Wolf Creek (2005) Reviews

• Surprisingly effective and chilling.

  MattD120272006-01-14

  Let 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.

• Surprisingly Devastating

  cdrucke12006-01-03

  I was thrilled to see a movie like "Wolf Creek" come out in theatres: a straightforward horror film not relying on clever twists (except one, small one) or gimmicks. It was the kind of film "High Tension" started off as before that last act mindf*ck. And while I ended up appreciating what that movie did, I would have loved it more without the twist. "Wolf Creek" picks up where films like "Texas Chainsaw Massacre" and "Last House on the Left" left off, without feeling the need to necessarily "pay homage" to them. I wonder if the fact that it's not American-made has anything to do with that. I also wonder if the non-American influence kept this from becoming predictable or familiar in any way. What you think is going to happen in this film never quite happens. One of the original "Texas Chainsaw Massacre" taglines was, "Who Will Survive and What Will Be Left of Them?" I think this film asks the same question, but doesn't provide so simple an answer. I think it's best to know little about "what happens" here before seeing it. Most people know the basics--three backpackers on a road trip, they stop at remote Wolf Creek, entering an odd Twilight Zone of stopped time and dead car engines. A friendly bushman stops by willing to help, let the nightmare begin. I love that director/writer/producer Greg McLean never offers an explanation for the watches and the car engine. What happens in this film seems almost alien--three humans struggling to survive on what appears like a distant, barren planet, up against a hunter with no semblance of humanity in him. Yes, this movie is very similar to "Texas Chainsaw Massacre," but it is in no way a rip-off. While the early-morning showdown on the barren road may look similar to the climax of TCM, it is its own nightmarish entity. In fact, some of the scene reminded me of "Duel." The acting in this movie is brilliant. The three leads--Ben, Kristi, and Liz--are so wonderfully likable, and there is an odd feeling of improvisation in the acting. It's so natural, it seems impossible to script. When everything goes to hell, you want all three of them to survive, and you'll surely be devastated by the slightest injury any of them endures. Many have complained about the hour or so of build up, but I think it was brilliant on McLean's part to make sure we cared about these people, and then to put them through the wringer. It's sadistic, too, emotionally, but it's the sign of a great director. John Jarratt, as Mick, is unforgettably cruel. Jarratt embodies this character from head to toe, and is fearless in his performance. Mick is an ugly, cruel man, and yet when we first meet him, he seems like the nicest guy in the world. One of the scariest aspects to this film is that you can see yourself falling for all of his tricks. To be honest, I never want to see "Wolf Creek" again. It's not a fun movie. I left wanting to hate it, because I hated what happened. But I admire this movie for what it managed to do. I truly had to keep repeating to myself, "It's only a movie," (the infamous "Last House on the Left" tagline) but it's so realistic and so unflinching in portraying what happens, that you'll feel as if someone was always peeking around a corner with a camera, filming an actual event. Of course, this is based on true events, and frankly, there is some discrepancy to how "true" this film tries to be (obviously, much of the second act had to be dramatized, and you'll realize why once you see the movie) but it didn't need that "based on true events" tag. It's already very real. I hate to end on the old "Jaws" cliché, but as I am going to Australia soon, I can say for a fact that this does do for backpacking what "Jaws" did for swimming. I consider this movie a parable of sorts. Well done.

• a terrifying non psychological horror? thats a first

  Stryde222006-03-04

  wow! like many other movies i review, i literally only just saw this. and i must say that I'm impressed with the SAFC, this is a truly horrific movie. The highlights: * Unknown cast- gave the movie a very realistic atmosphere. i was so happy to realise that none of the actors were remotely familiar. * Low Budget- the obvious low budget gave the film a gritty and unsettling appearance. the locations were convincing and didn't look too perfected for cinema. * Character Development- This was my favorite aspect of the movie. unlike the corny Hollywood slasher/horrors that jump straight into the gore, this movie gave about an hour of very carefully planned events made solely to adapt to the characters. it was strange because although nothing was really happening during that hour, it still seemed interesting. I've come to realise that this was because of how realistic it was to show non-eventful scenes. not every second of life has something interesting. * Psycho- Mick Taylor was a very creepy character because of how familiar his behaviour is. before we see his psychopathic ways, he comes across as just some friendly bloke trying to lend a hand. and his creepy smile is still terrifying long after the movie has ended. Negative points: * a couple of factual mistakes, none too bad though * only loosely based on true stories, therefore not as scary Apart from that, this was actually one of the best horror movies out there. definitely the best gore-fest horror, anyway. Congrats to the South Australian Film Corporation!

• Unrelenting, actually frightening

  michaeljharvey2008-11-10

  Wolf Creek is a fine example of a rare breed nowadays: a horror film that pulls no punches and makes no apologies for frightening and unnerving the audience. Three young people are hiking in the Australian Outback when they're unlucky enough to meet Mick Taylor (played brilliantly by John Jarratt), one of the most twisted psychopaths to grace the big screen in years. Mick is a guy who did some hunting at one time, is pretty good with a rifle, and is a survivalist with some possible military training... we're not really sure of much else. All we know is that at some point he took up hunting people for his own amusement and found out he was quite good at it. What makes this film frightening is how realistic and plausible the story is. Mick seems like a demon that could actually exist in the real world. He's not a super-genius serial killer always toying with the cops. He doesn't kill to fulfill some grandiose plan or message. He doesn't kill his victims in elaborate, unlikely scenarios or games. Rather, he's a pure sadist who just seems to enjoy watching pain, suffering and death. It's that simple. It doesn't take much imagination to realize, in the the middle of the Outback, it would be quite easy for a psycho like Mick to operate for a long time and never get caught. Wolf Creek is brutally violent and unflinchingly realistic. It never gives the audience time to catch their breath or to feel any hope. This movie is not for everyone. It leaves you unsettled and feeling uneasy. This is only for real horror fans who desire a scare that will stick with them long after the movie ends.

• Surprisingly brutal and horrifying horror flick.

  HumanoidOfFlesh2006-01-29

  "Wolf Creek" is very loosely based on a true story of the real-life serial killer Ivan Milat,who was convicted of killing 7 backpackers and dumping their bodies in the Belangalo Forest,Australia.One of his intended victims,a young British guy,managed to escape and was instrumental in identifying the killer.The filmmakers have used a lot of key points from this case for the movie,for example the physical description of Ivan Milat,the fact that he used a hunting knife and was a gun fanatic.Also he sliced through the spinal cord of most of his victims,paralyzing them before stabbing,shooting,beating and or sexually assaulting them.The personal belongings of his victims were eventually found in a police raid on his home,sleeping bags,tents,backpacks,etc.So the actual story of Wolf Creek isn't true,but the psychopath is a reality.That's why "Wolf Creek" is so terrifying and intense.Director McLean perfectly uses the environment to create an atmosphere of total dread and hopelessness.The film is grainy and offers some fairly brutal scenes of violence and torture,especially towards the female characters.John Jarratt is perfect as Mick Taylor,a sadistic psychopath who stalks tourists.The story is pure,uncluttered and horribly believable,gripping the viewer and never allowing for one second any doubt that the horrors we are witnessing could indeed happen to anyone.Overall,"Wolf Creek" is an intense,decidedly visceral experience that should satisfy fans of relentless horror.9 out of 10.