Wolf Creek (2005) User Reviews

Unrelenting, actually frightening

[michaeljharvey · 7/10 · 10 November 2008]

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.

This is a very good horror fest.

[Sleepin_Dragon · 7/10 · 20 May 2019]

There is a subtlety about this movie, that makes it so chilling, and so very real. It's a style of storytelling that seems to have been lost in recent years, with so much emphasis on gore and shock, that the story gets lost. Wolf Creek is chilling, believable, and even though at tines you know what's coming next, you cannot help but sit uncomfortably in your seat. The acting is great all round, very sincere, and the location work is of course fantastic.

It put me off wanting a trip to the Aussie outback, so it made an impact. I joke of course, but this is a truly classic horror movie. 7/10

a terrifying non psychological horror? thats a first

[Stryde22 · 7/10 · 4 March 2006]

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!

I sugggest you all read this :)

[Rjdesire · 6/10 · 7 March 2006]

I got this information from another website, and thought I might share it with you :) The true Wolf Creek story happened about two thousand kilometres from Wolfe Creek National Park, and not in Western Australia, but in the Northern Territory.

On July 14, 2001, British tourists Peter Falconio (then 28) and Joanne Lees (then 27) travelled on the Stuart Highway from Alice Springs in the direction of Darwin. It was night time.

Roughly half way between Alice Springs and Tennant Creek, just outside Barrow Creek, a mechanic called Bradley John Murdoch managed to make them pull over, and told them that sparks were coming out of the exhaust of their van.

Peter went to the back of the van with Murdoch to have a look, and Joanne was asked to rev the engine. She later said she thought she heard a shot. Then Murdoch, holding a gun, came to her window. He bound her hands and dragged her into his four wheel drive.

Then he disappeared for a while. It is assumed that he dealt with Peter's body during that time. That's when Joanne managed to escape. She hid in the bush as Murdoch was searching for her with his dog. Eventually he gave up.

Joanne waited for hours, making sure that he was really gone and not coming back. When she finally staggered back onto the highway two truck drivers stopped and helped her.

Murdoch was caught in the largest Northern Territory police investigation ever. He had been in Alice Springs the same day as Joanne and Peter, he had also visited the same fast food outlet.

Whether he targeted them at random or followed them from Alice Springs is not known. He claims he wasn't even near Barrow Creek, had taken the Tanami Road instead (a rough bush track from Alice Springs to Western Australia. It runs past Wolfe Creek National Park) Many questions remain. No weapon or body was found. The motive is unclear, too. But speculations revolve around paranoia and aggression induced by his heavy amphetamine use. Murdoch is a self confessed drifter, drug runner, and regularly transported large amounts of cannabis between Alice Springs and Broome in Western Australia.

His lawyers couldn't explain how his DNA had ended up in the blood on Joanne's clothes if he'd been nowhere near her. After a two month trial he was found guilty in December 2005. The verdict by the jury was unanimous. Murdoch will serve at least 28 years of a life sentence, unless his appeal is successful.

I followed the reports of the trial and admired Joanne Lees' stoicism. I believe it helped her to make an escape, but it often didn't help her before and during the trial. She has remained silent, withdrawn, not revealing her emotions (which are nobody's business in my opinion). No big magazine spreads and TV shows, just four days of testimony during the trial. Unusual in our age of media hype and rampant disclosure...

By the way the correct spelling is Wolfe Creek And that's it, the Wolf Creek true story. Or is it? Well, not quite. There sure are many parallels, enough for Murdoch's lawyers to prevent the movie from being released in the Northern Territory during the trial. But the true story above is not the only one that influenced the Wolf Creek movie.

The character of Mick Taylor, the seemingly friendly and helpful bush bloke, is modelled on Ivan Milat. Milat was a serial killer who picked up hitchhikers and took them into the woods where he tortured and killed them. These murders took place in the 1990s in New South Wales, not in the Outback (and have taken place in other form at other times in other parts of the world as well...) Milat, too, was caught and sentenced to life in prison.

You should also keep in mind that writer/director Greg McLean wrote the original story years ago, as a conventional and purely fictional horror flick set in the Australian Outback. He only became aware of the true cases afterwards, and took ideas and cues from them and blended them into his story. The line "based on true events" surely helps marketing the film, but it is misleading...

