Hungry (2026) Review – Enjoyable Hippo Themed Creature Carnage
Hungry: Quick Verdict
The TL;DR: Hungry (2026) is a surprisingly competent, yet dead-serious creature feature that provides a marked improvement for director James Nunn, even if it occasionally starves the audience of the actual carnage they came to see. The bonkers Louisiana-set plot follows two friends on an alligator tour who suddenly find themselves hunted by a rampaging, territorial hippo. Treating its atypical antagonist with a rare level of reverence, the film builds genuine tension early on, reminiscent of genre standouts like Rogue. When the hippo finally unleashes hell, Nunn completely discards plot armour, delivering an unmerciful “nobody is safe” spectacle backed by excellent practical FX. Unfortunately, the film carries a few notable flaws. The waiting around eventually grows tedious, the star of the show does not appear nearly enough, and the final twenty minutes devolve into predictable, padded ridiculousness. It takes itself as seriously as an appointment with an oncologist, which will undoubtedly split audiences, but it stands as a perfectly solid option for creature feature fans.
Details: Director: James Nunn | Cast: Madison Davenport, Olivia Bernstone, Tracey Bonner | Runtime: 93 Minutes | Release Date: June 3rd 2026 | Where to Watch: VOD / Streaming Platforms
Best For: Creature feature enthusiasts who appreciate an atmospheric, slow-burn approach to monster horror and want a visceral break from standard low-budget shark dreck.
Worth Noting: Audiences going into this expecting a tongue-in-cheek, goofy B-movie are going to feel completely mis-sold. There is zero camp on display here, which might prove off-putting to viewers looking for cheap, self-aware laughs.
Did You Know: Despite being set in the deep swamps of Louisiana, Hungry is actually a British-produced horror film. Thankfully, the cast are actually North American actors this time around, sparing us the dodgy fake accents that plagued the director’s 2022 film Shark Bait.
Is It Scary: It serves up a decent amount of foreboding tension as characters wait around in trees trying to stay out of the water. The beast strikes with devastating, lightning-fast efficiency, though the scares diminish late in the day when the movie resorts to heavy borrowing from Jaws and its peers.
Rating: 3/5 Stars
(A highly competent and surprisingly tense killer animal flick that treats its monster with reverence, held back only by a dragging mid-section and an over-serious tone.)
Welcome to Knockout Horror and to our review of hippo gone mad horror movie Hungry (2026). This movie has just hit VOD and, to be honest, if you are looking for some creature carnage, I am going to suggest you maybe give it a try. Let’s talk about why.
Table of Contents
It’s Been a Monstrous Summer
Can you believe it? We are only a month into summer and we have already had three killer animal themed horror movies.
“Come on dude, we are here for the killer hippo. Let’s get to it!”
We kicked the warmer months off with the utterly dog poo Chum before jumping into the abyss with the far more enjoyable Deep Water and now it’s off to the bayou with the movie we are looking at today – Hungry.
The story follows friends Sistine (Madison Davenport) and Hannah (Olivia Bernstone) as they head into the swamps of Louisiana on an alligator tour with a group of fellow tourists. What starts as a fun time on the water, quickly turns to terror as the group are attacked by a rampaging hippo.
Honestly, that plot sounds absolutely bonkers. I mean, don’t get me wrong, hippos are incredibly dangerous. So much so, in fact, that it would be more than fair to place them at the top of the list when it comes to creatures (other than mosquitos) who are most likely to unalive you.
But a hippo running riot in the middle of the bayou? I can’t imagine that staying hidden for very long.
The strangest thing of all is that, despite advertising the fact that the antagonist here is a killer hippo on the front cover, in trailers, and in the synopsis, director James Nunn has really buried the lede when it comes to the movie itself.
The hippo doesn’t show up for at least half an hour and when it finally does it’s another 10 minutes before we get the full reveal. Come on dude, we are here for the killer hippo. Let’s get to it!
A Creature Feature Vet
Let’s go back to that director for a second. James Nunn is, believe it or not, a bona fide veteran of killer animal horror flicks. Well, a veteran in as much as this is his second venture into the genre. He previously directed the straight to Tubi shark flick Shark Bait back in 2022.
He’s from the UK and Hungry is, much like the aforementioned Shark Bait, a British produced film. Luckily, the vast majority of the cast here are actually from North America so we don’t have to put up with the dodgy fake American accents that plagued his previous effort.
Weirdly enough, last year’s The Bayou was another British made killer animal movie set in the swamps of Louisiana. It’s not a lot but it’s still weird that it happened twice.
It’s nice to see a director with some experience return to the creature feature fold. You would expect them to, perhaps, grow a little from film to film and I’m happy to confirm that is the case with Hungry. This is a marked improvement from Shark Bait and, for at least half of its length, I was having a pretty good time.
There’s a lot that works well
I always point out that I am a sucker for these types of creature features but actually making them enjoyable is quite a difficult task.
“We are supposed to anticipate its arrival and wait with baited breath for that first attack.”
Hungry has a lot of elements that work pretty damn well. Sistine and Hannah are likeable, there’s enough variety in the group of tourists to keep the dynamics interesting without resorting to simple bickering, and the build up to the first hippo encounter doesn’t get bogged down in pointless world building.
To be honest, there’s even a decent amount of tension as we wait for the star of the show to arrive. It’s quite reminiscent of Rogue or Black Water in the restraint shown by Nunn. We have characters waiting around in trees trying to stay out of the water as a sense of inevitability and doom gradually builds. It works well.
