Wolf Creek Movie
Storyline
TAGLINES
Based on true events
The thrill is in the hunt
How can you be found when no-one knows you're missing ?
30,000 are reported missing in Australia every year. Some are never seen again.
How can you be found when no one knows you're missing
The Thrill Is In The Hunt.
90 % of them are found in a month.
Just when you thought it was safe to go hiking in the bushes again...along comes Mick Taylor. Kristy, Ben and Liz are three pals in their twenties who set out to hike through the scenic Wolf Creek National Park in the Australian Outback. The trouble begins when they get back only to find that their car won't start. The trio think they have a way out when they run into a local bushman named Mick Taylor. Wait until you get a load of what Mick has in store for them. Their troubles have just begun.
| John Jarratt | Mick Taylor |
| Cassandra Magrath | Liz Hunter |
| Kestie Morassi | Kristy Earl |
| Nathan Phillips | Ben Mitchell |
| Gordon Poole | Old Man |
| Guy O'Donnell | Car Salesman |
| Phil Stevenson | Mechanic |
| Geoff Revell | Petrol Attendant |
| Andy McPhee | Bazza |
| Aaron Sterns | Bazza's Mate |
| Michael Moody | Bazza's Old Mate |
| Andrew Reimer | Flashback Dad |
| Vicki Reimer | Flashback Mom |
| Isabella Reimer | Flashback Girl |
| David Rock | Irish Backpacker |
| Greg Mclean |
6.30 out of 10 (18931 votes)
Visitor Reviews
great horror flick
posted on 27 Aug 2009For those who like bubblegum horror flicks like Scream, I Know What U Did Last Summer, Urban Legend, etc.. Stay clear from this movie. This is a serious horror flick like the original Texas Chainsaw Massacre, High Tension, House of/The Devil's Rejects. The first 45 mins is all set-up or character development or the building up for the climax. This is a Australian film so there is a heavy accent in the movie. Of course foreign films are usually slow paced and take time to buildup (especially European films). so if u're a CGI desensitized summer blockbuster loving movie goer who like mindless explosions every 2 minute than stay away from this. This movie is based on true events so some scenes were made up, especially the ending where the killer walks off into the sunset. The beginning credits in the movie state "30,000 are missing in Australia yearly and only 90% are found." This is true because Australia is the largest country in the world. People usually get lost and die from the extreme heat in the day and extreme cold at night in addition to starvation. And there's the case of being captured and murdered Texas Chainsaw style of which this movie is about. The few females in the audience actually left the theatre so don't expect a campy horror film. There were only 2 deaths in the movie but they were disturbing. Of course the only survivor survived and live to tell about it. The other 2 teens were never found. The guy who survived was captured so he didn't have enough evidence of how his two female friends were killed or where they were killed. He was tied down in a cave throughout the movie. The female teens in the movie were the ones who were being tortured and chased by the killer.
Suprisingly Excellent
posted on 27 Aug 2009There has been a suprising rush of really great horror movies all of a sudden. We got "Hostel", then "The Hills Have Eyes", and now the top-notch "Wolf Creek". I hope this trend continues for a long, long time.
Wolf Creek is a movie rooted in fact, which makes it slightly more disturbing than the average horror film. When I say rooted in fact, I don't mean "Texas Chainsaw Massacre" rooted in fact (which is to say, never happened at all - and all the people who claim that it did are morons who can't figure out how to use a search engine or hit a library. The original director himself admits he made the idea up while in a hardware store one day staring at a rack of chainsaws). The killer in this movie is modeled around Ivan Milat, a man who was convicted of killing seven backpackers in Australia (although he has been implicated in at least 28 total dissapearances). There are lots of little details in the film that reference the actual killings as well. *potential spoiler here here of what happens to a character* Ivan did in fact stab his victims at the base of the spine, which paralyzed them, and he did keep all of their sleeping bags and passports in his home.
The buildup in this movie is much better than most horror films. Remember watching "I still know what you did last summer", waiting for the annoying banter between the cannon fod - I mean well developed main characters, to finally come to an end and the action to start? Well, here the banter isn't annoying. It's plausible, it's acted well, and it reminded me of why alcohol is so great! The first fifteen minutes of this movie is one big drunk road trip, and it's actually interesting. There's a bit of a love triangle presented, but thankfully they don't go too far with it, otherwise we would have ended up with an annoying Freddy Prince Jr. / Jennifer Love Hewitt set up where the man had to be all heroic and try to save the day for his lady-in-waiting. Almost every scene in this film has a really gorgeous or inventive shot. We are shown a birds-eye view of a meterorite crater, which gives a creepy feel, considering the impact of the meteror would have annihilated everything for miles. The scene were we see a character being tortured - but threw though the eyes of another character peeking through a dirty window, is a also really nice touch.
