A Top Secret Government project decides to set up its laboratory in the basement of an abandoned old house.They're using genetics to create an intelligent,regenerating mutant critter for the purposes of warfare.Even more inevitably,four teenagers decide to pick that night to camp out in the spooky old house."Carnivore" is absolutely bad and painful to watch.Whoever give it a 10 needs to have his/her head examined.I can't believe that it took almost twelve years to make this piece of cow dung.The acting is horrendous,the creature looks lame and there is absolutely no suspense.A couple of gore scenes can't save this this boring trash from fading into total obscurity.Watch this one only under the influence of alcohol.3 out of 10 and that's being kind.
39 Reviews
An insult to the viewer, the world and the history of film.
microfame10 April 2010
Even thinking about this film enough to write this review is causing a burning sensation in my brain, similar to the night I forced myself to sit through it. I feel compelled to add this much-deserved one-star rating to help offset some other reviewers, (most likely the unfortunate victims of head injuries),who have given this film two or more stars. Watching this film should be considered as a torture replacement to the now frowned-upon 'water boarding'.
I thought I had found the bottom of the movie-quality well with "Alien 3000", but "Carnivore" made me realize that the penny had much further down to fall. How do you portray an effective cat-and-mouse plot in a single family house!?!? There's only one hallway upstairs, yet the characters moved around each other like they were in some inter-dimensional Tardis. And those Federal "agents" who were supposed to be funny made me want to lay my face into a deli meat slicer and turn it on. I DO invite you to watch it, since misery loves company.....
I thought I had found the bottom of the movie-quality well with "Alien 3000", but "Carnivore" made me realize that the penny had much further down to fall. How do you portray an effective cat-and-mouse plot in a single family house!?!? There's only one hallway upstairs, yet the characters moved around each other like they were in some inter-dimensional Tardis. And those Federal "agents" who were supposed to be funny made me want to lay my face into a deli meat slicer and turn it on. I DO invite you to watch it, since misery loves company.....
Simply horrendous creature feature clunker
Woodyanders3 September 2012
Warning: Spoilers
A savage and predatory hairy humanoid creature that's the result of a government experiment gone awry escapes from a lab located in the basement of an old dilapidated house. Naturally, two teenage couples decide to check out said rundown abode. Guess what happens next? Boy, does this dreadful bilge strike out something rotten in every possible way: Clumsy (mis)direction that allows the dull, uneventful, and meandering narrative to unfold at a painfully sluggish pace and fails to generate any much-needed tension, momentum, and creepy atmosphere, infrequent and poorly staged monster attack scenes, a drab and talky script that gets bogged down in way too much tedious chitchat, tacky gore, plain cinematography(the cheesy monster POV shots in particular are pretty sad), groan-inducing attempts at dumb humor (the two inept comic relief federal agents are especially pathetic), obnoxious and unlikable characters, a generic hum'n'shiver synthesizer score, a laughably lousy rubbery-looking beast, uniformly cruddy acting from a lame no-name cast (top thespic dishonors go to Jill Adcock as the bitchy Dana Anderson and Randy Craig as the doltish Sheriff Marty Holt), and, worst of all, a dismal and dissatisfying "it ain't over yet!" sequel set-up non-ending. On the plus side, Pamela Anderson shows some decent boobage and at a mere 80 minutes it's mercifully short, but that's about it. A real dud.
Clean the garage or bathroom instead
jjenkins145027 February 2003
What's there to say... Other than this is the absolute worst "horror" flick I've ever seen. Don't waste your time. The acting is terrible and the monster looks about as scary as a soggy puffball. At 80 minutes, I found myself fast forwarding to find something worth watching. I never found it.
oh dear god, WHY? WHY???
ishiidobie4 August 2003
where does one start? the horrible acting? the lame story? the rotten direction, lighting, editing? how about the incredibly awful sound? and it has that "made in the 80's" feel to it. Uggh! I read that this film was shot and edited over a ten year period........dear god, this is all they could come up with in 10 years? I can't remember another horror film as bad as this except maybe The Item. All I can say is that all the reviews that thought this had ANYTHING good to it must have been made by people who watched it while imbibing huge quantities of alcohol or had some really good weed for the experience. NOTHING redeeming about this movie. Even if you bought/rent it for free you're still robbed of the hour and a half of your life it took to sit through this waste. Sorry Mr. Kurtz, this is no reflection of you as a person, but if you're reading this my strong suggestion to you is to find another line of work. I want my ten bucks back!
