Old guy living alone in the wilds (well, there was no civilization there back then) encounters a weird religious looking (person ? statue ? not clear) protected by a barrier. Later two individuals appear there, dressed in white robes. They don't speak, get to him, immobilize him, cut his tattoo out, taste his blood, rapturingly enjoying themselves, then kill him and go back.

That's weird, a bit repetitive actually as you mostly only see their smiling faces, but ok, why not. However there's a second scene after, much shorter, where they just appear 120 years later and kill a tourist family on the beach in slow motion. Somehow this really cheapen the whole thing. The second scene is completely different in style, atmosphere, duration, etc. It does not fit, It removes a bit of the weirdness, while not bringing any meaning. Maybe if it was longer ? Maybe if there were other scenes after where they continue their killing and we can see an evolution, but with just this one it feels like a mistake.

Also the introduction tells the story of the first convicts that escaped the failed first british penitentiary settlement in Australia. This is absolutely useless context, doesn't bring anything except a far fetched explanation of why there is an old guy living there, and again absolutely does not fit with the second scene.