Wolf Creek..

Agree, it's one of the worst horror movie ever imo, didn't like it at all.




As for the gore in Wolf Creek, I have seen films where the gore was ultra hyped up and it turned out to be nothing disturbing, or it might be just numbed to it lol...

Since someone mentioned Last House on the Left, I didn't get disturbed by the film at all.
 
The thing about Wolf creek is that it is not a typical slasher movie in many respects. Now fair enough you have the formulaic set up routine.

Lost, stranded, Offered help. Wake up tied in a shed... However most horror slasher flicks are massivly heavy on the actual gore. A lot of blood spraying around, chasing round. Typically killing off people in random order to get to the one you really want to kill.

However this film actually subverts many parts of this genre. Firstly you have the bad guy. A take on the happy chirpy bush fodder. The happy go lucky attitude of Australian bushmen that we have assumed from other films. Further the one that he seems most angry at during the chat round the fire, Ben, is the one that he does least to. Mick is an oppurtunist like all killers. We assume that he is dumn at first and has decided to just attack these kiRAB. But as it unravels we see it is much more sinister. Everythign is planned. He pre-drugs the water, he follows them from the petrol station. He is ruthless. He doesn't sell the stuff they steal, there is no motive except his own neeRAB. There is no vendetta like some slasher movies. There is no supernatural desire to kill. Its sick, its premeditated and it is all taking what he can. We also think there might be when we see the watches stop. However that is revealed by Ben when he inadvertandtly say that the meteor was drawn to something in the rock. Magnetised iron causing the watches to stop.

Secondly we have the victims. We invest most time in Liz. She is the one we invest most time and effort in, the one we assume survives because she is the one that escapes first, but she is the one the suffers the most probably with the whole "head on a stick" The obvious survivor dies. The one we think is least likely to survive is Ben. The cocky young guy who pisses Mick off. Maybe that is because we are a BritishaAudience, but we see him a few times tied up and we assume that the girls are going to leave him. He is the one who escapes, admittedly from a rather brutal situation. Thus we don't have the plucky heroine surviving. We have the worst possible outcome for her.

Thirdly and finally there is no retribution for teh awful crimes done by Mick. He is still lose. The only survivor is fingered by the cops and teh girls are never found again.

Its very different from normal slasher movies in basic conception, and though i found iot slow to start off, I though the pacy second half was a brilliant take on an urban myth.

EDIT - sorry tried to keep it vague but not vague enough apparently
 
Ok - finally finally got round to seeing WC. I actually quite liked it, save for the cheap 'lets try and play the authentic card' ending, which was unnecessary since everything that had occured in the first half of the movie played up the reality factor really successfully.

As Nancy Leathers has said, it does subvert the usual slasher flick. In fact, I wouldn't even class this as a horror film. Sure it is horrific, but it is not your run of the mill genre piece.

I thought the acting was really good (ok there were a few wonky vowels from the Aussie girls' English accents but it did not detract from their overall charisma).

Great set-up, involving characterisation and no gratuitous violence (yes I do mean that - it was not gorefest; everything that happened drove the story on and in fact, like TTCM, you dont actually see that much in the way of blood and guts apart from
the fingers being chopped off
.

And beautifully filmed. The outback looked just mesmerising - vast and haunting, enough to drive a man mad.

Here is my hokey drive-In alternative ending.

After picking him up, Ben's rescuers are driving through the bush hoping to get to the nearest town. One of them checks their watch - guess what, it has stopped. Engine dies, pan out to Wolf Creek Park signage. Well you can guess the rest. :D
 
I've been waiting to see it for ages, and really enjoyed it. However, as with all horror films, there were the occasional problems:

1. why not shoot him or stab him when he was down?!? hitting his back with the rifle twice wont do anything. I know it's difficult to comprehend how you'd act and feel in their shoes, but I hope I'd have the common sense to kill him. I wonder what audiences would say after a film in which the hero actually did kill the killer half way through, and the rest was other struggles e.g. escape, finding frienRAB, other killers?

The rest are just observations, many mentioned already but frustrated me to the point of writing them down again:

2. why drive the car off the cliff, only to go back to get another car, duh. furthermore, why hide on the cliff in the same path as the car you just pushed down?

3. why climb back up the cliff and lay there, screaming and talking at the tops of your voice. The killer is around... SHUT UP!

4. why say "i'll be 5 minutes" and then spend 20 mins watching peoples' videos?

5. I didn't understand why he just killed the girl on the side of the road by shooting her, after she fell out of the car. This is a guy that seems to scout the area, hoping for fresh meat and, when getting some, savouring his time killing them. Why would he kill her like that instead of taking her back and torturing her?

apart from that, beautifully shot, some originality, and very realistic
.
 
Looking back and after reading a few posts (Nancy Leathers in particular) I realise this film is a lot better than i first thought, but i'm still never watching it again coz it was so nasty. What can I say i'm a wimp.

You know when Ben wakes up and the dogs are around him in cages?Mick was gonna have eaten alive by the dogs right?He really hated Ben so i guess he was saving him till last. I'm glad someone survived though, i thought nobody would as it's that type of film.
 
I got this out on DVD and watched it again the other night despite telling myself I wouldn't. I think Mick Taylor (the outback bloke) is so effective because we're used to seeing an inhumane, silent monster or some guy in a mask do all the nasty deeRAB, as in, say, Halloween or Scream or Friday the 13th. Even in Texas Chainsaw Massacre the main killer had a mask. Mick's different from all those, because he's human, he's too real.

Anyway, one question:

After he's shot Kristy dead he sets fire to the old guy's car and he loaRAB her body into the trunk of his car. We see a bare leg sticking out. It can't be the old guy, because he hasn't had time to go and pick him up, and it isn't Ben. It is male though, because it's quite a hairy leg, so who is it? Is it just a subtle touch to show that Mick has had other recent victims?
 
Thanks very much! :eek:

I think he wanted to preform a slower horrible death on Ben yeah. lets the dogs eat him while he was still alive. The whol elsow death thing and the nails through his wrists was gruesome. though I wonder if it is supposed to make you think that Ben is somehow being crucified or is a saviour somehow?
 
just need to say 'IT'S SHITE'!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :D :p
 
Yep its very good, only problem i had was it seemed like a long 96min movie.

The reason being the movie could have been done and dusted in about 40min, it seems like it was stretched alot.
 
I really liked it. i can understand why you felt 'is that it' though - it kinda happens quickly and i thought there'd be a twist of some kind. i thought the psychopath was only the first in a line of 'villains'. im surprised it was 2 hours long(i still cant believe that) as it felt like it was only half an hour long. this film really disturbed me though. im not usually scared or sickened by this film was pretty sick, i think because it was believable. ive always wanted to live in the country alone...not now. im starting to obsess over the actor John Jarratt though...which is pretty sick in itself!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/films/2005/09/15/john_jarratt_wolf_creek_interview.shtml
 
anyone who watched todays Neighbours will notice that Andy McPhee who played the tall guy in Wolf Creek who fancied a threesome is in Neighbours as a Prison Officer..........
 
Wolf Creek! NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!


It was horrific, I've seen some gross horror movies but this was just vile. There was very little scare in the traditional sense, with creepy music etc, it was a mix of scare of many different films which made it so good, taking the best bits... Jeepers Creepers was in there with the car escapes. Blair Witch with the creep factor; video cameras and the teenager aspect. And the movie which I can
 
I thought they did this because the lights on the car would attract the killers attention?

But as for going back to that horrible place, why on earth would you do that?
 
Back
Top