Don't Waste Your Breath
mslolita8328 December 2012
What majority of everyone else above my review have explained...the acting is horrible and the movie isn't scary at all. Carnivore is just a corny movie more than anything else. I am far from an actress, but I am sure I can act better than majority of the people that are in this film. I cannot believe that this movie was even released for the public's view as it belongs in the trash. What made me curious to look up additional was the fact that Wally-World was selling an 8-movie disc for only $5.00! I was curious to know why. Now the mystery has been solved.
All of the movies on the disc are on the same level...horrible. Save your time, money and energy as this movie isn't worth it.
All of the movies on the disc are on the same level...horrible. Save your time, money and energy as this movie isn't worth it.
I've seen worse.
BA_Harrison8 December 2018
Although listed as a 2000 movie on IMDb, Carnivore began life in the late '80s/early '90s: you can tell from all the mullets and stonewashed denim. The film was finally completed in 2000 once funds were secured. One is tempted to say that they should have cut their losses, but even though the film ain't great, it's not nearly as bad as many of the user reviews here suggest.
The plot is extremely basic: a classified government experiment to create a ravenous bio-weapon goes horribly wrong when the toothy creature escapes its lab, which is located in an old, deserted mansion. Meanwhile, a group of four teens arrive at the dilapidated building for a spot of fun, unaware of the danger that awaits.
Admittedly, the acting is pretty bad, the monster design is fairly laughable, and the pacing is off (there's far too much uneventful wandering around the old house), but the cinematography and lighting is occasionally impressive given the inexperience of directors Joseph Kurtz and Kenneth Mader. The guys also manage to deliver a spot of gore and some topless female nudity, which automatically prevents me from rating this film 1/10 like so many others.
The first kill is great fun: lovers Marc (Jeff Swan) and Dee (Pamela Thompson, who provides the T&A) are interrupted by the monster, which slashes open Marc's stomach and proceeds to chuck his organs all around the room. Another enjoyable moment comes when a cop is attacked by the creature, and has his face chewed off. A couple more juicy kills like those and I'd actually be recommending this one.
Still, if dumb '80s monster movies are your thing, then I reckon there's probably enough 'good stuff' to warrant a one-time watch. That said, I'm not at all surprised or particularly bothered that the clearly intended sequel was never made.
The plot is extremely basic: a classified government experiment to create a ravenous bio-weapon goes horribly wrong when the toothy creature escapes its lab, which is located in an old, deserted mansion. Meanwhile, a group of four teens arrive at the dilapidated building for a spot of fun, unaware of the danger that awaits.
Admittedly, the acting is pretty bad, the monster design is fairly laughable, and the pacing is off (there's far too much uneventful wandering around the old house), but the cinematography and lighting is occasionally impressive given the inexperience of directors Joseph Kurtz and Kenneth Mader. The guys also manage to deliver a spot of gore and some topless female nudity, which automatically prevents me from rating this film 1/10 like so many others.
The first kill is great fun: lovers Marc (Jeff Swan) and Dee (Pamela Thompson, who provides the T&A) are interrupted by the monster, which slashes open Marc's stomach and proceeds to chuck his organs all around the room. Another enjoyable moment comes when a cop is attacked by the creature, and has his face chewed off. A couple more juicy kills like those and I'd actually be recommending this one.
Still, if dumb '80s monster movies are your thing, then I reckon there's probably enough 'good stuff' to warrant a one-time watch. That said, I'm not at all surprised or particularly bothered that the clearly intended sequel was never made.
"Or Carny, as it had come to be known."
Backlash00728 April 2003
Warning: Spoilers
~Spoiler~
Carnivore. It sounds like a straight-to-video Dean Cain monster movie doesn't it? In all actuality, it's worse. Much worse. This is the definition of a no-budget film. It appears to have been shot on home video, no joke. Here's a sample of the dialogue: "Oh god, oh no, oh sh*t, oh boy!" It takes place in the eighties, but I can't believe that. Those mullets are just too authentic and the guns are too plastic. I have to believe that this was made in the eighties and they just found it sealed in a vault somewhere. Or perhaps they found it in the "abandoned Romero farmhouse" that doubles as a government research lab. Either way, it should have stayed there. The story centers around our beloved carnivore, just a playful little beast, living in his house and minding his own business. Then a bunch of punk kids (who look to be in their early 30's) and government agents come in and totally wreck the place. I would have killed them too. Unfortunately, he doesn't. He kills an innocent teen and a deputy...and that's it. He doesn't kill the corrupt agents. The corrupt agents do not kill him. NOTHING happens. It ends as the agents are going into the house to fight the little demon dude. There is no climax; it isn't shown. I can't believe I sat through this crap. Better still, I can't believe this crap got released. I strongly urge you to find a better way to waste your time.
