Quicksand (2023) Review – A Farcical and Bored Survival Thriller
Quicksand: Quick Verdict
The Verdict: A tedious and fundamentally flawed survival thriller that sinks under the weight of its own absurdity. Quicksand fails to generate any meaningful tension, largely because the central threat looks more like a shallow mud-puddle than an inescapable natural deathtrap. The film attempts to mask its lack of thrills with redundant relationship drama, but the lead actors share so little chemistry that their bickering feels like a chore to sit through. From the scientifically impossible “venomous” boa constrictor to a finale that demands total abandonment of logic, the film is a masterclass in poor research and uninspired writing. It is a 1.5 star effort that offers neither the visceral scares of a creature feature nor the psychological weight of a survival drama. Unless you are looking for a laugh at its many technical and factual errors, this is one survival trip you should definitely skip.
Details: Director: Andres Beltran | Cast: Carolina Gaitan, Allan Hawco, Sebastian Eslava | Runtime: 1h 26m | Release Date: 2023
Best for: People who enjoy “so-bad-it’s-good” survival tropes and viewers looking for unintentional comedy in creature features.
Worth noting: Despite being set in a remote part of the Colombian rainforest, the actual pit used for filming was constructed in a controlled environment, which may explain why the water and mud physics look so inconsistent.
Where to Watch: Amazon🛒, Shudder
Rating: 1.5/5 Stars
(Absurd plot points, lacklustre chemistry, and poor research.)
Welcome to Knockout Horror. Today we are going to be reviewing survival horror movie Quicksand from 2023.
Table of Contents
Survival Horror Silliness
Before we begin, this movie is just so ridiculous. I decided to do a whole Quicksand Ending Explained article to breakdown the many ways in which it is completely farcical. If you want to take a look, click the link. Keep in mind however, that Ending Explained articles are not spoiler free. My reviews always are.
This is one of those movies that you get about half way into and then start laughing at how silly the plot is. A bickering couple, who are on the verge of divorce, head out for a day of hiking during a trip to Colombia. Only to find themselves stumbling into a pit of quicksand deep in the rainforest. With nobody around and nobody back at the hotel even knowing they are missing. The pair are in a battle to survive against the elements and err.. some snakes, I guess?
Quicksand, as a survival movie, has very little to work with. It’s two people stuck in sand; there really aren’t many places to go with a story like this. With this in mind, it might be no surprise to hear that Quicksand is more of a drama than anything. A very slow moving and very uninteresting drama. Matt Pitt’s remedial script offers little in the way of nuance or depth. It frequently resorts to one character shouting while another cries. Rarely ever managing to tap into the deep and troubled past of the characters.
Farcical and poorly researched
When the survival elements do kick in, they are utterly ridiculous and completely farcical. If the words “venomous Boa Constrictor” don’t clue you in to how stupid this movie is, I don’t know if anything will. Suffice to say, the main antagonist of this movie is the only Boa Constrictor on earth that has managed to develop potent venom.
“If the words ‘venomous Boa Constrictor’ don’t clue you in to how stupid this movie is, I don’t know what will. It is another example of survival movie writers being unwilling to do the slightest amount of research.”
It’s completely stupid and another example of survival movie writers being unwilling to do the slightest amount of research. There are so many elements of this movie that either make no sense or are simply factually incorrect. It starts to get pretty frustrating after a while, especially as the movie goes on and the story becomes more and more ridiculous.
The final act really takes it to a new level of complete absurdity. The things that happen in the last 15 minutes make no sense at all. It is one incredible leap of logic to the next making the story impossible to buy into. If you had managed to buy into the gravity of the situation somewhere in the middle. The ending will force you to check out completely for how pathetically silly it is.
How much danger are they really in?
Quicksand is a flawed concept from the very get go. The characters never appear to be in that much danger. This isn’t an enormous pit of quicksand. It is a small, almost kiddie paddling pool sized, area surrounded by solid edges. It’s impossible not to think that the characters could have simply pulled themselves out at any time. In fact, I would go as far as to say that these two make less effort to survive than anyone I have ever seen in these kinds of movies.
When they finally bother to hatch a plan, it seems like they are needlessly complicating matters. This subjects the viewer to less in the way of thrills and more in the way of redundant relationship drama. The characters complain that they can’t even move their arms, before repeatedly moving their arms up and down freely in the water.
“The characters never appear to be in that much danger. It is a small, kiddie-paddling-pool-sized area surrounded by solid edges. It’s impossible not to think they could have simply pulled themselves out.”