So what does the Wolf Creek true story mean for tourists to the Australian Outback? Should you be concerned? Absolutely. Stay away from amphetamines...

frustrated?...i could have screamed

[caroline-85 · 7/10 · 21 January 2006]

well i'd heard the hype and we had to see for ourselves.. my feelings on this film are pretty mixed....yes it did horrify me.. it was plainly over the top gratuitous violence mainly aimed at sexually abusing young women, as they were his true targets...

the men were that annoying nuisance that the Aussie looney saved his lingering filthy looks for, and rather than take the trouble to abuse them himself.. left them strung up as meat for his ravenous pit bulls.. don't they have eucanuba in Australia?? sorry glib joke there thought the film was atmospheric and well filmed.. liked the casual acting.. and i really hoped that all three adventurers would get away... seems really topical since a young girl from my home town was murdered while travelling in thailand just recently... and the chilling fact that 30.000 people go missing in Australia each year..90% will turn up safe but that 10% is still chilling sobering numbers...this film should serve as a warning to back packers travelling abroad if nothing else...

anyway i digress.....the villain of the film was so believable and spooked me because darned if i haven't had encounters with similar crazy people..you know in the middle of a conversation when it suddenly dawns on you that the person is absolutely nuts.. hairs on your neck stick up etc...

the campfire scene is excruciating as his madness and violent leanings show through more and more... and then the awful chilling silence look at ben... i'd be gone by then folks...

but then they all lie down and go to sleep...unbelievable.. i thought, until i realised they had been drugged...because there was NO WAY in gods sweet earth that i would have closed my eyes around that guy!!! moving on i was cursing at the TV when the girl just bashes him on his back with the gun...dialogue in my living room at that time went something like this.....KILL HIM....BASH HIS HEAD WITH A BRICK...FIND HIS KNIFE AND CUT HIS HEAD OFF..DO NOT LEAVE THAT GARAGE UNTIL HE IS DISMEMBERED....i mean look about.. there is a dead womans body tacked to the wall.. your best friend has been raped and tortured by him...this is an absolute beast that should be culled for the good of man kind... i wouldn't stop until i could throw his head 100 yards...

but no...she leaves him intact and ready to butcher and destroy them....and why didn't she roll his car down the cliff too.. it might have fallen on him...but failing that it would have slowed him down...

the scene in the car when hes in the back seat...didn't i see that in house of wax when Paris hilton meets her ending??? again how did he know which car to hide in....

and finally if it is based on a true story...we can discount everything that happened to the girls anyway as all ben knew was waking up hanging on nails in a shed.. no doubt something awful did befall them, but it was all supposition and gory poetic licence in truth...made up to sell the movie....

although i thought it was a good gory horror movie.. it was also very disturbing...i certainly don't crave it in my collection.. but to the movie makers they achieved what they set out to do....a truly horrific horror movie...

Destined to be a genre favorite

[BroadswordCallinDannyBoy · 7/10 · 12 January 2006]

Three young vacationers are traveling through Australia visiting landmarks and such. One of their most anticipated stops is an ancient meteorite crater park called "Wolf Creek." After enjoying the sights the group prepares to leave, but can't start the car. Their watches have also stopped and a strange, almost supernatural, unease rests in on them. They nervously wait until a kindly stranger comes by and tows them to his house and offers to fix their car - for free. However, they soon find out that this "kindly stranger" isn't so kind at all.

The resulting film is a well done tense and tense horror story. Like many other films to come out of Australia the main story element here is the land and its mystery and as each character tries to escape they are literally swallowed up by the land. The open endedness that the film presents is it's main strength - it can be seen as a metaphor for hell, the personification of true hopelessness, and a regular horror film viewer will be able to draw and appreciate many other things from it. Also much like the recent "Haute Tension" from France, the film is told in practically real-time as each character tries to desperately climb out of their horrifying situation and figure out what is going on, but primarily they just want to get the hell out of there.

From a blunt point of view this is a slasher version of "Picnic at Hanging Rock" - creepy landscape feature with weird occurrences going around about it and all sorts of myths, but that doesn't make this little scare-fest not worth seeing. It is very well done, well acted, and very tense throughout. The final shot is particularly enigmatic and chilling. The film's only real weakness it that it is for strictly for horror fans, other steer clear. 7/10

Rated R: brutal ruthless violence, and profanity

Could've been great.

