Customer Reviews

Wolf Creek

5 star:		(52)
4 star:		(71)
3 star:		(40)
2 star:		(36)
1 star:		(54)

 

 

As per usual, there have been a great many moronic things said about this movie. Some critics have been offended by it, but don't let that make you think this is some sorta gorefest. The violence is intense and reasonably graphic, but it's certainly not gory in the conventional sense. I find it amusing that those who were offended by the film have more or less said that it was too horrifying, cause ya know, god forbid that someone actually be horrified by a horror movie. They've also said it is misogynistic, just like they've said about every other slasher movie ever. (Slasher movie isn't entirely appropriate for describing this, but it's as good as we'll get.) This is a particularly irritating complaint, first because they always say this, second because it's a bullcrap non-argument evasion intended to avoid any real analysis, and finally because it isn't true. In fact, it's even less true here than it usually is, cause the film doesn't make the killer into the hero. Yes, bad things happen to the women in this film, but we AREN'T supposed to be happy about it. And, of course, very bad things happen to men in the film as well, but who the hell cares about them anyway? Everyone knows that women are much, much more important than men. I also think it's interesting that the killer is a fat, greasy dude from out in the country, as they so often are in this sorta movie, yet it has not been accused of being bigoted against rural people, nor has any horror movie I've ever heard of. What a bizarre coincidence. Wonder why critics don't seem to care about those sorts of people. Maybe they really think that they all are killers. I dunno.

But, critical idiocy aside, this is a very nicely done horror film. The plot is simplicity itself- 3 youths are captured and tormented by a backwoods psychopath while vacationing near Wolf Creek in Australia. Subplots are rarely of interest in slasher films, and 'Wolf Creek' fortunately has none of them. Still, with the very small cast we get to know these characters quite a bit better than we usually would in a slasher film, and they are certainly far more likable than the hot young teens of the American slasher revival. (Of course that doesn't mean much, as said hot young teens are usually loathsome.)

'Wolf Creek' was really made on the cheap, only about 1 million bucks, I hear, and it's certainly got a rough, gritty look. Some people claim that grainy, DV films with handheld cameras are more realistic, which makes precisely no sense as life is not especially grainy, and I tend to hold my head fairly still. However, this technique can allow for a greater sorta intensity and physicality, which works well here. Despite the generally rough visuals, it's still got some rather beautiful cinematography at times, and the great Australian deserts are a fine backdrop for such events.

Yeah, the film does take a while to get going, certainly longer than is necessary, but seriously, are you guys all 3 years old or what? Go out in the lobby and drink your juice and then go potty, and then it'll almost be time for the killing to start. The acting is extremely good for a film with this kinda budget. The 3 leads all do a fine job, with some fairly authentic, if not exactly fascinating, casual banter in the first half of the film. Still, the second half is much more important, and they play it a bit different from most horror films, which is largely why this bothers so many critics. In most horror movies, none of the characters are ever authentically terrified. They're pretty nervous and jumpy and may let out a scream before they die, but they're pretty much in control. Not so here, as Magrath and Morassi spend much of the latter part of the movie in near hysterics, and are utterly convincing, with two of the finest performances of this sort since Marilyn Burns' classic turn in the original 'Texas Chainsaw Massacre'. John Jarrat is also excellent as the killer. They use a trick which is fairly common, in that we are introduced to him as if he were a normal character, who seems amiable enough, if a bit odd, and we then slowly see his violent side revealed. It's an old trick, but a good one, and it works especially well here, aided by his Australian accent, which are always inherently non-threatening to me, for some reason. He does get to be a bit wisecracking at times, but never to the point which he becomes the hero of the film.

Many will say this has an anticlimactic ending, and while I can't help but agree with this to some degree, it's also kind of interesting in that it is so different from what you'd usually see in this sorta film. The small cast also makes it quite a bit less predictable, as most slasher movies have the few central characters who will obviously survive, along with plenty of cannon fodder. With only 3 main characters there just aren't enough people to allow any meaningless little kills stuffed in at the beginning, and it's tougher to predict the order in which they will be offed.