The actual "horror" portion of the film is pretty brutal - thought not quite as gory as "The Hills Have Eyes" or "Hostel". Here we start to see a trend in gore (which occured in both of those films and again here in Wolf Creek), that of characters losing their fingers. Must have been a sale on fake fingers or something and all horor directors went shopping the same day. The hunting/torturing/killing is varied, and overall very satisfying. I particular liked one kill in which, after a frantic chase, an almost anti-climatic death occurs where the killer simply shoots the victim in the back, and then goes on with his day as though nothing really out of the ordinary just occured. As long as we are the topic of how horrifying horror movies are - what's with the reviewers giving this movie 1 star because of how brutal it is? It's not like this movie was advertised as something that wouldn't involve torture and death - why did any of you watch it in the first place if you find this sort of material offensive? It's not really a difficult concept to grasp. If you are morally offended by killing, don't watch a movie about murder.
There actually were several times in the film that seemed to build and then give you something anti-climatic, and honestly it seems to work here. When we are sure one character must survive - for this person has discovered the awful truth and has been generally "horror movie smart" throughout the entire film, doom appears in the form of a knife in the back, and that's that. The feeling the movie gives you when this sort of thing occurs is really what makes it a cut above the competition. I've noticed quite a bit of complaint about a portion of the movie where one of the characters makes the choice to actually go back to the site of where the torturing began, even though the killer is still on the loose, because obviously no one would actually do this - they'd be running far, far away. I'll concede that this is a valid point, very few individuals would actually do this. However, if all people acted properly and tried to get themselves as far away from danger as possible, horror movies would be about 20 minutes long, so give the movie a little room to stretch your plausibility here.
There seems to be some pretty mixed feelings about the ending. Personally I didn't really feel strongly one way or another. The ending was servicable, and it did fit the tone of the film, just ignore the made up text on the screen - none of that actually occured in the real events the movie is based on.
Surprisingly effective and chilling.
posted on 27 Aug 2009Let me preface this by saying that I did not view the trailer before I saw this movie, nor did I really know anything about it. I do not know if that will lessen the impact at all, but it might (not sure what they show in the trailer).Writer/producer/director McLean shot this movie on a digital HD handy cam, giving it an amateurish feel - but it is far from amateur. The first 45 minutes feel like a completely different movie than the last hour or so, and that is one of this movie's many strengths. McLean spends time letting the audience get to know the three main protagonists, who are Liz, Kristy, and Ben. They girls, who are both from Britain, are nearing the end of their Australian excursion, and they set off with their new Aussie mate, Ben, on a road trip/backpacking trip across the country.McLean has an eye for the unsettling, even in the mostly warm first minutes, and he uses the stark colors and landscapes of the deepening outback to give it a slowly building sense of dread. Their are a few ominous signs - a dog barking viciously at something off screen, a rather unpleasant encounter in an out of the way gas station, and an awkward conversation about UFOs and aliens. I knew it was a horror movie, and the slow buildup is a wonderful way to create true and genuine tension.Another thing that creates tension is the fact that the three main characters are so well fleshed out, and feel so real, that the audience begins to care for them. Knowing it is a horror movie, we know that something is eventually going to happen, and beginning segment, in its quiet, tender moments, make you wonder when that is going to happen. It's all part of the extremely good package.Another thing to like about this horror movie is that the characters, for the most part, do not do any stupid things or horror clichés; rather, they are trying to survive and they do respond in believable ways to the horrors around them. And when those horrors finally come, after an particularly amazing segue (going to sleep...sunset...waking up hogtied), they do not let up.Part of the criticism of this movie is that it is realistically violent and brutal, but it's a juxtaposition from the first half. It's also a juxtaposition of civilized vs. uncivilized, and the sterile, uncompromising landscape of the Outback is the perfect place for this to occur. There wasn't an over the top amount of gore, which is good, because the cruelty of what the three endure is enough to churn anyone's stomach. However, the movie is not just simple exploitation - far from it, actually. It's about that deep-seated fear of the unknown, and what could happen in an unfamiliar place.McLean, while following a somewhat formulaic idea, stays far away from the usual stupidity. The fact that we have grown to care for the three main characters is why the second half is so effective, because there are things that happen to them that are so brutal that you feel it right with them.'Wolf Creek' is one of the few good/great horror movies I've ever seen.