Sure, I did start to get a little antsy waiting for the hippo carnage to begin but I can appreciate the laboured approach.
It’s very clear that Nunn wants to treat his antagonist with a degree of reverence that is not always that common in killer animal horror. We are supposed to anticipate its arrival and wait with baited breath for that first attack.
The wait is mostly worth it!
When the creature appears, it’s done so with a lack of mercy for the cast that some might find surprising.
This is a proper “nobody is safe” spectacle. Up a tree? Tough luck! Had a tragic life? Hippos don’t give a toss about that! Did everything right? Too bad, get in my mouth! It’s a lot of fun because Nunn doesn’t believe in plot armour one little bit. The kill count is exactly what you would expect for a rampaging hippo with a grudge.
The hippo looks pretty great, as well. I mean, sure, there’s that classic CGI smoothness and that slight, floaty, uncanny vibe but when the camera is shoved halfway down its maw you will likely forget all about that.
There is a nice mix of practical animatronic stuff created by Dan Martin’s 13 Finger FX thrown in that really lends the film an old school horror vibe and a feeling of visceral weightiness.
The gore isn’t really anything to write home about but there’s enough for it to be effective. There’s also a few moments that might make you jump as Nunn pays tribute to Jaws and some of the other movies that paved the way to creature carnage.
I really enjoyed the sense of foreboding that came with each appearance of the hippo. It never turns up and fails to tear shit up. It arrives, raises hell, and leaves which is exactly how a movie like this should play out.
A few things let it down
I can’t be properly effusive here, though; there are definitely issues. The early parts of the film do enjoy some effective tension, but the waiting around gets a bit too much after awhile. The hippo, despite how great it is, really doesn’t show up often enough.
“This isn’t tongue in cheek in the slightest; it’s as serious as an appointment with an oncologist.”
Every appearance is so devastating that it is working with a level of efficiency that means it can keep its attacks to a minimum. That’s great for preserving energy but not great for entertaining rabid horror fans. There simply isn’t enough of it and by the time the story opens up to afford us some quality hippo time it suddenly feels a bit unwelcome.
The last twenty minutes are pretty ridiculous, quite predictable, and not all that entertaining. There’s too much borrowing from other movies and a distinct sense of padding, too.
I imagine some people are going to feel like Hungry takes itself far too seriously. It’s impossible to go into a killer hippo movie not assuming it will be a bit tongue in cheek. This isn’t tongue in cheek in the slightest; it’s as serious as an appointment with an oncologist.
I think some viewers will find the lack of action and the serious nature to be quite off-putting. Some people are going to feel like they have been mis-sold but, if you are looking for a competent killer creature movie with an atypical antagonist, you can do a lot worse.
The Good
- Zero Plot Armour: Nunn handles the body count with refreshing ruthlessness, ensuring nobody is safe regardless of their tragic backstories or logical choices.
- Effective Practical FX: The integration of practical animatronics from Dan Martin’s 13 Finger FX injects a fantastic, old-school horror vibe and a sense of visceral weight.
- Atmospheric Dread: The initial build-up generates genuine, effective tension, successfully capturing a claustrophobic sense of inevitability while characters are trapped in trees.
- Likeable Main Characters: The core dynamic between Sistine and Hannah works well, surrounded by a varied tourist group that avoids defaulting to generic bickering.
The Bad
- Burying the Lede: The titular hippo takes over half an hour to arrive, and its appearances are kept to a minimum, leaving creature fans starving for action.
- Ridiculous Final Act: The last twenty minutes collapse into highly predictable beats, relying on heavy padding and obvious borrowing from superior horror films.
- Uncanny CGI Moments: While the close-ups look great, the monster occasionally suffers from that classic, floaty digital smoothness during wide action sequences.
- Alienating, Bleak Tone: By playing the absurd premise completely straight, the direction risks draining the simple popcorn fun out of the experience for casual viewers.
The Ugly: The severe mid-movie stagnation. By rationing the monster attacks so strictly to maintain suspense, the laboured pacing eventually stops building genuine tension and simply turns into a repetitive, frustrating waiting game.
Should You Watch Hungry?
If you are hunting for a decent bit of creature carnage this summer, this is absolutely worth a try on VOD. Hungry is a formulaic but mostly enjoyable killer animal movie that stands head and shoulders above low-budget dreck like Chum. It suffers from a sluggish middle block and a highly unoriginal ending, but the fantastic practical effects and brutal kill efficiency make it worth the price of admission. Just make sure to leave your expectations for a goofy, tongue-in-cheek hippo comedy at the door, because this one plays it dead straight.
You might also like:
- Time Cut (2024) review – 2003 Deserved A Better Horror Movie Than This Netflix Original
- Descendent (2025) Ending Explained: Was the abduction real?
- Unlocked (2023) Ending Explained – The “Victim 0” Identity Twist
- The Long Walk (2025) review – A Stephen King adaptation worth the wait
- The Mean One (2022) review – A festive slasher trudge that stole the fun
Our Scoring Philosophy: A Fair Fight
Horror is a genre that thrives thanks to indie film makers and low budget creators. At Knockout Horror, we firmly believe that every movie that we review deserves a fair fight. That's why we grade on a curve. Our star ratings are all about context, judging a film on what it achieves with the resources it has.
A 4-star rating for a scrappy indie horror made for $10,000 is a testament to its ingenuity and raw power. A 4-star rating for a $100 million blockbuster means it delivered on its epic promises. We don't compare them side-by-side; we celebrate success in every weight class, from the back-alley brawler to the heavyweight champion. Please keep this in mind when considering star ratings.