Carnivore. It sounds like a straight-to-video Dean Cain monster movie doesn't it? In all actuality, it's worse. Much worse. This is the definition of a no-budget film. It appears to have been shot on home video, no joke. Here's a sample of the dialogue: "Oh god, oh no, oh sh*t, oh boy!" It takes place in the eighties, but I can't believe that. Those mullets are just too authentic and the guns are too plastic. I have to believe that this was made in the eighties and they just found it sealed in a vault somewhere. Or perhaps they found it in the "abandoned Romero farmhouse" that doubles as a government research lab. Either way, it should have stayed there. The story centers around our beloved carnivore, just a playful little beast, living in his house and minding his own business. Then a bunch of punk kids (who look to be in their early 30's) and government agents come in and totally wreck the place. I would have killed them too. Unfortunately, he doesn't. He kills an innocent teen and a deputy...and that's it. He doesn't kill the corrupt agents. The corrupt agents do not kill him. NOTHING happens. It ends as the agents are going into the house to fight the little demon dude. There is no climax; it isn't shown. I can't believe I sat through this crap. Better still, I can't believe this crap got released. I strongly urge you to find a better way to waste your time.
pure unfiltered badness
psychojim10 June 2004
This movie was easily one of the worst movies I've ever seen. The monster looked terrible (it looked like a guy wearing nylons, a hacked up feather boa, and a very stupid mask), the direction was awful, the sound was beyond atrocious, and the only word that comes to mind when thinking of the acting is ham. Rancid ham. Added to all this, the story made little to no sense and was hard to follow. There is no way anyone should watch this movie.
The only saving grace of this movie is the box it comes in. The cover is eye-catching and looks promising and the synopsis on the back makes the movie sound well-constructed, thought out, and interesting. Unfortunately, taking the movie out of its box is tantamount to entertainment suicide.
The only saving grace of this movie is the box it comes in. The cover is eye-catching and looks promising and the synopsis on the back makes the movie sound well-constructed, thought out, and interesting. Unfortunately, taking the movie out of its box is tantamount to entertainment suicide.
Where is Mike Nelson when you need him?
kebra9821 August 2003
This movie was lame. I rented it because the picture on the cover looked cool. Don't fall for it. I have a feeling that they spent more money on the cover art than on the actual film. My tv was turned up as loud as it would go and I still couldn't understand most of what the actors said. Somehow, I don't think I missed much. They should have sent their film straight to MSTK3.
BUDGET! WHAT BUDGET?!
the_fog_198010 February 2003
Wow! This film is a complete stinker. Not just part of a stinker, but the whole darn deal! This thing doesn't even deserve to be called cheesy. Monster is viscious but lame. Bad acting all around and there isn't one character you like. You're actually glad to see them whacked by the creature. This thing looked cheaper then my uncles home movies of his vacation to the Ozarks. I've seen high school plays with bigger budgets. My recommendation is to not waste your time. I usually like extras on DVD's...but in this case I was very thankful there wasn't anything extra. Although a documentary about the director getting ran out of town would be nice. Oh well...that's it...pass by this one on the rental shelf.
Great Film (for the right fans), Horrible DVD
BrandtSponseller25 January 2004
Version reviewed: 'Key DVD' distributed by 20th Century Fox, 2002, 80 minutes
My recommendation rating OF THE FILM ONLY: 8 out of 10.
Recommendation rating for this version: 2 out of 10
Let's get the bad news out of the way first, then I'll explain my high rating of the film. The DVD box art says that Carnivore is a widescreen presentation that is 'digitally mastered'. The film is NOT in widescreen, and 'digital mastering' can only mean that either the master exists on some kind of digital medium, or worse, that the film was 'mastered to digital' in the sense that DVDs were made from the master (obviously, since the product is a DVD).