Though I'm sure many of you are sick of hearing this, `Wolf Creek' really is a throwback to the more intense horror films of the 70's like `The Texas Chainsaw Massacre' and `The Hills Have Eyes'. It's got an intensity and seriousness that is almost inevitably lacking from later slasher movies, and the old rough and violent feeling. As such, it certainly isn't for everyone, as many people seem to only like gentle, feel-good horror or conventional gorefests. But, it you've got a taste for something darker and more intense, `Wolf Creek' is definitely worth a look.

Grade: A- (This is after watching it again on DVD, and determining that it was even better than I'd thought initially. I'd change the rating to a 5, if I could.)

The thing about horror movie conventions is that you get stuck following them. You get so used to them that you either figure the movie out before it even gets going or you might be scared but you're really simply going through the motions. Then comes a movie that plays with conventions and, at times, decimates them. You're no longer in your comfort zone. You no longer know what's going to happen. Wolf Creek is kind of like that movie.

It begins slowly as a road trip film. A great deal of the beginning is spent on developing characters (shock! What a novel concept!). At times it might drag a bit, but really its all set up. A lot of negative reviewers have commented that its boring. I guess in today's society of instant gratification I shouldn't be surprised...but I think the slower start works well for this movie. There are a couple scenes setting up a feeling of unease in your stomach. But what the beginning does really well is set you at ease before destroying that ease with one of the cruelest villains seen in today's horror film culture.

What happens when the scares start is out of a nightmare. I'm not going to say anything else about the plot because in the way it plays with conventions, there are some nice little twists in the plot. It keeps you on your toes. In fact, if you are an avid horror film buff, you will probably enjoy this movie the most simply because of the way it continues to crush horror film cliches and conventions. I think that's what impressed me the most about this movie. As a horror film buff, I sat there and watched in glee as things that normally happen in a horror film were turned on its head. Also, like a fellow reviewer has mentioned, with a cast of 3 protagonists, there really is no "cannon fodder." And you never know who will survive and who won't. I really want to talk more about it but it will ruin some of the little twists that really make this film what it is.

The movie is very dark in tone. It reminded me of the feel of High Tension (another great horror film this year). The gore isn't as over the top as High Tension which helps ground the film in the possible territory. And Australia is the perfect location for this film. The scenes of complete isolation and utter desolation; the kind where you don't know which way is which. Its disorienting in a way that many horror films try to capture but never fully express. Some scenes toward the end are so bleak and disorienting you can't help but feel lost and wondering if you were stranded out there what WOULD you do?

This has been an "interesting" year for horror films. On one hand there have been a ton of PG-13 horror films that have catered to the safe and money-making teen crowd. These films offer mainly the "boo" scare with the loud music and close ups. The kind of movie people shriek at because they are surprised, then spend the next ten minutes laughing about it. And there have been a few movies that have been "throw backs" to the 1970/early 80s horror/gore flicks; the really in your face flicks that at one time defined what horror was.

One of them took all of the bad parts of those films (The Devil's Rejects) and left out all of the good. This film did the exact opposite. What films like The Devil's Rejects forget is that violence for violence's sake does not instill terror. However, when you care about the characters, like in the original Texas Chainsaw Massacre and in this film, the violence gets under your skin. It gets into your head and you find yourself holding your breath that everyone makes it out okay...but knowing full well its not that kind of story.

Wolf Creek: a must see.

I chose to see this movie after a dinner with some girls from work, and perhaps this Horror is not for everyone, we all got creped out and totally engrossed in the story line.

Shot in what felt like real life cinematography it felt so raw and real I had to remind myself to breathe while the story unfolded. I liked how the cast was small and very likable, and although the beginning unfolded slowly we got to know and like Liz, Kristy and Ben more, until I remembered that this was not going to be a pretty movie and I had a huge knot in my throat thinking about what was laying ahead for them.
The are simple young kids backpacking through Australia when they visit the Wolf Creek National Park, and spend some time at the Crater, which is a tourist attraction while in the middle of nowhere. Their troubles start when their watches and the car stop working, and they have to rely on a friendly local to help them out. Unfortunately the friendly local has other intentions about their future and they are gruesome. I was shocked while watching half the scenes; this movie really stays in your head, days after you see it. Perhaps because the kids are so nice and likable and real and when bad things happen it's like watching yourself in this situation.