[TheTexasChainstoreManager · 5/10 · 7 August 2020]

The entire tone of this movie is eerie and have an interesting plot, all set up to be something great. But the dumb decisions the characters make (i.e. the writers way of setting up progress) takes you out of the horror. Some examples: 1. The murderer do a terrible job of captivating his victims. Liz is kept tied on a floor in a shed with a window, full of glass and tools. Easy escape. Mick is crucified in an open area with loose(!) steel wires and with the nails penetrating from behind(!) for some strange reason. Easy escape. 2. When the killer is passed out on the floor, Liz hits him on his back(!) with the stock of a shotgun a couple of times. Not checking if he's dead and not killing him, which any sane person would've done to save their lives. 3. When Liz returns to the killers camp, she starts looking through videotapes for no real reason (just to force some history of the murderer? And that he's been following them?), knowing that the killer could come back anytime.

I imaging as a writer of movies - especially horror movies - you have to cover all bases to minimize character stupidity and obvious plot holes. But in this movie's case, it felt just too dumb, just to set up progress.

Surprisingly effective and chilling.

[MattD12027 · 9/10 · 14 January 2006]

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.

Solid Oz genre flick

[Sergio_Falco · 7/10 · 9 August 2005]

Wolf Creek has a completely standard basic story for this kind of genre movie - travelers in isolated location encounter sadistic nut. Despite this, it's what writer/director Greg McLean does with the details which makes a difference.

The outback locations are rendered with a nice eye and evoke a sense of spooky isolation - anything could happen to you out here and no-one would know, much less be able to help. There is also the much discussed 'dark side of Crocodile Dundee' element - frankly, I can't believe it's taken so long for someone to conjure this one up, and McLean clearly delights in stabbing a knife through the heart of the mythical Aussie archetype. I think he's actually gotten to an uncomfortable, close-to-the-bone truth about the psyche of certain Aussie males, and John Jarret is eerily similar to the kind of individual one would encounter in many a country pub down under.

The fact that this is an Australian film also makes it a rare bird indeed. For some unfathomable reason, the Oz industry rarely does genre, and when it does, usually doesn't do it well. With this in mind, Wolf Creek is something of a breath of fresh air. Yes, it hews pretty closely to the codes and rules of its genre, but for the most part it does it well, and for my money, what works about the film is strong enough to make some of the weaker plot moments forgivable.

Will Gibson's HD camera-work is impressive, maintaining a consistent style from start to finish, aided by solid editing, score and sound design. Now maybe people will stop whining about how 'we can't make genre films here' and we might see some imagination and variety creep into Australian cinema.

Wow, what a waste of time

[bwebbh-1 · 2/10 · 27 April 2006]

After sitting through the insipid Hostel, I thought maybe Wolf Creek would add some much-needed jolt to the increasingly tiresome horror genre (and I'm a horror fan).

No such luck.

There's are so many problems with this film, it's amazing. The plot, such as it is: a bunch of college age Austrailina kids go on a trip to a crater in the outback called 'Wolf Creek'. The first half of the movie is them doing NOTHING. They sleep, they party, they drink, the drive, and drive, and drive. I'm surprised there wasn't a scene of them doing laundry. There's a subplot of two of them maybe falling in love, but that goes nowhere as well. There's another scene at a gas station or a bar or something that has no point either.

Anyway, the kids finally(and I do mean FINALLY) get to Wolf Creek, where their car mysteriously stops working. OH NO! Eventually, a guy who looks just like John Wayne Gacy stops by to help them and tows them back to his lair. All is well, until they fall asleep.

One wakes up in what seems like the morning, all tied up. When she escapes and goes outside, it's night again. She finds her friend all tied up to a post being tortured by our killer. Long story short, she rescues her friend and ends up shooting the killer in the neck. Does she make sure he's dead? No, because that would mean the end of the flick.

A lot of chasing happens until one girl comes back tot he lair looking for a car to escape in. She stumbles upon the serial killer cliché: a wall with mementos from his victims nailed to it. She finds a video camera and begins to watch the tape (mind you, she's supposed to be searching for a way out of there) which shows that the killer has lured many people to their deaths. But of course we already knew that, so the scene has no purpose except to waste time. She finds a car and starts it (although why it would work if he disables all the tourists' cars is beyond me). Now as a viewer, you're thinking to yourself, "Please don't let the killer be in the back seat" No such luck. He somehow was hiding in the one car she got into. Whoopie. Anyway, she is killed in some horrible way, as her friend begins to run down the road trying to escape.

It's now gone from night to day in about 2 seconds.

Of course, she is killed by our friend, who can A) shoot a moving car tire at 100 yards B) take a bullet to the neck and suffer no ill effects, and C) have ESP so he knows where all his victims are at all times.