The transfer is one of the poorer ones that I've seen (unfortunately it isn't the worst). It is extremely grainy (it looks like it was recorded from a VHS tape that had been rented about 300 times in the mid-80s, and then stored in a mildew-filled basement for 10 years), The sound has a lot of hiss and was equalized with far too much bass--you have to crank up the treble, crank up the volume, and you still can't hear dialogue in some scenes. I don't know what aspect ratio directors F. Joseph Kurtz and Kenneth Mader filmed in, but the framing suggests that it _wasn't_ filmed in 'full-screen' (1.33 : 1), which is the aspect ratio on this disc.
Additional bad news is that the box art also promises a director commentary, a featurette called 'Carnivore Kills!', a trailer, and optional Spanish subtitles. None of these are on the disc. Instead, the disc has two menu options. One for 'Play Movie' and one for 'Scene Selection'--which gives you access to only eight chapter markings. This is either a serious case of false advertising or an equally serious screw-up on the manufacturing end. And in both cases, it would probably be best for everyone to send their copies of the DVD back to 20th Century Fox and demand a refund plus a free copy of the DVD when the corrections are made. Even if some of the problems (such as the sound) are rooted in the source material, these can be fairly easily rectified in a moderately-equipped recording/engineering studio, especially with a distributor like 20th Century Fox.
And why might you want a copy of the DVD in anamorphic widescreen with remastered sound, a director's commentary, and other special features? Because this is a very fun and entertaining little horror film. At least if you have a taste for camp, and you're not one of those philosophically-challenged folks who conflates 'horror' and 'scary'. Carnivore is more likely to be enjoyed by someone who thinks that Killer Klowns from Outer Space is a masterpiece. Someone who thinks that two of the most underrated films of the 70s are Daddy's Deadly Darling and Carnival of Blood. Someone who has actually memorized a number of lines from Sgt. Kabukiman N.Y.P.D. and is proud of it. Someone who thinks that one of the biggest tragedies in filmdom is that Frank Henenlotter has only directed five films since 1982 (and none since 1992). If you have no idea what I'm talking about, and you're looking for scares only, do yourself a favor and pass this one up for now.
Carnivore is one of those 'genetic experiments gone wild' films, with touches of the X-Files and an 80's slasher flick mixed into the stew. Yes, it has narration by a woman with a heavy Midwestern accent who is obviously reading. It has (sometimes intentionally) ridiculous performances. The monster is obviously a guy in a suit. For long periods of time, everything in the film is blue. However, as difficult as this may be for some people to understand, all of these elements are assets in a film like this, especially because it's obvious that Mader and Kurtz harbor no delusions that they're making something in the vein of Gone With The Wind. Instead, Carnivore plays like an impeccable, hilarious spoof of its influences, sometimes approaching a spoof of a spoof, and at the same time seems like a lost horror gem from 1985 (its authenticity in that respect is incredible). It pokes fun at the clichés and conventions, and yet embraces them at the same time--a feat only serious fans of the relevant eras of horror could achieve. There are serious aspects. There is plenty of tension. Some of the blue shots (and some others) are beautiful. The gore effects are well-done and well-shot. The sets are excellent, and even more impressive when you realize they were built in the basement of the director's rented house. It is clear that Carnivore is a low-budget affair, but the artistry and dedication apparent enables it to transcend any budgetary limitations.
But please, give us a release on DVD that does the film justice! This would have been a perfect candidate for Troma, Lucky 13/Program Power, Something Weird, or anyone comparable. But the Key Video/20th Century Fox edition is horrible.
My recommendation rating OF THE FILM ONLY: 8 out of 10.
Recommendation rating for this version: 2 out of 10
Let's get the bad news out of the way first, then I'll explain my high rating of the film. The DVD box art says that Carnivore is a widescreen presentation that is 'digitally mastered'. The film is NOT in widescreen, and 'digital mastering' can only mean that either the master exists on some kind of digital medium, or worse, that the film was 'mastered to digital' in the sense that DVDs were made from the master (obviously, since the product is a DVD).
The transfer is one of the poorer ones that I've seen (unfortunately it isn't the worst). It is extremely grainy (it looks like it was recorded from a VHS tape that had been rented about 300 times in the mid-80s, and then stored in a mildew-filled basement for 10 years), The sound has a lot of hiss and was equalized with far too much bass--you have to crank up the treble, crank up the volume, and you still can't hear dialogue in some scenes. I don't know what aspect ratio directors F. Joseph Kurtz and Kenneth Mader filmed in, but the framing suggests that it _wasn't_ filmed in 'full-screen' (1.33 : 1), which is the aspect ratio on this disc.
