|
Directed By: Greg McLean Starring: John Jarratt, Cassandra Magrath, Kestie Morassi, and Nathan Phillips This movie is a pretty average horror movie. It wasn't very scary. You could always usually tell what would happen next. Bassic Plot: Three friends go on a trip to a crater. They brake down and a killer take them and hunts them down. Advanced Spoiler PlotThe plot goes like this. Three friends decided to go on a trip to "Wolf Creek". Wolf Creek is a giant crash site of a meteor. They drive for a good 30 minutes then hit a gas station. There they get some gas and such. Then they drive for another 20 minutes and get to Wolf Creek. They hike to the top and check out the place then hike back down. When they get back to their car, they find it doesn't turn on. They are stranded. A man (John Jarratt) comes by and says that he has stuff to fix the car back at his place. They have no other choice but to go with him. While there they sit around the camp fire and joke. They fall asleep from possibly drugged water/drinks. When they wake up they are tied up and their car is ripped to peices. The two girls (Cassandra Magrath and Kestie Morassi) escape in a truck. The killer then chases after them. They are on the run for a kill while. Eventually they need a car otherwise they will be caught. So one goes back to get a car on the killers ranch place. While trying to get the car she is stabbed by the killer. The other girl runs away and gets on the road. A old man stops and picks her up. The killer is somewhere in the distance and uses a sniper to kill the old guy. The girl then uses his car to try and run, but the killer has a car and chases her. His is faster and catched up. She escapes but he shoots out the tire and she flips over. He then shoots her. Then the guy (Nathan Phillips) wakes up to find himself crusified in a barn with wild dogs in a cage below him. He pulls himself off and escapes. He runs and runs till he gets to a road and passes out. Some nice tourists pick him up and send him to the hospital. He is the only survivor of the three friends. Like I said, the movie isn't to scary. I can only say that one time I was frightened. It was bassically when the killer pops out of nowhere. The acting wasn't to great. I saw that some times you can see them looking back at the camera when talking to someone. Making it a little less real experience. Aside from the actors looking back at the camera for no reason, there are some other little things. The first 50 minutes is very boring and uneventful. If you walked in an hour after it started you wouldn't be confused at all. It's just them driving around Australia. You usually could see what was going to happen next. Could've been better. It needed more near escapes witht the killer. There was a decent amount of blood. I couldn't help but think how stupid some of the things they do. At one point one of the girls shoots him and just barely skins his neck. He passes out because of shock. She then takes the gun (rifle) and just hits him in the back a few times. I though "Wouldn't it be a better idea to hit him in the head and just smash his head to pieces, that way knowing he is for sure dead. Overall it wasn't to great. If you have the money to go see a movie, see King Kong instead. Don't waste your money. On a side note, I found it funny that on the website for the film it has a counter on the bottom of the site that starts at 290503 or some random number starting with 2. Then it just adds numbers quickly, and it gets blury, supposedly from having so many hits. But if you refresh the page it starts over at some random 2 number with 6 digits. Phony hit counters  .RATING: 3 Pros: People die, torture, car chases Cons: Not very scary, very predictable, not the greatest acting, first 50 minutes of the movie is extremely boring IMDB: http://imdb.com/title/tt0416315/ Windows 98 fucked around with this message at 15:56 on Dec 28, 2005 |
#
?