As all this is going on, the male finds himself crucified to a wall. He escapes (which brings me another point, as for such a successful killer, his victims get out of his bondage pretty easily)and starts running in the outback. For some reason, we get a long shot of an eclipse, then him on the ground near death as the heat gets to him. Our survivor is finally rescued by tourists, then the movie ends with a shot of him being taken into custody.

WHA.....? What kind of police force is it that finds a guy with nail marks through his body, nearly dying from his injuries, and blames HIM for the missing girls? Anyway, after a whole bunch of nothing, the film tells us that the male was cleared of charges in this 'true story', the girls were never found, and the killer's lair was never found either.

So, we get a movie where, the characters no one could possibly care about, a killer who kills for no reason, a killer who is Superman, and it isn't even particularly gory. And we get a whole movie where there is only one survivor, and he was knocked out for about 90 percent of the film. So how does he know what happened to any of the girls? Don't even bother with this one. It completes the unholy crap trinity with Hostel and High Tension.

Surprisingly Devastating

[cdrucke1 · 9/10 · 3 January 2006]

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.

The Australian Outback Never Looked so Creepy and Forlorn

[BaronBl00d · 6/10 · 28 May 2006]

When one thinks of horror films, one generally does not associate Australia with horror. Sure, they have had a few, but most genre fans think of England, Italy, and, of late, Japan. This film, made on a minuscule budget, is effectively creepy, imaginatively convincing, and just plain terrifying to many degrees. It is not a complete film by any stretch, but when one looks at the small budget used and the effective use of the Australian outback as a setting for horror, Wolf Creek makes the grade as being a quality horror film. We have all seen variations of the story before: a group of people, out on vacation, are tricked, captured, and tortured by a crazy man living in the middle of nowhere under his own code of ethics and what he believes is right and wrong. There really are a lot of similarities with this and movies like The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, The Hills Have Eyes, and countless other films, but all of those films have not used setting so effectively and created one of the films more modern truly despicable villains. Mick Taylor, the stereotypical Aussie in American minds, is a terrifying parody of outward Aussie charm with a perverse, psychotic, twisted inward mental persona capable of some of the most disgusting acts. Actor John Jarratt does a good job playing such a vile man - he made my skin crawl every time he was on screen in the second half of the picture. Wolf Creek moves at a fast pace - perhaps too fast at times, but we are able to invest some interest and care about the victims. I appreciate the ending and final scene, but I really wanted a more satisfying ending for closure. The film uses, what it says are true accounts, as the basis for the story and couches the film with such pieces of information at the beginning and end with missing people in Australia every year. This documentary device was also used in The Texas Chainsaw Massacre originally as well. So for me, Wolf Creek is effective in creating true, genuine horror although in many regards the film is very derivative. The change of locale to the vast, desolate Australian outback was wonderfully used. The tension throughout the film is like a roller-coaster ride. The acting is pretty good overall. The film has many distasteful images and will stay in your mind days after having viewed the film. That, to me, is a powerful horror film in some respect.

Gross inconsistencies

[nickbeirne · 1/10 · 9 February 2006]

I could forgive the painfully slow start to this movie; even a lame attempt to explore the wafer thin characters could be perceived as a form of tortuous development. The tone of the movie is intended to be disturbing, it's been a while since I've seen such gratuitous cruelty, and even though it's pointless, it is after all a horror flick. What I will remember this movie for is it's extraordinary plot inconsistencies. Were it not for them, I think this film could be worth as much as 2, or (at a push) the dizzy heights of 3 stars.

SPOILERS BELOW

There are so many holes in this plot it's hard to know where to start. For example, two girls are in the truck being chased by Mick a long way back in another truck. Unfortunately they come to a cliff edge. So, think about it - what would YOU do? Should they switch off lights and try and sneak by him? Or maybe just turn left/right and drive like hell. No - of course - it's so obvious now, they should push the only means of escape they have over the cliff and then hide EXACTLY where they know Mick will pull up. As soon as Mick is gone, in an outrageous abuse of cinematographic licence, they decide to go back to his house of horror to look for ANOTHER truck!!!!! Possibly a different model, maybe they were looking for something in red? I cannot even begin to imagine ANYOBODY, no matter how hard of thinking acting in this way.

So Kristy goes back to find a working car, (why the hell would she think any of them are working, Mick has just destroyed their car?!) Anyway, whilst running for her life she takes a break from her furious and stressful searching to watch some movies, check though some old photos and have a general mooch around for the benefit of the audience. Meanwhile, Mick is making his way back home and into the garage where he waits in the back seat of the only car out of a dozen or so that he knows Kristy's going to try to start. Clever bugger, as they say in Australia.

