' how the film unfolds building the tension, each scene redone until it was perfect and this, I would be stunned if any scene was redone, awful, terrible film.

Not exactly knocked out of the park ...

[kosmasp · 6/10 · 19 May 2017]

But you know, not that bad either. You may argue (succesfully) that there aren't that many likable characters in this. But that would not be the point. It's about a situation people find themselves in that is way worse than anything they may have as a baggage. Having said that, the movie may have some critical social commentary floating along the way, but is not hammering it home.

The action and suspense is there and the movie is nicely told. The flow works and the characters while not morally sound are at least believable. Watch with friends if you are squeamish or easily scared. Otherwise just "enjoy" a movie that has a couple of shocking things on display

Don't waste your time

[mrozman-1 · 2/10 · 5 November 2016]

Seriously, this was a waste of my time. Completely stupid, trying to incorporate bits from other movies that were good and even with the stolen bits, they still couldn't manage to put it together. I stopped watching it and starting writing this when there was about 12 mins. left but I could care less that I didn't see the end. Possibly the worst movie I've seen but they could shoot and the people that made the movie knew what they were doing, just a POS film. Now I'm just completing the ten line minimum so that I can complete my review and save other viewers from wasting their time. It's hard to believe that people have the time and energy to waste their time on such ridiculous projects.

The good parts make up for the bad parts

[lemon_magic · 6/10 · 9 October 2018]

I understand why some reviewers didn't care for "Carnage Park", but I think that (with some exceptions), the director accomplished what he wanted. Whether his goals were worth pursuing, well...that's up to you.

Lots of 70s and 80s tributes are mixed into this, obviously meant as homage and not rip-off. The most successful of them is the Tarantino style "Reservoir Dogs" homage in the first 30 minutes. And here's where the director came through - I thought "Carnage Park" was going to be one kind of movie featuring "Scorpion Joe" (yaaay, James Hebert!) , but it abruptly turned into a version of "Texas Chainsaw Massacre" with a sniper (and/or "The Most Dangerous Game").

And the focus of the movie suddenly switched to the less interesting character of the "kidnappee", who suddenly became way more interesting, displaying impressive reserves of toughness and courage. That kept the movie from degenerating into the kind of nihilistic death march of mewling victims that made "House of 1000 Corpses" so disagreeable. Again, a pleasant surprise.

It's a brutal movie that dares to end without the usual mean stinger ending (which gives it another star).

Grindhouse done WRONG

[CobraMist · 2/10 · 31 December 2016]

Old school grindhouse movies typically operate by using some sort of hook to bring the viewer in (extreme violence, sex/nudity, bizarre sights, etc). The rest of the movie is often poorly produced as the entire point of the movie is to make a movie as cheap as possible while pulling in a large audience via an appeal to their "baser desires". Modern gindhouse movies either take the idea of the grindhouse hook and ramp it up (Hobo with a Shotgun, Green Inferno, Turbo Kid) or they take the ideas and feel of grindhouse cinema and execute it more elegantly (Tarantino's and to an extent Rodriguez's works). Carnage Park does neither of these things. What starts off as a heavily Tarantino inspired thriller turns into a rather pedestrian, predictable, and overall boring retelling of The Most Dangerous game. I love grindhouse, I love b movies, I love cheap movies. But this one is a stinker.

Doesn't deserve this low rating

[matdog321 · 8/10 · 9 July 2016]

Carnage Park is one of those thrillers that will probably disgust the regular audience, but will leave horror buffs completely unbothered. As soon as this film started I knew it was one of the good ones. This movie is balls to the wall suspense.The crazy flashing images were just a plus. Ashley Bell is a fantastic actress, Im not one to study movement or expressions but she really shined through in a movie that really just is a typical game of Cat & Mouse. The formula has been done before, but it works for me because of its stylish feel. I appreciate some of the shots of the film, such as a ditch being in the middle of our focus from birds eye view, and our main actress walking around it. The acting from the others are a bit cringe worthy but despite them the suspense and tension still never wears off. I went into this with high expectations (expecting a popcorn type of thriller of course,) and for the most part it was worth while. Check it out when it comes to Redbox or possibly Netflix.

Ashley Bell

[Bgappl07 · 7/10 · 5 September 2021]

I maybe know who she is but this film really brought her to my attention she's outstanding in it I think all the characters in it were quite good I think the plot was bizarre but interestingly so I couldn't understand the less than five review I was fascinated by it.

A dumb B-horror movie,very low on content.

[djangozelf-12351 · 1/10 · 1 July 2016]

And I know it's more sold like an action or crime movie but even that is very low in content.

The story is way to simple and a lot of tension is taking out of the action by lack of impact. There are no highlights in this film and the way it was made just annoyed me. Like for example when they play a scary tune when nothing exciting is really happening. The cast is about 7 people I think and the sets are few and kind of boring.

The seventies feeling it's suppose to have I never got and there's nothing convincing in this movie to suggest otherwise. Also from what I heard I thought this would be a bigger movie and that it actually had some budget.Guess I was wrong about that.

I found it very lame and to much of an indie to be even be considered as a movie to be played in the theaters.

The one I can think of as worthy would be "bone tomahawk"and this definitely don't has that kind of quality.

Another one to forget,I don't recommend it.

If your into bad indie movies...enjoy.

Unenterprising 'survival horror' flick

[Leofwine_draca · 3/10 · 12 March 2018]

CARNAGE PARK is a very boring addition to the low budget 'survival horror' genre. It's a film that was made on the cheap in the desert, shot through with an orange filter that makes the production uniformly boring. The acting is nothing to write home about and there are no sympathetic characters here. A woman is held hostage by a couple of bank robbers, but the trio end up in the desert where they face something even worse: an armoured sniper who kills anyone who dares enter his domain. Law enforcement officials are also involved. I found the pared-down narrative structure repetitive while the gore effects are juvenile rather than shocking, and the film as a whole bored me.

Chemtrails and bad music

[Schuriken · 1/10 · 6 July 2016]

I'm just wondering if they had chemtrails in the 1970's because all we see every 2 minutes is a camera shot of chemtrail filled skies.

Chemtrails, chemtrails and more chemtrails. In one scene we actually see a plane spraying the sky at no so distant range.

The director probably never heard of chemtrails and he just thinks the white lines in the sky is great footage to repeat all over the movie. Yeah it's majestic....

The soundtrack is probably the worst I've come across in a film no matter the genre. It would actually be better if this "movie" had absolutely no soundtrack at all. That says a lot.

The person who created the credits and the opening titles is deaf and blind at best. Each actor's credit lasts about 0,1 seconds. It's so fast you can't actually read anybody's name. Maybe this was an idea after they finished filming the movie and nobody wanted to get any credits for being in this terrible film, so they asked a deaf and blind person to create the credits sequence.

The film editor could be a mentally challenged person, I just couldn't find a scene that was edited by someone with an IQ above 70. Laughable, amateur, cheap, boring are some of the words that come to mind recalling most of the editing.

Someone in his first year of film school is laughing very hard because he knows there will always be something much worse than his worst work as a freshman. Like this film.

Don't watch it, you will thank me for many years to come. If you did watch it like I did, then welcome to the morons club of "people who watched this film and can't get their 2 hours or their money back, ever"

Mr. director, the true story must have been horrific to the people who suffered all this. That doesn't mean you have to do the same to your audience. You're supposed to scare the audience with a horror film, not make them puke their guts out because of how untalented and uninspiring your movie really is. Go watch some crappy 80's horror flicks, you may actually get an idea of how to improve your skills of film making. Bye Bye.