I really liked this movie because it reminded me of books such as Intensity by Dean R. Koontz, where you had a young person or more, trying to survive a deadly game with a lunatic killer who is insanely hard to outwit.

The major plusses of the movie were that the cast was small and let me tell you, they were not spared close encounters and even death, but you must watch for yourself to see how that unfolds. All I can say it that when you saw the struggle and pain and thought a certain person was safe, only the worst happened over and over. This movie grabs you slowly, but then it sucks you in like a tornado. I loved this low budget flick and I will definitely hold it above many Hollywood productions. If you love horror, then you will love this, no iffs and buts about that!

Let there be no mistake, "Wolf Creek" is of the true crime genre. It is not a movie for the faint hearted. Reasonably explicit acts of violence are part of the story.

"Wolf Creek" is said to be based on a true story. This may be stretching the truth a bit. There are probably two cases which are points of reference. The first is the so-called back packer murderer, Ivan Milat, who is currently doing a life term in a high security prison near Sydney. The second is the Peter Falconio case where the man in question has gone missing presumed murdered with a defendant currently in the dock. Both cases were particularly gruesome.

John Jarrett plays the murderer in "Wolf Creek" and he personifies evil. He is a serial killer who shows neither remorse nor any sign of slowing down. His technique is generally the same. He acts to assist travellers who have broken down in the outback before drugging them and then moving on to rape and murder. For many people, travel in the outback will never be the same after watching this film.

Regardless, the film is well worth watching. The plot is plausible as are the characters. However, as already mentioned, the scenes are violent and upsetting. If such violence takes you beyond your comfort zone, avoid the film. Walking out in disgust, as same patrons have done, is little more than a display of ignorance.

I recently rented "Wolf Creek" and wow. I enjoyed it alot. I hadn't heard much about it beforehand due to it being a low budget horror flick, the kind of thing that I just don't care for. I figured it'd be a massive slashfest or something similar. Enough to please horror fans basically.

What I got was a horror movie that scared me senseless. I remember just watching the scenes of the killer and thinking "This man is insane and will do anything." It keeps you on the edge of your seat specifically through suspense. Not to mention the Australian Outback which seems to just seem so scary unto itself.

This is truly a good movie. If you're a diehard horror fan then you may not like it. However, if you're just wanting to check out a movie, this is perfect. Good thriller to keep you awake at night.

PS: No trips to the Outback for me anytime soon.

I love horror movies and anyone not totally disturbed by the end of this movie has something totally wrong with them. This movie grabs hold and doesn't let go, it's Aussie horror done right. I only wish Americans would take a look at how other directors around the world were doing their movies, & get away from all the half azzed lame remakes & trendy Asian horror flicks(how many little dead wet asian girl movies are you people gonna pay for?). Anyway, these guys have shown the world how to respark the "slasher film" genre, and how to do it without spending gobs & gobs of money. This is the kind of horror I want, not big budget, PG-13, teenie bopper fluff. You know horror movies are intended to scare the crap out of you, they're intended to horrify you, hence "HORROR". If you wanna see something safe & PG-13, you should keep out of the horror section, you don't see me forcing more violence in your cheeseball MTV movies do you. This is horror how it should be done, gritty, violent, scarey, GREAT MOVIE!!!

Kristy, Ben and Liz are three fast friends (he's Australian, they're British tourists) who decide that yes, of course it's a good idea to drive a beat-up old station wagon halfway across the Australian desert to see Wolf Creek crater, one of the most impressive meteoric craters in the world. Along with their inevitable auto breakdown comes rescue in the shape of friendly-yet-strange Mick Taylor, a bushwhacker with plenty of auto parts and a slightly aggressive desire to assist them in their hour of need.