completely visceral and far more horrifying
posted on 21 Aug 2009than anything that's come out of h-wood lately.there are going to be detractors who say that it's an Aussie retread of 'the Texas chainsaw massacre'; they might even be partially right. what i loved most about this film is the fact that in an age of sadly predictable horror films, this one kept me on the edge of my seat.not only was i actually frightened, but this film kept pushing the envelope in terms of what horror audiences have come to expect. it goes WAY beyond anything you've seen in the last twenty years. thank god for true indies making real horror. this is a thousand times better than the overrated and ultimately idiotic 'saw' precisely because it keeps on showing you things you don't think you're going to see.things that make you really, really uncomfortable. things that are very, very upsetting.when we finished watching i felt as though i had been hit by a truck, much the same way i felt when i watched Texas chainsaw for the first time when i was fourteen. that was a long time ago. i think this film has the potential to become a similar rite of passage for up-and-coming horror fans. it's that powerful.having said that, i can't see them releasing this as is. it touches on stuff that no major studio will want to go near.one of the few 'based on a true story...' films that really is, i wonder how aussies felt when they saw this film. also, the lead baddie is a pretty familiar face to you lot down under--i'm curious how that translated? since i had no clue as to who the #$%* he was, he was totally believable as a freaky hick and scared the hell out of me.great, great movie. horror fans? get your hands on a copy somehow.
Tense, atmospheric low-budget movie.....
posted on 19 Aug 2009When two Brits, Kristy and Liz hook up with Aussie Ben Mitchell, little did they know that a journey of fun and adventure in Australia's vast outback would turn into a terrifying nightmare that has reminiscences of real-life Austalian murder cases such as The infamous Backpacker murders (Ivan Milat) and the disappearence of British tourist Peter Falconio.
The film starts slow but seen the tension ratchets up when the three are stranded in the middle of the night at Wolfe Creek when their car mysteriously cuts out (there is a hint at strange magnetic interference as their watche's stop also). But help is at hand as a seemibgly Aussie good ol' boy turns out offering to fix their car and help them back on the road. John Jarret's monstrous Mick Taylor represents the anti-Mick Dundee. A Vietnam vet with a gleam in his eye, and for all the wrong reasons.
Sunsequently we soon discover that Taylor is a monster worthy of horror-heavyweights such as Leatherface, Hannibal or even anyone of the the hillbilly characters from Deliverance. His chilling laugh that you will remember long after the film has ended. And like leatherface he is partial to hanging bodies up on hooks.
It is actually The Texas Chainsaw Massacre that Wolf Creek greatly gushes over and like an impressionable child it racks up it's own level of brutal violance and gore. It is this level of graphic violence that becomes the film's main flaw. It is not needed really as the tension and horror of their fate is terrifying enough and the gutsy effects really cheapen the experience (Texas Chainsaw Massacre itself rarely revealed gore therefore keeping the tension going).
As a low-budget film it is very well made, atmospheric and full of grizzly aussie characters that you won't seen in the tourist brochure. However, the film does keep it's sense of realism in check and I prefer this to the bloated, irritatingly shock-for-shock emptiness of HOSTEL or the smugness of SAW 3.
Superb horror and terror, but harmed by the "true story" aspect
posted on 17 Aug 2009This carries a tagline of Based on true events, and this concerns me. I think it's that word based, and then seeing how much of the movie is actually real, and the thing that makes the movie better in your mind is more the fact that you're considering what you are seeing is really what happened, when it is often not.This movie really pushes that statement to the outer limits of reasonable interpretation, and relies heavily on the effect the audience's mind will have on them while watching the movie and associating everything with real life. What's even more interesting is that it really does work.The movie really has a few sections, there's the introduction to the characters and their lives, then there's the suspenseful thriller, followed by the Texas Chainsaw Massacre (original) moments, and finally the "based on a true story" wrap up, and actually it combines these really well into an escalation of terror.We're introduced to the three travellers and have time to understand who they are, their relationships with each other, their friends and lifestyles and where they're going in the movie, seems somewhat elongated. Watching it I definitely got the feeling that it was taking too long, however what was happening was we were building an affinity with the characters and making a bond. This worked much better than other movies I've seen of late like Open Water where the introductions to the characters are scant and give you the bear facts without any real connections, so that during the movie when the scares should be kicking into gear you're shaking your head at their annoyance and idiocy.That leads me to the dialogue and the style, both of which are pretty realistic. It switches from a documentary to a drama really well, and it's this early documentary feel that helps bring that believability to it, over the "true story" statement.Although for the most part the dialogue is pretty real and natural, there are some moments where you're left wondering why no one is saying anything, it's more like an improvisation that's run out of ideas rather than a natural break in conversation. There's also a few moments of clunky dialogue that trip over themselves and it slaps you in the face to remind you that you're out of the movie.Slowly, the mood of the movie changes, and the tension and suspense begin to build. This is done really effectively in a series of scenes, and at the point where terror takes over I was surprised at how much I was on edge.There are two really effective scenes that manage to throw your suspense around. The first was the appearance of the truck, again the feeling in these scenes is overly stretched out and this is done to superb effect. He arrives and you know this is bad character, but