I hope you’re hungry…for nothing (fun) in Dangerous Animals, a thriller seriously lacking in bite

by

Without a doubt, Sean Byrne’s latest horror production titled “Dangerous Animals” has granted me an unusual ability – a glimpse into the future. I can foresee, in the years to come, countless college students engaged in essay writing about this Australian thriller. These dedicated young scholars will be seen perspiring over their keyboards late into the night as they delve deep into the controversial gender politics portrayed in “Dangerous Animals“. Considering the film’s superficial nature, it seems that the stark difference in how male and female deaths or injuries are presented will be a primary focus for analysis. The future is indeed set in stone on this matter.

For students majoring in cinema who are seeking material for essays on gender-themed topics, the movie “Dangerous Animals” will be a delightful discovery. On the other hand, individuals looking for an entertaining summer creature feature such as “Crawl” or “Deep Blue Sea“, unfortunately, won’t find it here.

Tucker, played by Jai Courney, manages an Australian boat service that offers shark-watching tours for both tourists and locals. However, what most people don’t know is that he’s a cold-hearted individual who takes pleasure in trapping female passengers on his boat and feeding them to sharks, while secretly filming the gruesome events. His next target: Zephyr, portrayed by Hassie Harrison, an American surfer with a passion for bread and seeking a fresh start after her old life. Despite spending a comfortable evening with real estate agent Moses (Josh Heuston), Zephyr’s adventurous spirit can’t be tamed.

As Tucker prepares to surf the break of dawn, he abducts Zephyr. Upon regaining consciousness, Zephyr finds herself shackled to a bed alongside fellow captive Heather (Ella Newton). The women soon discern Zephyr’s sinister intentions and determined Zephyr will stop at nothing to escape from this boat with an orange hue. Meanwhile, Moses, having known Zephyr for just eleven hours, begins to worry when she doesn’t return on the mainland. Unable to get any assistance from the police, Moses becomes resolved to find out where Zephyr has vanished.

Nick Lepard’s screenplay could have made an engaging 10-minute short film. However, stretched into a full-length movie (98 minutes), Dangerous Animals loses its impact. Once the character Zephyr is trapped on the boat, numerous scenes unfold about her fighting/escaping from Tucker, coming close to escaping, and then being forced back to her quarters. These scenes are repetitive, which lessens the tension that was intended for a thrilling narrative. Lepard seems hesitant to push this story into truly shocking territory. Additionally, the focus on female suffering isn’t particularly original. Many forgotten horror films from the 2000s have shown that relying solely on women screaming in pain is not a formula for creating enduringly effective exploitation movies.

Frequently returning to Moses as an amateur detective like Columbo or Charlie Cale just makes the storytelling issues even worse. The movie, Dangerous Animals, aimed for a thrilling, unpredictable atmosphere but Lepard’s script instead opts for excessive details, both in scale and duration. Regrettably, the anticipated shark violence is limited, taking up only a small portion of the 98-minute runtime. Instead of being a sequel to Deep Blue Sea, the movie resembles more what would transpire if characters like Buffalo Bill or Wes Bentley from P2 were to carry out their crimes in the open sea.

In Leapard’s work, there are several weaknesses compounded by a significant issue: Zephyr lacks a well-defined character evolution. As I watched Dangerous Animals, I found myself comparing it to contemporary genre films featuring women confined to single locations. Movies such as 10 Cloverfield Lane, No One Will Save You, Crawl, Panic Room, and many others, skillfully blend the inner turmoil of endangered females with exhilarating suspense. These films also allow their heroines to contribute more than simply calling for help. Unfortunately, Zephyr is mostly defined by her gruff demeanor, lecturing about her disinterest in land, and expressing strong dislike for a specific Creedence Clearwater Revival song.

Those distinct characteristics swiftly disappear. Instead, Leopard and Byrne focus on restraining her to beds, chairs, and various items. Unlike the exploration of Zephyr’s personal background, Dangerous Animals primarily centers around Tucker, as an effort to create a fresh eccentric serial killer icon for all time. Similar to John Malkovich in Opus, however, Tucker is excessively prominent and comical on-screen, making it difficult for him to be menacing.

The entire scene revolves around him eating cereal and engaging in various activities like watching disturbing VHS tapes, dancing in a bathrobe, or singing “Baby Shark” before harming Zephyr. These instances, similar to Jason Momoa’s outrageous stunts in Fast X, seem overly contrived to provoke disbelief from the audience. They fail to capture the raw, unpredictable menace of characters like Nicolas Cage’s Longlegs killer. Kudos to Jai Courtney for fully embracing such a shameless scoundrel. However, Tucker’s act becomes tiresome rather quickly.

In these college essays exploring gender themes, it’s evident that the film “Dangerous Animals” adds to the broader trend in pop culture where male serial killers, both fictional and real, receive more attention than the women they victimize. The movie “Animals” reinforces this pattern by extensively featuring Tucker as the main character, even giving him a starring role in the film’s prologue. Similarly to the 2018 film “Red Sparrow,” the stark contrast between how violence against male and female characters is portrayed on-screen is hard to ignore. In this movie, men are swiftly killed with their throats being slit, while women scream in pain and their bodies remain on-screen for extended periods.

A significant issue with Byrne’s movie, “Animals,” is its monotonous nature, which is a stark contrast to the enjoyment found in earlier creature features such as “Alligator” and “Tremors.” The film fails to maintain the fun and excitement that those movies provided. Instead, it appears overly serious, lacking the necessary elements for entertainment. Only a few instances during the third act, where Zephyr goes to extreme lengths to evade capture, manage to reach the level of B-movie absurdity that “Animals” should have maintained consistently. Scenes of women in pain or Tucker acting strangely merely blend together. Moments where Zephyr outsmarts or incapacitates Tucker, although exciting, feel uninspired. They simply replicate better moments from other B-movies, such as the iconic ending of “Death Proof,” the most graphic scenes in “Revenge,” or any chaotic scene in “Cannibal Mukbang.” These films excel in providing engaging entertainment and have a strong affinity for their main characters, something that “Dangerous Animals” regrettably lacks.

As the tedious events unfold onscreen, viewers can’t help but anticipate the thrilling moment when sharks leap from the water to feast on unsuspecting victims. Each brief instant when a shark dominates the screen gives the movie a jolt of life. Director Bruce Byrne and cinematographer Shelley Farthing-Dawe skillfully incorporate vibrant, sunlit Australian landscapes into the narrative. Unfortunately, both the animals and their surroundings are overshadowed by a dull script that lacks the necessary trashiness and excitement. It’s fortunate that Dangerous Animals offers material for future college students studying gender roles in cinema. However, I would have much preferred a more memorable orgy of wild, oceanic destruction instead of something oscillating between discomfort and monotony.

Read More

2025-06-03 15:17