The most noticable thing about the first segment of 'Wolf Creek' is the slowness of the pace - this movie does take quite a while (some forty minutes) before the real subject matter is dealt with, but thanks to the quality of the acting and the really excellent, fresh direction, this long build-up doesn't drag.

As Kirsty and Liz, Kestie Morassi and Cassandra MaGrath turn in likeable and convincing performances as two backpackers in search of fun, and don't really suffer from the 'civilian-turned-superwoman' syndrome of so many contemporary horror movies. Nathan Phillips as Ben gives a similarly decent turn in his role, and, while his part is considerably smaller, it's no less pivotal to the movie. John Jarratt as Mick Taylor is excellent; he's a malevolent and realistic version of Freddy Krugger, and the superb contrast between placidity and violence that Jarratt portrays make this one of the tightest, most effective movie villains for many years.

Direction is gorgeous - using a very dark, washed-out palette, Greg McLean builds on his previous directorial success with award-winning short 'ICQ' by creating a visual atmosphere that's both incredibly strong and very, very subtle. The intense melancholia of the daytime scenes is nicely balanced with the artfully-shot violence and the whole piece comes off as very polished and very, very convincing.

The fact that this is a movie based on a true story does help its rating, though - were this simply a standalone horror movie, it would be a solid three-star effort. This isn't the fault of the actors or the director, who all do superb jobs. Rather, in terms of content, not a whole lot happens here that's particularly memorable. Once the movie is over you still find yourself waiting for the real punch and muscle behind the picture; sadly, this never arrives. The ending is great, and totally unexpected for a film in this genre, but there is an overall sense of something missing from it.

Still, while you're in the middle of it, 'Wolf Creek' is certainly a gripping and worthwhile film.

Recommended highly for rental.

Hard core horror fans take note! This highly intense Australian horror film will not dissappoint fans of this genre. The violence is graphic. I won't lie to you about that. It concerns three twenty-something people, two women and a man, who are traveling across the Australian Outback. Their destination is Wolf Creek, a large crater in the middle of the outback which has been made into a kind of national park. They park their car and begin a hike into the crater which, according to a sign posted, will take about three hours. When they return, their car won't start. Ouch. Night falls and our three friends are still stranded out in the middle of nowhere trying to figure out what to do. All of a sudden, a large pick-up truck pulls up out of the darkness. Out of the truck comes Mick Taylor, a friendly, middle-aged Australian man with a Crocodile Dundee hat. He offers to fix their car but he must tow it back to his camp to do it. The three friends decide to take him up on his offer. BIG MISTAKE!!! Mr. Taylor you see is a psychopath in every sense of the word. The terror he subjects these people to is beyond belief. The rest you will have to see for yourself. Not many people saw this film during it's theatrical release. The decision to release it on Christmas day was somewhat strange. I saw it the day after New Year's. I recomended it to a guy at work and we haven't stopped talking about it. Not a day goes by that we don't quote a line or something from it. It's become sort of a tradition. John Jarrat, who plays the psycho Mick Taylor deserves recognition for his performance. Check it out! It's a must for any serious horror film buff's collection.

There 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.

I want to address a running issue in the thread of reviews here which is this - Not every movie needs to be compared to The Texas Chainsaw Massacre. Unfortunately, Marketing companies know that movie was the lowest budget-highest grossing film in 3 decades, and so they bill any low budget film as the next TCM.

So yes, the Wolf Creek is low budget, it is raw, and the horror is realistic...The similarities stop there other than the fact that Wolf Creek spends the first 3 reels of the film developing character (and to those of you who criticize this while flying your "I'm a Texas Chainsaw Massacre fan" flag - watch the first 30-40 mins of TCM and tell me how many people die in it)

Wolf Creek is savage and brutal, it does not have the circus/gore feel of Devil's Rejects or Saw II. And though I think High Tension is a decent comparison - in terms of darkness and brutality - I found Wolf Creek to be more disturbing. The death-scenes left me uncomfortable and uneasy which I havn't legitimately felt since first watching Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer. So, Blanket comparisons aside - if realistic horror is your bag, and you can sit through character development (and yes, I understand some people don't want/need that in their horror) Wolf Creek comes highly recommended.