then he's nice if a bit odd, and repeatedly nice. He's nice after the point that you even think this is a deliberate distraction from the standard Hollywood script device of misdirection. He's actually a nice guy. This just totally messes with you and actually didn't ease the pressure of suspense at all with me, it just raised it, as you knew you were waiting for something bad to happen.Another superb scene is nothing more than a long stare, again it seems overly long but it's an extremely uncomfortable and chilling moment.It's Mick who provides the most natural and truly terrifying performance, and when he really takes to the screen it's from here on that we move into the horror\terror area of the movie. This is where it totally delivers, the suspense is kept going on an even level, but we're treated to some utterly scary moments. Being locked up in the middle of nowhere by a psychopath is probably as scary as it gets, but the real horror is yet to come and we are shown it in a truly uncompromising and frightening way.The two female leads Liz and Kirsty, played by Cassandra Magrath and Kestie Morassi, manage to portray their horror and confusion throughout. It's when they are being chased down that they really deliver performances that convince you they are out of their minds with panic.There are some amazing scenes in this section of the movie that I'm really not going to talk about, other than to say that they are very well written, visualised and portrayed, and they provide for more terror and realistic horror than I have seen for a very long time. It's these moments where my hands were on my face and I was considering that my hungover stomach was definitely not happy.Mixed in here though are some of those traditional teen horror decisions, a few that you can put down to confused terror, and one or two that stuck out for me. However the suspense and terror just sweeps that aside onto the next scene that you have to deal with. This movie has stayed with me for two days now, I'm still feeling uncomfortable and uneasy from it.Yet it's not all great, and here I return to the reliance of that big flag I raised at the beginning, "true story". You see at the end of the movie we're given the traditional "true story" summary of closing events to the present day, just to let you understand the true horror of the events and again to tell us just how real it has all been. Yet in this case, what we realise is how much has been created.That doesn't affect how good the horror and terror story is, but it raises so many more questions and you find yourself wondering a lot more about how and why and the huge missing storyline of one of the characters, rather than concentrating on the feelings of horror and terror that you've experienced and carried away.
predictable(yawn)so called thriller based loosely on factual events
posted on 17 Aug 2009i saw Wolf Creek awhile ago and decided it was time to write a review on it.first off,it reminds me of Hostel,mainly because it was more brutal than necessary,in my opinion.there isn't as much gore as Hostel, but what gore there was,was taken to extreme in some scenes.it was supposedly based on a true story,but that means nothing in modern movies.the plot was nothing new,very predictable,as was much of the outcome.the one thing wolf creek has going for it is that there is some character development and so you are given the chance to feel for the characters when they are in jeopardy.i did care about what happened to the characters both from the character development and the acting which i thought was quite good.unfortunately,the same cannot be said for the rest of the movie.it has nothing new,no scares,just disgust more than anything.it is not as bad as Hostel,but for me,that's not saying much.if you must watch this movie,you should find a cheap place to rent it.but i wouldn't buy it.it's not worth it.lame. 2/5
Different Country - Same Old Clichés
posted on 15 Aug 2009A pretty good, solid little horror film, reminiscent of the original 'The Texas Chain Saw Massacre'. Unlike almost every other reviewer on here, I actually preferred the first half of the movie to the second. It follows the 1970s style of establishing characters before gutting them like fish, something I've always appreciated and sorely miss from modern horror which, like a drunken one night stand, gets down and dirty before we've even learnt their name and then expects us to care about them. 'Wolf Creek' does an admirable job of restraining itself, introducing us to a bunch of fairly likable backpackers and leisurely developing their group dynamic before throwing the proverbial s**t at the fan. Writer/Director Greg McLean shoots some stunning images of rural Australia, managing to convey a genuine sense of the terror of such desolate isolation, but he allows himself to fall back on genre clichés a little too often, especially in such scenes as the rural rednecks intimidating our heroes in a gas station eatery. Everything is going well, slowly building a suspenseful sense of dread, until our protagonists are drugged and the real horror begins.The second half of the movie is held together be solid performances, particularly Jarret, and some excellent cinematography and production design. John Jarrett is brilliant as the psychopathic Mick Taylor, and the movie is really raised to another level when his character appears on the scene. A knowing combination of every pervading stereotype of the Australian male, as funny and irreverent as he is sick and amoral, Jarrett does a great job in creating a killer that is genuinely unique – no small feat in the genre – and his presence is consistently rewarding. But his victims, the very characters we are supposed to identify with, and which McLean has taken so long in humanizing, start behaving in such idiotic and illogical ways as to break any suspension of disbelief the audience has developed. Just as the characters start deliberately sabotaging every chance they have to escape, so the genre clichés start flying thick and fast. The result is that all the restraint and hard work of the first half are completely wasted in the second.The movie has the kind of low-budget grungy, dirty feeling that so eludes bigger budgets, and there's something refreshing about seeing the sadistic, exploitational slasher movie transported to the Australian outback. But McLean allows himself to fall back on lazy genre cliché once too often for his efforts to really be hailed as anything more than an interesting take on a very tired theme.