Dec 28, 2005 15:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 17:36 |
|
|
I found Wolf Creek to be very effective in setting the scene for the terror in the second half, and certain parts made me queasy. Didn't end up walking out, but can certainly sympathize with those that did. Above average.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2006 06:51
|
|
|
Just got back from seeing it, and I think the initial review was a bit too friendly. Lackluster acting, predictable plot, and an absolutely horrid and cliched slasher-flick ending, right down to the "Dragnet" style "This one got away, they thought he did it for a while. Later, he was cleared of charges. He still lives in Australia to this day." blurb at the very end. Add this to the also aforementioned seemingly endless dragging of the first half of the movie, and you have "Wolf Creek." This is one of those movies that would have been a lot better if it were a short film rather than feature length. For those who have been enticed by the commercials/trailers to go see it, I give you the words of my roommate, who saw the movie with me: "That had to be the worst loving case of the commercials showing all the good parts of the movie that I've ever seen." As for the violence, on the plus side, there were a few gore/torture scenes that seemed relatively plausible (as in: not thrown in just to be intentionally disturbing or edgy). On the minus side, most of them felt exactly the opposite, merely over-the-top imagery for the sake of over-the-top imagery. Absolutely crap movie with a few redeeming moments. Rating: 1.5
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2006 09:14
|
|
|
Yea, I just watched this movie, and I agree with the post above me. The first fifty minutes are utterly pointless, everything was predictable as poo poo, and the acting was pretty subpar. Also, the first half of the movie alludes to the fact that it might be an alien movie. They talk about the mysteriousness of the crater, tell a weird alien story, two people's watches don't work, and the car breaks down. However, that is all completely coincidental because the entire movie doesn't have a loving thing to do with aliens. Also, this next sentence is a SPOILER and I am not putting it in SPOILERS because it needs to be said out loud. IF YOU ARE CAUGHT MY A KILLER, AND YOU ESCAPE, AND YOU SHOOT HIM, SHOOT HIM AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN AND THEN TAKE A KNIFE TO HIS loving THROAT. GOD. Rating: 1.5/5, would've been a 2 if it wasn't for that loving bullshit. Aggro fucked around with this message at 16:19 on Jan 2, 2006 |
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2006 16:17
|
|
|
This was, without a doubt, the biggest pile of horse poo poo that I have EVER made myself sit through. I had high hopes for this movie, I really did. Reviews were everywhere hailing it as the next Texas Chainsaw Massacre, that it was true horror, the way it is meant to be. Here's what I got out of it - Movie starts, 5 minutes of watching people party. Oh hey, look, there's the title after a completely pointless opening! OK, now we get to watch these three teenagers drive around for the next hour. I'm not kidding you, absolutely NOTHING happens within the first hour of the movie. I'm usually the kind of guy who gets pissed off at the assholes who break out their phones in movies. For this one, it was the only way I could stay awake. What the gently caress was the director thinking when edtiing this pile of poo poo? OK, so we're an hour in now, and it starts to get slightly interesting. Some bitch screams, there's a little bit of blood, some more screaming, then a lovely car chase and crash. Bitches go back like the dumb cunts they are, one gets stabbed twice, the other gets shot. Oh, and the guy got away, lucky him. Honestly, I didn't feel one ounce of sympathy for any of the characters. To be perfectly honest, I was rooting for the psycho aussie to do something cool in order to keep my attention. The scene that should be suspenseful has no atmosphere at all because of the editing. There's no sign at all that the killer may be waiting behind to corner, there's only the sense that the place is empty except for the person on camera. I'm taking way too long for this, so I'll make this one final statement - After much consideration, I've decided on something that would be more enjoyable than having to sit through Wolf Creek again. Basically, I would walk up to the ticket booth, give the guy my money, and he would proceed to punch me in the nuts for the next hour and a half. That would have been much better than sitting in that theater. And one last note. This was an actual comment from the couple in front of us in the theater: Wife - "I thought you said this was horror." Husband - "Yeah, it is." Wife - "Yeah, horr-IBLE!" Husband - "I know." Mind you, that was after the killing went down, so the only possible saving grace this movie had did NOTHING. gently caress Wolf Creek, gently caress the critics who don't know a damned thing, gently caress Australia for making this, and gently caress LION'S GATE for actually releasing this under their name. What happened, LG? You used to put out good horror! .5/5, only because a score of negative infinite isn't available. EDIT - Barney's Great Adventure entertained me more. NovaHunter fucked around with this message at 07:30 on Jan 3, 2006 |