Additional bad news is that the box art also promises a director commentary, a featurette called 'Carnivore Kills!', a trailer, and optional Spanish subtitles. None of these are on the disc. Instead, the disc has two menu options. One for 'Play Movie' and one for 'Scene Selection'--which gives you access to only eight chapter markings. This is either a serious case of false advertising or an equally serious screw-up on the manufacturing end. And in both cases, it would probably be best for everyone to send their copies of the DVD back to 20th Century Fox and demand a refund plus a free copy of the DVD when the corrections are made. Even if some of the problems (such as the sound) are rooted in the source material, these can be fairly easily rectified in a moderately-equipped recording/engineering studio, especially with a distributor like 20th Century Fox.
And why might you want a copy of the DVD in anamorphic widescreen with remastered sound, a director's commentary, and other special features? Because this is a very fun and entertaining little horror film. At least if you have a taste for camp, and you're not one of those philosophically-challenged folks who conflates 'horror' and 'scary'. Carnivore is more likely to be enjoyed by someone who thinks that Killer Klowns from Outer Space is a masterpiece. Someone who thinks that two of the most underrated films of the 70s are Daddy's Deadly Darling and Carnival of Blood. Someone who has actually memorized a number of lines from Sgt. Kabukiman N.Y.P.D. and is proud of it. Someone who thinks that one of the biggest tragedies in filmdom is that Frank Henenlotter has only directed five films since 1982 (and none since 1992). If you have no idea what I'm talking about, and you're looking for scares only, do yourself a favor and pass this one up for now.
Carnivore is one of those 'genetic experiments gone wild' films, with touches of the X-Files and an 80's slasher flick mixed into the stew. Yes, it has narration by a woman with a heavy Midwestern accent who is obviously reading. It has (sometimes intentionally) ridiculous performances. The monster is obviously a guy in a suit. For long periods of time, everything in the film is blue. However, as difficult as this may be for some people to understand, all of these elements are assets in a film like this, especially because it's obvious that Mader and Kurtz harbor no delusions that they're making something in the vein of Gone With The Wind. Instead, Carnivore plays like an impeccable, hilarious spoof of its influences, sometimes approaching a spoof of a spoof, and at the same time seems like a lost horror gem from 1985 (its authenticity in that respect is incredible). It pokes fun at the clichés and conventions, and yet embraces them at the same time--a feat only serious fans of the relevant eras of horror could achieve. There are serious aspects. There is plenty of tension. Some of the blue shots (and some others) are beautiful. The gore effects are well-done and well-shot. The sets are excellent, and even more impressive when you realize they were built in the basement of the director's rented house. It is clear that Carnivore is a low-budget affair, but the artistry and dedication apparent enables it to transcend any budgetary limitations.
But please, give us a release on DVD that does the film justice! This would have been a perfect candidate for Troma, Lucky 13/Program Power, Something Weird, or anyone comparable. But the Key Video/20th Century Fox edition is horrible.
great independent film!
TheShiff16 July 2006
okay, all you need to know is this movie was filmed in late 1988-1991, it was in production from 91-00 before it was finally released... yes, this IS a B movie, and anyone who is a fan should have to see it. because this breaks through in independent filming ,great special effects, very low budget, yet still mildly entertaining, i'd say better than most new horror films, the only reason it's corny is cause it WAS actually filmed like 17 years ago! still, for it's time, very well done, and from just average people trying to make a swing, good plot, good acting, nice effects, not a typical horror film about vampires either. a movie with a lot of feeling and effort and that's what made it absolutely astonishing! this did not bore me one bit, did not have any cheesy one liners, slightly humorous, good wardrobe and props and acceptable acting for sure. best B movie i've seen in a very long time.
Is it really THAT bad?
x-human10 July 2005
It's very cheesy and very dumb for sure, with a couple of takes to the camera, but I still thoroughly enjoyed it. There's some creative gore and nice nudity that didn't just amount to a stabbing and a flash. You've got total dismemberment and skin pulling off the face leaving the skeleton and along with nudity some rubbing and sucking. That's not standard horror fair.
I found Carnivore to be a time capsule to the end of the 80's and above my expectations. This is a bottom of the barrel indie flix, but they put together a monster suit that's not just store bought, designed a lab and built a haunted house from scratch. This is some inventive indie film making.