good good
posted on 15 Aug 2009The tagline a little misleading when it says it's based on a true story. The true story is not about 3 twentysomethings hiking through the outback, but anyways... Everything in this movie was pretty well done except for one thing, the psycho. Listening to him talk with a heavy Aussie accent was the hardest part. The plot got going quickly which was good and then when they pull up to Wolf Creek, you know something is going to happen soon. They make it to the crater and back and when the girl tries to start the car, that's when the movie really takes off. I didn't like the killer too much, I thought he needed to be a little more like the wacko from the Texas Chainsaw Massacre. This dude (John Jarratt) was psycho right from the start, it was almost like he was drunk or something, because he was so helpful to these complete strangers. It was late at night when the psycho found them in their car and brought them back to his camp which was like 2 hours away from the crater (he originally told them that he was 'just down the road.' Anyways, when they got back, they sat around a campfire while the psycho gave them each a glass of something that looked like water, but definitely was not... The next morning, he had one of the girls tied up in his garage, one had her arms and ankles tied together, while the guy was hung from a wall by his arms. One of the best attributes of this is the camera-work. The scene of the 2 girls clinging to the edge of the cliff late at night with Taylor standing at the edge, looked very intense. The thing I didn't like was Taylor himself because his accent was so heavy. It was like watching Paul Hogan try to humour someone before killing them???
Wolf Creek is a rare burst of energy from a tired genre.
posted on 13 Aug 2009My expectations for this film were low, yet within half an hour of watching I was glued to the screen. This is not a particularity original film, Wolf Creek adheres somewhat lovingly to the conventions of it's genre, however unlike many other recent horror slasher productions(see Hostel for one example) it touches on many of the clichés one would associate with the genre, with out feeling embarrassed or overly self conscious. That was the film's biggest achievement for me, that it managed to negotiate such predictable territory in a way that felt fresh and energised. This I believe is due (apart from a very strong performance by the film's killer/anti-hero) to the outstanding direction and the pace of the editing. There is a consistency and a sense of stamina in the way the narrative unfolds, the tension is built slowly and you become aware that your expectations are being gradually manipulated by a movie that for once is not going to disappoint. Another thing I really liked about this film is the way the Killer is represented. The trend in a story of this nature would be to try and add a sense of Verisimilitude to the narrative by giving some insight into the killer's past, (i.e. his pet rabbit got caught in the lawnmower when he was six and the trauma was so great that he blah blah blah) instead we learn little about mind of this killer. He exists with a sense of immediacy and he is represented much like a mythological creature or demon, he is a manifestation of the Australian outback's landscape into which we are travelling, a landscape that is uncompromising and wild. The arrival of the young travellers in to this landscape is marked by the event that there watches all stop working, this announces the fact that their mechanical, cultivated notion of time is no longer applicable, and they are now living as guests on natures time. Without giving away to much, there is a cut from night to day which marks a decent into the violent chapters of the narrative, again by this we are reminded that the ruling force in this environment is nature and that from the blazing sun we can see that here nature is extreme and angry. The film also has a few moments of black humour that made me laugh, but generally it is a pretty tense affair. And I like the parallel between the natural environment and the killer that preys on the travellers. It seems this film, like the best other examples of it's kind, is confounded by genuine social concerns and fears, and with Wolf Creek there is a definite message of punishment for excessive consumption (note all the partying/hedonism at the films outset) by the revenge of Gaia.