Ultimately it could be argued that the girls acted in this irrational manner purely because they were under such stress. But in this "true" story nobody has any idea how or what the girls did. Even the unreliable witness hasn't a clue. So writer/director are totally responsible for this infantile fabrication!

Do yourself a favour and watch the grass grow, learn a language, start a religion, but do not waste 100 valuable minutes of your life trawling though this pap.

visceral Aussie horror film, at times genuinely unsettling

[long-ford · 8 January 2009]

Yikes! This is one scary movie. After an innocuous build up the film reveals three back packers (two Brit girls and their Aussie boyfriend) in the clutches of a murderous psycho. The film is slow to start but we can sense that something evil is about to happen. The acting is decent enough with no stand outs. This film does occasionally cross over into slightly dubious territory with some nasty scenes of torture, but is generally far more controlled than bottom of the barrel stuff like 'The Devil's Rejects' and Hostel/Hostel 2. There are some genuine scares as the tension rises in the bloody second half. See this film if you enjoy visceral unsettling horror.

Overall 7/10

The Absolute Horror: Open Land, and a Killer Who Will Find You

[nycritic · 7/10 · 19 April 2006]

When a film has "The thrill is in the hunt" for its tagline it's pretty clear this will probably not be one to watch on lovely nights with your significant other. Now, if you do, please make sure you're in a secure, enclosed place with all the lights turned on and not out in the open where... things can come to get you. And preferably with a phone handy in case you need to dial 911.

WOLF CREEK has been panned by pretty much everyone and their mother and I think it's an unfair reaction. When have slasher movies meant to be seen like the next Doris Day comedy or a Julia Roberts vehicle? I may be wrong but I'm quite sure that with the revelation of the butcher in the plot the intention is to repulse -- to induce horror. Hence why this will be found in the "Horror" section and not under "Romantic Comedy".

I appreciate the fact that for a genre that has been so maligned with detestable productions, Greg McLean has created a movie that pays its respects well. Never for a moment, for the first half hour, can anyone say that they could predict what comes to pass because a good time is spent building the three characters and having them interact with each other. Neither speak in "movie talk" and the film has a documentary feel, which makes it more authentic. It does become more and more unsettling once they go farther away from the main roads and into uncharted territory, because like the threesome of THE BLAIR WITCH, the Big Bad Wolf is lying in wait... or possibly stalking them already.

Their car stalls, and their watches stop at the same time -- a plot element that is only there for inducing a little bit of creepiness, but is never alluded to. Of course, since they've been telling campfire stories about UFO's and are sitting at the edge of a crater, once strange lights appear they actually have come to believe that an alien is coming to abduct them, and herein lies the movie's sly joke. For the alien is none other than a jolly, good humored man named Mick Taylor (John Jarrat), who's come to help them.

And shortly later, the carnage begins. The events unfolding from here on will compensate from the lack of anything of relevance happening, but are too graphic in more ways than one. My only complaint is the fact that the two women who try to escape continually put themselves at risk, and can't seem to dodge their predicament. One in particular: Liz Hunter (Cassandra Magrath), actually does Something Really Stupid, which seems to be there only to let her (and us) in on the fact that Mick is a serial killer. Probably had this occurred earlier, it would have not seemed tacked-on, but it's one of few minuses in an erstwhile solid, very good horror movie that is sure to elevate Mick Taylor's character as one of the most memorable villains in film history. Oh, and don't believe the hype about the "based on true events" thing: watch it as it is, and not as a recount of a factual occurrence. It makes the experience even more stomach-turning.

Creepy and frightening thriller with eerie scenes , pursuits and loads of violence

[ma-cortes · 7/10 · 31 May 2021]

The following horrifying and scary story Wolf Creek being based on actual events . Wolf Creek results to be a thrlling and chilling movie based on true events about a series killer , dealing with a trio of friends : Cassandra Magrath , Kessie Morasi , Nathan Phillips set out in a risked journey throughout the Australian desert . Things go wrong when their automobile breaks down and they run into a vicious local bushman called Mick Taylor : John Jarratt . 30.000 people are reported missing in Australia every year. 90 % are found within a month. Some are never seen again . How can you be found when no one knows you're missing ?