They say they can’t move but one of the characters practically jumps out of the water on a number of occasions. The manufactured scares here are extremely lacklustre and never feel at all genuine. There is simply no real threat and when you throw the venomous constrictor into the mix, it’s going to provoke more eye rolls than anything else.
Terrible special effects
The pit of quicksand that the couple are in looks terrible. The quicksand is completely unconvincing. The actors do a relatively decent job of looking fairly immobile early on in the movie. But, as time goes on, it seems like they got bored of trying and swing their arms around wildly. Never once looking even remotely impeded by the, supposedly, immense pressure of the mud surrounding them. The mud floating on the surface of the water shifts frequently, as well. Making it very clear that this is simply water with a bit of mud floating on the surface.
Don’t get me wrong, I am not saying they should have thrown them in a real pit of quicksand but they really need to do better than this. The whole quicksand premise is a shaky one as it is, they could have at least tried to make it look good. These problems extend to some of the practical effects, such as wounds, as well. One character develops a wound, at one point, which is very clearly a stick on job that looks pretty awful. The effects department hasn’t blended it into the character’s skin meaning you can see the edge of it. It looks extremely low effort.
Average acting and direction
Acting is a mixed bag. Allan Hawco’s performance as Josh reminded me of a mid-2010s video game character. You know when they had limited ability to scan facial expressions so you would see characters pulling the same faces over and over again? That is Hawco! He either smiles or cries; two expressions with very little variation in between.
“Allan Hawco’s performance reminded me of a mid-2010s video game character with limited facial expressions. He either smiles or cries with very little variation in between.”
Carolina Gaitan as Sophia is better but also suffers for the poor script. Her dialogue can come across really unnatural but she really tries. The biggest problem here is that the actors lack chemistry. It is hard to believe that they have known each other for five minutes, let alone having been married for years and having children together. They just don’t seem connected leading to a very rehearsed and “going through the motions” feeling to many of their conversations.
Direction is lacking. I am not sure how Andres Beltran managed to make the Colombian rainforest look so bland and washed out but he did it. There are bunches of continuity issues with regards to makeup, dirt, and cleanliness of clothing giving away some of the filming order of the movie and some of the shot choices are seriously poor. Especially “snake vision” which looks terrible. Despite some okay cinematography, the movie can feel quite amateurish and uninspired. I feel like there was a missed opportunity here to film in a 1.66:1 aspect ratio. That would have done a much better job of capturing the majesty of the rainforest.
The Good, The Bad & The Ugly
The Good
- Colombian Setting: The early scenes before the characters enter the forest offer a few nice glimpses of local flavour and culture.
- Carolina Gaitan: Despite a remedial script, Gaitan genuinely tries to inject some emotion into her performance, even when the dialogue fails her.
The Bad
- Factual Inaccuracies: The decision to feature a “venomous” boa constrictor is a glaring example of the film’s total lack of research.
- Zero Tension: Because the pit looks so easy to escape from, the viewer never feels the characters are in genuine mortal peril.
- Lack of Chemistry: The two leads feel more like strangers than a married couple, making their bickering feel forced and inorganic.
The Ugly: The “Venomous” Boa. A moment of sheer silliness that completely destroys any remaining credibility the movie had as a grounded survival thriller.
Should You Watch Quicksand?
No. It is a 1.5 star failure that manages to be both boring and ridiculous at the same time. The survival genre is full of better options that actually respect the viewer’s intelligence and offer real tension. Quicksand is just a repetitive, poorly researched slog through a muddy paddling pool. Save yourself the frustration and watch something else.
You might also like:
- Shark Bait (2022) Review – A Predictable and Teeth-Free Slasher At Sea
- The Thing (1982) review – John Carpenter’s Masterclass In Paranoia And Practical Gore
- Apartment 1BR (2019) Review – A Tense and Unsettling Study in Community
- Logged Off: 20 Horror Movies About The Dark Side Of The Internet
- Heart Eyes (2025) Ending Explained – Who Is The Killer?
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.
Support the Site Knockout Horror is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program. Basically, if you click a link to rent or buy a movie, we may earn a tiny commission at no extra cost to you. As an Amazon Associate, I earn from qualifying purchases. This helps keep the lights on and the nightmares coming. Don't worry, we will never recommend a movie purely to generate clicks. If it's bad, we will tell you.
Disclaimer: Images, posters, and video stills used in this review are the property of their respective copyright holders. They are included here for the purposes of commentary, criticism, and review under fair use. Knockout Horror makes no claim of ownership and encourages readers to support the official release of all films discussed.