2.35 STARS: Pretty good for today's standards or lack thereof I should say.
posted on 09 Aug 2009In "Wolf Creek", a trio of backpacking friends decide to venture to a deserted location in the middle of nowhere to go sight-seeing. While things seem fine at first, it becomes apparent that this become a story of the wrong place at the wrong time. In the interest of not spoiling the story, suffice it to say that the movie is not what it appears to be, at least ostensibly. That being said, the movie does begin to take a dark, brutal, and morbid shape by movie's end.
In a sense, the movie attempts to provide some light misdirection as to what the audience is seeing at first, albeit quite weakly, with a trio of friends engaging upon an adventurous trip out in the middle of a deserted Australian location. A sense of desolation, isolation and desertedness becomes apparent to the audience, and the viewer is able to understand that if something happens to a person in this type of place, the prevailing thought will be, who's going to know or do anything about it? The desolate setting is a precursor of things to come in this movie and sets the tone for the despondency and dejection the protagonists will eventually experience in this deserted part of the country.
"Wolf Creek" delves into the horror of becoming captive of someone who is not what he appears to be, someone who is cruel, evil and hateful, but appears to be nice, helpful and a good ole boy at first...this is effective in showing the audience that people are not always what they appear to be.
The protagonists or supposedly good characters in this movie ultimately experience the feeling of being powerless to control their own life while being subject to the disgusting and bestial pleasures of a maniacal killer out in the middle of nowhere and there is no one to help them. Imagine being unconscious and waking up confined in an unfamiliar location without the friends you were with originally and not knowing of their whereabouts or their well-being. Imagine hearing or observed the pure suffering of one of those friends at the hands of someone you thought was going to help you. These are the ideas of horror that "Wolf Creek" utilizes quite effectively by putting the viewer in the position of the characters which is certainly realistic and terrifying with the character's individual situation in and of itself.
The acting is average at best in "Wolf Creek". John Jarret does a decent job as the villain especially with showing that monsters do not always appears to be monsters at first but appear just like everyday normal people, and he certainly does well for the Australian setting. However, the protagonists (even if they are ordinary) are somewhat poorly casted and they are poor actors, and that does bring the movie down a bit in my opinion because the protagonists are difficult to sympathize with, and their inept acting ability is a direct result of the audience's inability to sympathize with such characters. Aside from that, these protagonists are just a unlikeable lot, and difficult to relate to.
Certainly, "Wolf Creek" breaks all of the horror movie rules so you never know what to expect, and this is most definitely a good thing. However, "Wolf Creek" fails to do enough with the horror that it initially creates. The setting is good, but once the viewer realizes the situation, the action that follows is completely overshadowed by the setting and situational horror used so well to set things up. In other words, the movie begins to go downhill in the subsequent action...the acting is definitely lacking, the protagonist characters are rather difficult to sympathize with and they don't do a good job of portraying the character's human reactions and emotions to such an ordeal.
The cat and mouse game that follows has its moments but is rather poorly done overall and lacking in substance and in style. Perhaps the style and mood or lack thereof is where the movie suffers the most. To be perfectly frank, while John Jarret did a good job, I can think of A LOT of horror movie villains that showed more prowess as a horror movie villain than he did. In a sense, and notwithstanding the brutal torture he inflicted upon these people, Jarret's character does not reach the full potential of a brutal and evil killer in a totally convincing way, and that fact works against the movie's effectiveness as a horror movie although Jarret clearly does an adequate and realistic job as the killer in this "Wolf Creek".
Ultimately, Jarret's performance and character disposition, while probably necessary and realistic on the one hand because of his Australian roots, did not entirely convince me as being as horrifying or as scary as the character could have been. However, "Wolf Creek" tries to sneak up on you, and then it is BAMM right in your face. Clearly, "Wolf Creek" is weak on atmosphere and stylistic elements of cinematic horror. "Wolf Creek" is definitely a good horror movie for today's standards, but one of the main problems with that statement is that today's horror movies have no standards.
Relative to classic horror movies of yesteryear and some of the greatest horror movies of all-time, "Wolf Creek" clearly fails to measure up, but "Wolf Creek" is still a good situational horror film representative of new age horror at its very best, possesses its own charm and survives on its own merit as a horror movie that attempts to attack a basic fear that we all have as individuals, that of being in helpless in an unfamiliar area with no one to help you and completely at the mercy (or lack thereof) of a maniacal and sadistic killer. That's pretty real folks, and "Wolf Creek" does a decent job of bringing this home to the audience. "Wolf Creek" earns a little over TWO STARS on my grading scale, but I'm feeling like Santa Claus today, so keep that in mind when reading this review.