A grim , tense , brutal and suspenseful film with a threatening as well as devastating atmosphere and gorgeous exteriors from Australian Outback . A road trip drama in which the thrill is the relentlless hunt carried out by a heinous and merciless murderer against some unfortunate travellers . It contains an excellent cinematograhy with splendid vistas photographed by cameraman Will Gibson from Western Australia , Sandy Creek, Semaphore , Adelaide, Finders Rangers , Port Germein, Hawker , and Wolf Creek meteor crater. This is a top-notch terror movie with a lot of chills , blood , gore , twists and turns . It was followed by a sequel Wolf Creek II (2013) and a TV series in 12 episodes , all of them starred by John Jarratt and mostly written/directed by Greg McLean .

The motion picture was competently directed by Greg McLean and it enjoyed world-wide commercial and critical hits . Greg is a good Australian writer/producer and director who started his career when he created this horror success : "Wolf Creek" that premiered at the Sundance and Cannes Film Festivals . His second movie was a Croc movie : "Rogue" . In 2016 he made the horror movie : "The Belko Experiment" and in 2017 the real-life adventure story : "Jungle". Greg recently was executive producer , show-runner for season 2 of the "Wolf Creek TV series" and directed 4 episodes od "The Gloaming" TV series for ABC studios and eventually he made 3 episodes of "Bloom" series for Sony International . Rating : 6.5/10 . Essential and indispensable seeing for the terror lovers .

Very severe (view at you own risk)

[Samiam3 · 7/10 · 17 June 2009]

It is impossible to love a film like Wolf Creek. It is perverted to the cinematic extreme. On the other hand it would be wrong to dismiss first time director/writer Greg Mclean as an ugly, incompetent storyteller. He was trying to adapt a true story for the screen, which is perfectly fine (movies do this all the time). Wolf Creek is an unhappy story, but it shows you just one of the many ways in which the world is not always pretty place.

The events on which this story is based took place ten years ago. We follow three kids in Australia who are taking a road trip to Wolf Creek, the sight of a famous meteor crater. On their way back, their car breaks down, leaving them stranded in the outback, That night they meet a stranger with a tow truck who offers to give them a tow back to his place where he will fix the car. He then holds them captive because he is a sadist and a killer. According to the film, they all managed to escape but only one survived.

The killer pretty much steals the movie in the second half. At first he is set up to be a sort of classic 'easy-going' outback Australian like Crodidile Dundee, and then suddenly he is not. Like many cinematic killers, this guy has really no motive for his Inhumanity, but the script suggests in a very small way that he hates tourists, and being subject to stereotypes. He truly is menacing, not necessarily well acted, but menacing.

Personally I don't much care for this category of Horror film, but Wolf Creek turns out to be surprisingly exceptional, but if you are gonna see it, prepare to be disturbed. It makes Texas Chainsaw Massacre look like Barney.

Wolf Crap

[HonestAbel · 1/10 · 30 December 2005]

I was tricked into seeing this movie by peer pressure and a crack addict that worked at the theater who said it was better than Saw II. I thought Saw II, along with all crappy horror movies that come out today, really sucked. I'm not a fan of horror movies because they always turn out to be pointless drivel, and they are never really frightening anymore. (This is besides the fact that this movie wasn't really a horror movie, it was more like a torture movie, which was neither horrific or sickening. A shot here and there of fake fingertips falling on the floor and wrists being pulled off from spikes doesn't automatically classify it as a horror movie.)

Also, almost everyone besides my group of friends was talking during the movie. Normally I would have been upset, but it at least gave me something to listen to while being exposed to the raw sewage on the screen. Suffice to say, this was literally the worst movie I've ever seen in theaters.

Everything in the movie was completely pointless, and there wasn't any scene that led up to or foreshadowed any later event. In fact, there were things that were foreshadowed that simply never came to be. What resulted was a huge waste of time setting up potential plots that never came to life. I'll provide some examples.

The long intro to the movie, even before the opening credits scene (which was very similar to a crappy TV show's intro theme), had no point whatsoever. It was just a waste of time and introduced no plot elements, and didn't really introduce any dispositional features of the characters either.

The only thing that happened plot-wise early in the movie was that they bought some alcohol. The only point of this was that later in the movie, Liz doused the car with alcohol and set it on fire and opened some gas valve so it would explode, just to get Mick's attention. I'm sure there was an easier way to do that. Then, she shoots him in the neck, and he apparently dies, but instead of bashing his head in to make sure, she gives a couple weak smacks on his back. How did he survive a bullet to the neck anyway?

And what was all the talk about aliens for? The entire story about the guy who saw the light in the sky wasn't useful at all, and nothing regarding it ever turned up in the movie. They were like "Why did a crater land at this exact spot?" but it was never found out why it had any importance. And why did the watches and car all stop working at the same time, yet camcorders and Mick's truck still worked? It seems like the whole alien "sub-plot" (if you could say this movie had any type of plot) only served the solitary purpose of making the viewer think an alien was heading towards the car at night (a 15 second scene).