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2006 07:26
|
|
|
Probably in my bottom 10 of the year, Wolf Creek suffers from just about everything imaginable from terrible pacing and bad acting to unimaginitve plot devices and a stale "based on true events" shtick. Usually the "based on true events" bit serves to add to the terror of the story, making the audience sympathize with the victims -- unfortunately that falls flat in Wolf Creek. I didn't sympathize at all with any of the characters, I had no reason to as they weren't built up at all. The tacked on romance angle seemed forced, coupled with the fact that our killer seems to know more about the girls than we do. (Minor spoiler follows) Another major problem is plot direction. What were they doing driving across the country? Were they friends? Schoolmates? I can understand wanting to see a landmark like the crater, but shouldn't they have brought the video camera with them on the hike to show it as an actual event rather than just a plot advancement? Shouldn't there be some backstory to explain why the three of them went on their own to see this crater? (Gore spoilers upcoming) As for the gore, let's just say "lack of gore" seems a more fitting description. I can only think back on four or five violent moments, only one of which was something I hadn't seen done in a movie before. Cutting off fingers? Check. Pulling spikes/nails out of hands/un-crucifying oneself? Check. Massacred "corpses"? Check. Bullet through eye? Check. That leaves only one moment I won't spoil (but anyone who's already seen it will recognize which one I'm missing) which was both fresh and new and gory. Somewhat. Rather than continuing to pick this sorry movie apart, I'll go watch something else. Rating: 1.5/5
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2006 07:40
|
|
|
Exactly why does this film exist? Theoretically based on the true story of people going missing the outback, the film in reality consists of 1hr of "character building" (literally nothing "horrory" happens in the first 2/3rds of the film) followed by 30mins of distilled slash horror cliché. The first hour might have been fine if it wasn't for the fact that the inexperienced actors fail spectacularly to make you in any way interested in them, or their fate. A botched love story consists of "She fancies you" "oh" followed by 1 kiss and then the car breaks down out in the middle of nowhere. They are "rescued" by a passing stranger, then tied up and tortured. The 2 girls break free but as separately captured and killed, one by shooting after the worst car chase ever and one stabbed while trying to steal one of his cars to get away. As an aside, this film is so derivative it actually, without any recognisable trace of irony, pulls the "Killer is hiding in the back seat of the car" trick. Seriously. And that ranks as one of the more imaginative moments. Then the bloke, who was nailed to the wall, escapes while the killer is out chasing girl 2, runs through a solar eclipse for absolutely no readily apparent reason before being picked up by Swedish caravanners. He's taken back to civilisation where the police don't believe him, can't find any evidence and apparently eventually release him without charge after 4 months. That last sentence is only explained in text at the end of the film. The entire last 3 paragraphs take 25 minutes of this 90 minute farce and comprise the only action. It's first dull, then simply stupid and dull and doesn't even manage to be "so bad it's good" due to treating its inane subject matter with absolute seriousness. In my opinion it's not even that gory. The nearest thing to a really gory horror is when annoying girl 1 has her fingers cut off (cut to obviously fake fingers rolling along ground). It's at this point the film desperately tried to attract tension with the good old "shakycam" technique, Not funny, not scary, not gory, not interesting, not recommended to anyone ever, anywhere. I don't just want 90minutes of my life back, I want an extra 30 minutes as some kind of goodwill credit for having to sit through the very worst film I've ever encountered. Don't. Just don't. 1/5. And that's only because this doesn't support 0
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2006 22:11
|
|
|