As a final note, "Wolf Creek" is supposed to be based (probably very loosely) on the true story of a brutal and sadistic killer in Australia some years ago. I saw a supposedly real picture of this killer online after looking this story up, and the way he looked in real life made John Jarret look like Santa Claus. Also, personally, I should point out that I found the ending of "Wolf Creek" to be a bit anticlimactic and disappointing, and this has noting to do with the dark nature of the ending but more to do with the ending and climax being overshadowed by the increasing action and initial setting of the situational horror that is employed so well in "Wolf Creek".
Powerful, but anti-climactic.
posted on 07 Aug 2009My expectations for this were pretty high, and I wasn't totally disappointed. This was almost a great movie. It is very well-paced. It begins slowly, introducing the characters in a very casual and subtle manner. The suspense builds slowly. After about twenty minutes or so, when things have started to get just a little tense, the film suddenly grabs you by the throat and doesn't let go till you're gasping for breath. It's that intense.I love the way this movie pulled me in and didn't make any of the horrors easy to watch. The two female leads and John Jarratt all do a fantastic job. The other male lead doesn't have as meaty of a role, though what he does have he plays well enough. All of the actors help the film maintain a sense of realism that could easily have been lost due to the horrific nature of the material. The director probably deserves a lot of credit for that. Greg McLean must have pushed his actors very hard to get the performances we see on the screen. All in all, "Wolf Creek" is incredibly impressive considering it is McLean's feature debut. It's impressive anyway.I have only two complaints. The first is that the film doesn't carry through with the intensity. The last ten minutes or so feel very anti-climactic. Second, a couple of scenes towards the end made me lose my suspension of disbelief. I actually balked at the screen at one point. When I left the theater, I felt that I had just experienced a very good film, but that it could've been great. Still, this is unquestionably a solid film. It deserves to be seen, especially if you like horror films that don't let you off the hook easily.
Good, Scary Flick
posted on 05 Aug 2009I There are basically 2 parts ... the first is a lengthy "set-up" for the second part, when all bloody hell breaks loose.The first part reminds me a little of Peter Weir's Picnic at Hanging Rock. Lots of scenic shots of desolate countryside with a sort of indefinite sense of impending menace. In this movie, though, the overall style was very realistic, almost documentalist, and the primary function of the first part seems not only to have set up that sense of impending disaster, but to give the audience a chance to meet and get to know the three young people (a young man and two young women) who embark on this road trip taking them deeper and deeper into the Australian outback. By getting to know each of the three, we come to care about each one, as they chat and flirt and joke along across the country. I think this chance to get to know the characters and like the characters really helps to set up a stronger sense of horror when the second part arrives.The second part is bloody and reminds me of Texas Chainsaw Massacre and High Tension. All of the acting seems solid and again "realist" in orientation. There is a very interesting "polyvocal" transfer of focus from one girl to another girl to the young man.The use of Night and Day, and Light and Dark, in this movie, I think were really effective in both setting a sense of undefined fear,and in providing a sort of scary sense of disorientation.There is a preface and epilog in the form of raw Courier typewriter style text that seeks to link the movie to "real events" on which this is based. This, along with the documentalist style, sort of gives the movie a Blair Witch Project feel. On the whole, I think this is an effective method of promoting a sense of horror by bridging the horror of the movie into "our world" ("real world") On the whole, if you like scary movies of the "slasher" breed, this is a really good flick to check out.
Torture Porn Mars Masterful Build-up of Tension
posted on 01 Aug 2009The tension created in Wolf-Creek is unbelievable. I haven't been that wound up during a thriller since I watched "Event Horizon" when I was 13. From the very start the film creates an atmosphere of alienation and vulnerability, all set against the inhospitable backdrop of the Australian outback.
In this type of film the core group of characters usually provides a solid foundation and comfort zone for the viewer. We know these people are "Safe" as long as they stick together. In Wolf-Creek, however, the core group lacks that kind of cohesiveness, an unexpected element that isolates the characters from each other even when they are together.
We are introduced to Liz and Christy, two young Brits who embark on a spontaneous tour of Australia, content to let their impulses guide them. With them is Ben, a reckless bad-boy type the girls befriended and invited along. In such a constellation sexual tension is a given, and before the story is even underway an uneasiness has fallen over the trio.
This idle tension is turbocharged with the arrival of Mick, a grizzled 'Outbacker' who happens upon the youngsters and their broken down car - In an isolated park in the middle of the desert - At night.
The affable Ausie offers to tow their car to his garage where he promises to fix it up and send them on their way. As they sit around the campfire and talk to their new friend, Ben can't resist his macho impulse to put the back-country Mick down. In this moment, shortly before the scales of destiny tip horribly against the trio, we catch a glimpse of the real Mick hidden just below the cheerful exterior.