I'd ultimately rank this a step below mediocre, it's much more entertaining then a lot of other garbage out there like Hobgoblins or anything by the Polonia Brothers. If you give this flix a score of 1 I don't think you were being very realistic with your expectations. All it really needs is a few more kills to make it really decent.
I found Carnivore to be a time capsule to the end of the 80's and above my expectations. This is a bottom of the barrel indie flix, but they put together a monster suit that's not just store bought, designed a lab and built a haunted house from scratch. This is some inventive indie film making.
I'd ultimately rank this a step below mediocre, it's much more entertaining then a lot of other garbage out there like Hobgoblins or anything by the Polonia Brothers. If you give this flix a score of 1 I don't think you were being very realistic with your expectations. All it really needs is a few more kills to make it really decent.
This was a totally cool movie! A classic of low budget, gonzo filmmaking!
niteguy9 February 2002
This film has a great monster, atomospheric lighting, good camerawork, and an excellent music score. The sound quality was a bit muffled, but other than that this was one of the better "B" movies I've seen in awhile. And the DVD is packed with great extras like a 42-minute behind-the-scenes that's a textbook case study in the making of low budget indie movies. Definitely a must-have for B-movie enthusiasts!
Ugggh
rpzowie12 December 2006
Why this film hasn't been on MST3000 is beyond me. A horrible film. Horrible. Horrible. Makes Stepfather 3 seem like a cinematic master piece. Sound's terrible, looks like it was shot on video. I've seen low-budget Christian films with better acting and dialogue. And of course, there's that gratuitous nude scene that was probably inserted in a desperate attempt to keep viewers watching. This is the type of movie they'd show at a film school to teach students how NOT to make a movie.
I find it very telling that for most of the characters in the film, this was their first--and ONLY--movie. Also got a hoot out of the government agents who wear sunglasses, even when it's nighttime.
I find it very telling that for most of the characters in the film, this was their first--and ONLY--movie. Also got a hoot out of the government agents who wear sunglasses, even when it's nighttime.
i would rather be in michael jacksons house for 3 days than watch this (maybe not)
ryanbrandonflynn28 June 2006
Warning: Spoilers
this is the absolute worst movie i have ever seen well it is about a tie with Texas chain saw massacre 2. where to begin on bashing this film. oh well lets start with that gay monster. OK what kind of thing was this it looked like an albino furby on steroids. i almost cried when i saw what it looked like. next the acting. alright i wont even call it acting lets just say it was looking like a total douche in front of the camera. this was so stupid i mean all they do is get drunk have sex and probably get raped by the freakin furby. OK light work. what lights it was basically like looking in your attic with no light you cant see a thing. alright sound quality. i pretty much dubbed everything that they said because i couldn't hear it and i really didn't care what they said. so basically they waisted ten years of their life. i really hated this movie if you watch this i hope you can get your money back.
feeble: pathetically lacking in force or effectiveness
Ulysses18626 November 2006
Warning: Spoilers
The scenario of this film is ridiculous. The government creates a monster in a misguided experiment in a lab that looks like a temporarily abandoned 3-bedroom, 2.5-bath house. The story was lame and forgettable, with only a few exceptions. The 'creature' 'effects' in this film are extraordinarily bad.. almost nonexistent really. It resembles a worn out gorilla costume, or possibly a Chewbacca, that had been fished out of a dumpster and then laden with 2 pounds of latex. A painfully common rubber mask is then festooned with large, cheap-looking teeth via a hot glue gun. The creature can only be plainly seen in the film while under shadows cast from colored lights and even then it is miserable in every conceivable way. Sadly the acting is just as poor as the creature effects. I checked, nearly all that actors have never had any other screen appearance. Its as if they just pulled people off the streets and drafted them into service.. which in some cases seems nonconsensual. In the film Dana Anderson (Jill Adcock) cares for the bad costume-abomination-monster and clenches its long plastic claws when it gets wounded by Uzi fire. The man who is hunting the creature has a mullet-perm and never removes his over-sized aviator sunglasses. His suit is also notable. The cinematography and editing are dreadful as well.. the film is shot with only two cameras. The scenes are always too long and from an awkward angle. I also seem to remember that great deals of the film are shot through a blue filter.. If you take into account the many other glaring weaknesses of this film, its lameness is intensified greatly by the poor craftsmanship.