Ben and Liz made out and had a little affair for no reason at all; it in no way served to advance the story.

The entire scene at the gas station/bar was pointless, and so what that the guy's truck was parked there? How did he know they were going to Wolf Creek anyway?

"Ben, why don't you have an accent like Mick?" Ben gives a troubled look like there is something about his past that will be revealed later. Nothing is revealed later.

None of the times made sense. It was sunset when Liz woke up, but suddenly, seconds later, it was the middle of the night and pitch black. Even worse, when Ben woke up, it was daylight, which was made certain by a clip of Mick driving in his muscle car. Suddenly, they show a clip of a sunrise, then a completely pointless scene of an eclipse, and then a sunset.

How did Mick follow Liz back to his cars and kill her, but still keep track of where Kristy ran to be able to spot her from a mile away and snipe the man that tried to help her? Ben, the only survivor, saw nothing of what happened to the girls, so most of the movie where the girls were killed was not based on fact. Furthermore, the jumbled nature of the movie makes me believe that Ben actually killed the girls and was too stupid to come up with a coherent series of events for a cover story. The only thing I got from this movie was that I now know there is a crater in Australia, and that there was a total solar eclipse in 1999. Note to self: never visit Australia, if not because there is supposedly a random killer about, but because there are blokes that make and enjoy completely pointless and incoherent films such as this. I hope this comment gives the Australians some insight into why Americans don't like this film. I don't see how anyone could.

Sadistic coming-of-age flick?

[AT-AT · 8/10 · 11 October 2006]

I was thinking "yeah, sure. Another 'based on true events' bullshit movie" and I am now here to eat my words.

It might be tagged with 'inspired by real events' and you may reasonably ask; "how do they know that?". And perhaps they don't know at all, but as you watch this movie, you will completely forget that tag, because this flick is going to swallow you, and chew you up.

For a good hour this is 'just' a road trip drama. You get to know Liz and Kirsty, two British tourists down under, and Ben, the happy Aussie the two girls team up with for their road trip. And they get to know each other while the open road stretches before them. Some will feel the movie drags out and others will watch as the little drama unfolds, as it is well told and deliciously realistic. But even if you are part of the first group just hang in there, because this movie gets vicious, and thats mainly thanks to the long build up. When characters are made real and likable, its all the more gripping when they go through hell.

The acting is perfect in this flick and that is fortunate indeed, because just one bad performance could have ruined it. Kirsty and Liz are obvious friends and looks out for each other, and Ben is the fun loving Aussie, but still respects the girls hes riding with. These 'kids' genuinely likes each other, and the small slow-moving romance between Ben and Liz makes an air of innocence surround it all.

Then their car breaks down....

And in come the outback weirdo Mick Taylor. To return to my expectations "yeah, sure...". If the first half of the movie hadn't punctured my expectation of this being another mainstream hack like Wrong Turn and TCM remake, Mick Taylor would surely do it. In the aforementioned slashers, you could be quite sure who would die, and who'd just get their t-shirts ripped, but in this one you don't want any harm to come to any of the three. But Mick makes sure there comes plenty to all of them. He is a first grade sadistic psycho and he displays it with such a gleeful joy that you just can't help but believing it. Suddenly the movie turned from road trip drama to borderline exploitation horror. There's a whole change of tone when he comes on screen. In fact from the moment his headlights come on screen. Its dark, it rains, the kids don't know where they are being taken and so on. Suddenly that wide open road that stretched before them seems like a confining obstacle that keeps them in place. The horror that unfolds here must be seen.

Its one of the best back roads horror movies since TCM so get watching it. But don't expect your average slasher. In fact; don't expect average at all, because this flick works so well on every level.

Would you like a helping hand?

[lost-in-limbo · 7/10 · 4 April 2006]

A group of young backpackers, one Australian; Ben and two British; Liz and Kristy head out on a road trip to Darwin, but on their way there they stop off at Wolf Creek National Park to have a gander at the scenery surrounding the enormous crater and of course to have some fun. After returning back to the car to get going, they find out the car's dead. So, they get ready to spend the night there, but that's until Mick, a local stumbles across them and offers to fix their car by toeing it back to his place. They accept the offer, but little do they know that his kind gesture will have devastating consequences.