Despite a lot of negitive reviews here in the forum, I enjoyed this film. I've heard a lot of criticism that this wasn't scary, suspenseful or a thriller and it isn't considered to be a psychological thriller (frightening by implication of events). The first 50 minutes of the movie is a somewhat boring and predictable trail of events centering around the three main characters, college type kids doing college break type things in Australia. While I wasn't really endeared to any of the characters, it did humanize them enough for me to make some of the horror of the film hit home. The implied sexual abuse of the redhead prior to our seeing what's really going on was upsetting for me, who'd want to get ganbanged by a bunch of Aussie bikers? The gore was ok, though there wasn't a whole lot of it. The crucifixion of the male lead was a nice touch, and practically done too. What saved the movie for me was the acting of John Jarratt (imdb), I found him to be sufficiently creepy and sadistic to hold the movie togeather. Trivia Tip: He hosted a home and garden type show in Australia for a number of years, the irony is delicious. Ultimately though the three main characters were annoying and their backstory wasn't that compelling. The "based on true events" might as well be "loosely inspiried by events then given a hollywood enema". Check out the [url=http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0416315/trivia]IMDB trivia[/ur] for the movie and compare it against relevent wikipedia entries. 2.5/5
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2006 00:02
|
|
|
The funny thing about this movie is that they bill it as "BEING BASED ON TRUE EVENTS" but 4/5 of the movie is mere thought-up screenplay. The main chunk of the movie centers around the women trying to escape. They end up dying and the killer is never found. Then they throw in an "Oh yeah!" and spend the last 5 minutes on the guy who survived to tell the story. What story did he tell? Going on a road trip with friends, breaking down, getting "help", passing out, waking up and escaping. Sure that would have been a short, unsuspenseful film but the majority of the movie is obviously unconfirmed as true events. For all anyone knows, the girls could have killed themselves. The movie was atmospherically interesting and I thought the acting was top-notch. But there needed to be more of a transition between kind/evil villain and the ending seemed far too quick. I understand the need to bill it as true events... you take your average moviegoer [or who would watch this film in theaters: 18-year-olds] and tell them it's based on a true story, they are going to watch it, believing every single quote and movement to be how it was. It's just how it works. Fantastic camerawork at the end but it left a lot to be desired. The woman walking the highway was one of the most intruiging scenes I've seen in a while. 3/5 and that's being pretty generous.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2006 01:56
|
|
|
I'm not going to be generous at all in my review of this movie. It started out boring, threw in a few standard cliches, had the main characters do things that show them to be on a lower level of intelligence than Forrest Gump, and then put me to sleep. My girlfriend got bored of it too, so we made out for the last part of it, and didn't give a poo poo about missing whatever happened to the idiots running away from the crazy guy. I would recommend watching the weather channel over Wolf Creek.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2006 20:46
|
|
|
NovaHunter posted:This was, without a doubt, the biggest pile of horse poo poo that I have EVER made myself sit through. Seriously, and if I didn't hate Tarantino enough, his dumbass gave this movie great words...
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2006 06:19
|
|
|
Just curious about something though. How the hell was this guy able to stop cars and watches and other electrical or mechanical items whenever he wanted to capture a group of people?
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2006 11:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 17:36 |
|
|
vardur posted:How the hell was this guy able to stop cars and watches and other electrical or mechanical items whenever he wanted to capture a group of people? I was wondering the same thing, actually. Maybe it's the same inexplicable force that allowed their headlights to work while they were getting towed (convenient for lighting), even though they didn't work prior. As others have mentioned, I also found this movie slow, boring and the characters unlikeable. What really frustrated me, however, was the standard horror practices of character idiocy and ridiculous reappearances of the killer. The point where the killer is shot and passed out on the floor, and girl decides to sneak the keys out of his pocket rather than actually completely incapacitate him, is when I lost all respect for the characters and the film. In my mind, as soon as the director resorts to those blatant tactics to extend the 'drama' further, it's all over for me. I fast forwarded from then on and frankly my only surprise was that they stooped so low as to use the standard horror cliches as the 'killer in the back seat' or the 'new ally gets sniped from the distance'. A worthless movie, overall, but coming from the AFC I'm not all that suprised.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2006 06:12
|
|