This movie is really hard to sit through.. It's a miserable film in its totality, without any redeeming factor. I would not recommend it to anyone.
This movie is really hard to sit through.. It's a miserable film in its totality, without any redeeming factor. I would not recommend it to anyone.
Smells like kaka
gtc839 February 2008
Warning: Spoilers
I'm a big fan of bad movies, but this one isn't enjoyable at all. There's a secret government research lab (the basement of an abandoned house), and some scientist is making a monster. Of course it kills him, and some people are sent from Washington to investigate. Much of the movie is spent with these three idiots prattling about how bad they need to go to the bathroom, how they can't change a flat tire, etc. Some teenagers also wander into the abandoned house, and eventually the monster kills one of them. There are also some stupid cops who spend a lot of time sitting in their car and talking like idiots. That's basically two-thirds of the movie - government idiots arguing in a car, idiot cops being buffoons in a car, and teenagers yakking about teenage stuff in a dark house.
In the end, the government people finally arrive and there's the incredibly crappy conclusion. Everything about this is bad, mostly the dialog, but the acting and camera-work take a close second. The whole film looks blue for some reason, it's so dark you can't see what's going on. Not that you really care.
Overall, this movie has absolutely none of the fun or amusement that low budget movies can sometimes provide. Avoid it at all costs, it's almost impossible to sit through.
In the end, the government people finally arrive and there's the incredibly crappy conclusion. Everything about this is bad, mostly the dialog, but the acting and camera-work take a close second. The whole film looks blue for some reason, it's so dark you can't see what's going on. Not that you really care.
Overall, this movie has absolutely none of the fun or amusement that low budget movies can sometimes provide. Avoid it at all costs, it's almost impossible to sit through.
Wow
violinamanda30 August 2019
Not really worth a recommendation.
Hey_Sweden24 January 2022
Warning: Spoilers
The run-down, isolated Romero house is now home to one of those standard-issue, nefarious government experiments to create a bio-weapon. The scientist in charge underestimates his creature; it kills him, gets out of the lab, and thereafter has the run of the house. A quartet of obnoxious, party-hearty young people (what low budget horror film isn't complete without these kinds of characters?) intend to have some fun in the house, which of course makes them perfect prey for the monster. Meanwhile, a team consisting of a no-nonsense female scientist (Jill Adcock) and a moronic, trigger-happy jerk (Steven W. Cromie) arrives to try to deal with the problem.
In a sense, this viewer can respect the efforts of this filmmaking team to get their little picture finished, if not really care for the end result. It started life in the late 80s and early 90s, but jacks-of-all-trades Kenneth Mader and F. Joseph Kurtz had to spend the next seven years trying to obtain needed funding. "Carnivore" wasn't completed until 2000, when it then received a less than stellar home video release.
They tried, they really did, but the plot is so routine and the characters so predictably inane that the whole thing reeks of deja vu. (Still, Adcock gives an admirably dead-serious performance under the circumstances.). A shame, since the creature receives a fairly amusing design, and the atmosphere is undeniable: all night-time scenes in this house ARE indeed spooky, with a decent music score and good use of sound. There is also gore & some nudity for those who crave these elements in their horror films.
Admittedly, the movie does get a little better as it goes along (the pacing is DEFINITELY off for a while), and Mader & Kurtz even go the route of allowing the audience to feel some sympathy for this creature, which is not devoid of intelligence. If only they hadn't given their proceedings such an open ending; it leaves the viewer less than completely satisfied.
Four out of 10.
In a sense, this viewer can respect the efforts of this filmmaking team to get their little picture finished, if not really care for the end result. It started life in the late 80s and early 90s, but jacks-of-all-trades Kenneth Mader and F. Joseph Kurtz had to spend the next seven years trying to obtain needed funding. "Carnivore" wasn't completed until 2000, when it then received a less than stellar home video release.
They tried, they really did, but the plot is so routine and the characters so predictably inane that the whole thing reeks of deja vu. (Still, Adcock gives an admirably dead-serious performance under the circumstances.). A shame, since the creature receives a fairly amusing design, and the atmosphere is undeniable: all night-time scenes in this house ARE indeed spooky, with a decent music score and good use of sound. There is also gore & some nudity for those who crave these elements in their horror films.