Unfortunately, this is where the film became unpleasant to watch. I like my excessive gore just as much as the next guy, but I'm sick of watching people being sadistically tortured.
When an alien spears a guy through the stomach and blood spews out of his mouth I lean forward, wide-eyed and say "Holy Sh**! Did you see that! Sweet!" and then I high-five the dude next to me. When some psycho paralyzes a girl with an 8inch hunting knife to the spine just as you think she's going to escape, then promises her a slow and painful death, or when he waves the same knife at a bound and bloody woman while he threatens to cut off her breasts, the only thing I feel is acute abhorrence.
The kind of violence in these films is a calculated imitation of sexual sadism, whether the sexual gratification is made explicit or not. Torture for the sake of titillating the audience, making us uneasy and selling it as thrills, is a cheap parlor trick that takes advantage of our darkest impulses. We may not be aroused by torture, but we can't seem to look away either, and once we've made peace with consuming the pain of others for entertainment, we come back again and again. The Roman's discovered this in the Colosseum, and Hollywood has rediscovered it in the modern slasher film. The popularity of the SAW series is a testament to the fact that Torture Porn sells.
I'm not judging those who loved this movie, and I'm not saying you're a sadist (although some fraction of Torture Porn fans most certainly are). Everyone is entitled to choose the type of film that entertains them, and censoring this type of content wouldn't change the fact that it would still sell. However, this film gets 2 stars from me for wasting its potential on base brutality, and this review is a warning to others who share my views not to subject themselves to this film.
****ing masterpiece
posted on 28 Jul 2009This is without a doubt the best Australian based movie I have ever seen. It's a movie that steers well clear of the super natural/super twist/super hero crap that is coming out of Hollywood. Although I headed into the cinema with a fair idea on what the movie was about I was not disappointed. I am a big horror/thriller fan and in allot of these films I am always half a fan of the heel characters... The "bad guy" in this film is without doubt one of the coolest you will find on television. Each of the main characters is very well developed and likable.Go watch it. Now.
Nor believable for a 'true story'
posted on 28 Jul 2009I'm glad some have pointed out the obvious flaws with this story. How is this a true story if the only survivor was, 1. Not around to see anything that happened, and 2, No bodies or other evidence found. THe only thing the only survivor could attest too was that they were all there to begin with, but nothing as to what went on while he was tied up. The other big flaw was, why on earth would anyone in such a position as the girls were, not beat the guy senseless while they had a chance when he was down..in the HEAD, not on the BACK! I don't care how scared you are, or not thinking, you'd want to make sure the guy never got back up! I think any argument for a person not wanting to kill someone would go out the window if a minute earlier they were watching their friend being tortured and you knew you were going to be next.
Good, but you know...
posted on 26 Jul 2009As a lover of the horror..I give them all a chance. This movie was just ok for me. Head on a stick was chilling...and the fart made me giggle even as a grown woman ;) there are things I liked and didn't like. I don't want to give too much away. Surely you should rent this, but maybe not buy it to watch over and over again...As for me I rent nothing...I buy everything I see.
Aussie Horror ???? Please .....
posted on 26 Jul 2009Hey Jinx, come back packing my way .... how can you not rate "saw" ? 18 days of shooting, pure genius .... I have barbed wire and a shed full of tools to show you some real "aussie" horror .... Wolf creek, yeah, its a story, but where do you get "scary" from? Ginger bread .... and Fairy floss ..... Nice car, but have you ever actually driven the Hume? If only it was that empty .... Used to get milk off old Ivan .... let me tell you about scary ......At least they tried .....Nice photography though, makes me think of the road trips through the outback ....
Horrible acting, boring and just terrible
posted on 26 Jul 2009The acting is bad, the effects are bad, the plot is bad, the movie is bad.This movie sucks, it is boring and not worth your time.I want my 2 hours back, I should burn this horrible DVD.Why would anyone like this horrible movie? Well I guess they would like it if they have no taste.Do you have bad taste? If so this is your movie.What about you? If you have any intelligence then you may not like this movie, it is bad.Really really really bad Bad bad bad!!
ZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzz.......
posted on 31 Aug 2009DON'T WATCH THIS MOVIE IF YOU ARE TIRED.
There, you've been warned...
Wolf Creek is one of the most boring and slow horror dramas to come out in the last few years. What's worse, it portrays itself as some nifty little horror film but it is just a "dumb kids do stupid stuff and wind up getting killed" type of slasher flick.
Halfway through the film, I was rooting for the killer or another meteor to come crashing down on top of the lame characters in this ode to boredom. Take a pass on this one.