Admittedly, the movie does get a little better as it goes along (the pacing is DEFINITELY off for a while), and Mader & Kurtz even go the route of allowing the audience to feel some sympathy for this creature, which is not devoid of intelligence. If only they hadn't given their proceedings such an open ending; it leaves the viewer less than completely satisfied.
Four out of 10.
If this was a school project then the student got an F
denoxis2 September 2003
OK, I usually don't expect a perfect movie when I purchase a DVD from a bargain basket in Walmart, but I still didn't get it. Why people wasted their time to make this movie? And they even published on DVD! Now it became a digital junk. As a matter of fact I cannot criticize this movie because I didn't watch it 100%. I mostly fast forwarded it. Idea was too typical and acting was so cheap. Don't even think about watching for fun, it's boring.
THIS FILM ROCKS!!
rabid_dingoes12 February 2003
Carnivore is awesome! Viscious, flesh ripping creature. Stupid teenagers looking for love in all the wrong places. And a creepy house to give this sucker some charm. The acting is very bad, but it's still a lot of fun to watch anyway. This film gives a whole new meaning to the word "cheesy." The psychotic government agent is a hoot! The moron cops are fun as well. I can't really say I feel sorry for any of the victims in this film, because they are all so darn annoying. The chicks look like bimbo's, and you do see boobies. This of course is just part of the fun. Well heck, you should just check it out for yourself. I give this baby a 10 for being somewhat original and really cheesy!! HAVE FUN!!
Teenagers out for a thrill pick the wrong place. A government secret hidden out of the way. A combination headed for disaster.
dnasmith15 October 2006
The little movie that could, and did. You can see a lot of work went into this Indy. The characterizations were diverse. There were plenty of locations. The actors were interesting. Randy Craig's performance was exceptional. This film truly showcased his acting talent. This film may not have the outlandish budget of a studio film, but it has a decent cast, plenty of locations, and good special effects. Most importantly, this film has guts. Ken Mader and Frank Kurtz should be commended for bringing their story to the screen. They made their dream of movie-making reality. Way to go guys. Oh, and I enjoyed it thoroughly.
Hilarious Film Class Project
ndvanderhoofven24 August 2003
Warning: Spoilers
This movie is so bad, it's hilarious. It was obviously filmed by a film student on a budget (the credits at the end give special thanks to Discover, Visa, MasterCard and American Express). The cell phones used in the movie are the size of bricks, so this must have been filmed in the early '90s, even though the copyright says 2002.
The monster looks like it was a rented Halloween monkey costume covered with slime. The sound and lighting are so bad a camcorder was probably used. Occasionally, the film shifts to the monster's point of view - it looks like the colors are reversed or put in a special filter to show lots of green, red and blue.
One of the high school girls is a hot blonde wearing a miniskirt. I was waiting to see her get eaten by the monster (**SPOILER ALERT**) but it eats her boyfriend instead (his remains look like a mask covered with red paint and raw hamburger). The monster won't eat the pretty females (maybe it falls in love with them and is killing off the competition?). The bossy intelligence agency lady certainly has a thing for the monster (the beauty and the beast!) and it tries to communicate with her through growls. When one of her underling robo-cop agents shoots it with an automatic, she gets furious at him for killing it. Or ... is it really dead?
The movie is certainly very watchable repeated times in a campy sort of way. I think it could be compared to other so-bad-their-good low-budget movies like Plan 9 From Outer Space, the Blair Witch Project, and FearDotCom.
The monster looks like it was a rented Halloween monkey costume covered with slime. The sound and lighting are so bad a camcorder was probably used. Occasionally, the film shifts to the monster's point of view - it looks like the colors are reversed or put in a special filter to show lots of green, red and blue.
One of the high school girls is a hot blonde wearing a miniskirt. I was waiting to see her get eaten by the monster (**SPOILER ALERT**) but it eats her boyfriend instead (his remains look like a mask covered with red paint and raw hamburger). The monster won't eat the pretty females (maybe it falls in love with them and is killing off the competition?). The bossy intelligence agency lady certainly has a thing for the monster (the beauty and the beast!) and it tries to communicate with her through growls. When one of her underling robo-cop agents shoots it with an automatic, she gets furious at him for killing it. Or ... is it really dead?
The movie is certainly very watchable repeated times in a campy sort of way. I think it could be compared to other so-bad-their-good low-budget movies like Plan 9 From Outer Space, the Blair Witch Project, and FearDotCom.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