After my sister bragged about how excellent it was after seeing it at the cinema and then again after purchasing the DVD and so did a friend of mine who thought it was surprisingly good, I thought I held off long enough and I just had to see it for myself. Well, I don't know why it took me this long, but this was one relentlessly, realistic horror piece that I thought delivered when it came to the crunch. The simply plotted story might not be anything special since its quite derivative of other horror films and its inspired ( that's loosely of course) by some infamous Australian crimes, but the film knows how to get under your skin with its alienating, desolate landscape and extremely intense, sadistic violence. And not to forget Mick Taylor's totally unnerving outback larrikin Mick; who steals every frame he's in with that thick crusty accent and that menacing cruel streak, which comes from nowhere.

I see and read many complaints about the opening 50 minutes being boring, sure it's damn slow, but I thought the lurking dread and realism of these characters are rather nicely milked out within that time period that when it hit it strides, we're taken out of our comfort zone because we're confronted with this realistic situation of horrifying desperation of manipulative pain and terror amongst a vastly harsh terrain where its easy to disappear and if you don't; there's just no real escape from this scarring mentality. The way Mick strings along his captors, is like a cat playing around with a mouse; it's intensely, unsettling with the taunts and the way he lets them squirm about without entirely cutting away. It's explosively rough and brutal in nature, by taking grip of you and refusing to let go without resorting to any gloss. Anyhow, you don't want to see someone go through that sort of ordeal, even if you don't entirely care for them. Well, maybe not if you're one sick puppy ;). But anyway you should know what you're getting yourself into when watching a film like this. I wouldn't go on to say it overly explicit, but there are two or three memorably grisly moments that might be too much for the faint-hearted. More so it drums out a malicious vibe in these acts than actually being gorily, over-the-top.

All of this bleakly, psychological terror doesn't crop up until the last 35 minutes, but its definitely worth the wait. The story might be familiar but it does provide a couple of surprises and the sparse script is basic fluff with some macabre and offbeat humour flowing through its veins. After getting to know the three and watching them fool about, made the third act for me menacingly uneasy. Some illogical lapses are evident which might go beyond belief and you might think there are some stupid actions taken, but would you be thinking entirely straight after being through this kinda mess. What wasn't a mess was the gallant direction of Greg McLean who beautifully brought out the picturesque backdrop with its sprawling, bone dry landscape that was eerily haunting because of the isolation and ghost-like appearance. It relies on its intrusive camera-work to give it a nitty gritty feel that overwhelms the viewer because of the naturally hypnotic viewpoint with some visually impressing shots. The set-pieces are impeccably well staged with zest and precision in its horrific matter. The score plays it low-key and it works the better for it, within keeping with the unbearable, loneliness that illustrated. The characters might not be fully developed, but they're down-to-earth. The performances are strong enough by Nathan Phillips, Cassandra Magrath and Kestie Morassi to make you pay notice and make you feel and believe what they're going through. The film has obviously gone back to its horror roots to deliver one bone rattling, in-your-face kind of fear where appearances can be deceiving.

A gruellingly, pulsating rural shocker that might not reach the heights that it's talked up to be, but the film does have potential and is compellingly effective nonetheless.

What the heck is wrong with you people?

[Smells_Like_Cheese · 1/10 · 15 June 2006]

To those who enjoyed the film, I have one question: Why? This film was stupid and a complete waste of time. I'm not one who was looking for a gory film, so don't say to me that I didn't get the "art" of the film because all in all, this was a poorly made film and believe it or not as horrible as it may sound I was rooting for the killer to win because those girls were so incredibly stupid.

SCENE SPOILERS

The girl surprises the killer by having his riffle, she misses the shot and hits his neck, good injury, but not great. Now if she didn't want to kill him, that's fine, but injure him... bad! Now there are no more bullets for her to kill him, but he has a knife, she doesn't take his knife and stabs him. OK, that I could see, maybe she forgot or something, but now she could have taken the butt of the riffle and hit him in the head causing a bad concussion or even death. But no, she just hits him in the back that would probably more likely wake him up or give him a tiny back ache. Stupid women! I'm a girl and I was embarrassed to be one because of this movie.

This movie is so stupid, don't waste your time or money. To people who liked this film, I'm not judging but seriously, what did you see in this movie?

1/10

Surprisingly brutal and horrifying horror flick.

[HumanoidOfFlesh · 10/10 · 29 January 2006]

"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.

Relentless

[Superunknovvn · 7/10 · 28 March 2006]

I will admit that I have a soft spot for all things horror and that I'm more than pleased about the huge amounts of gore and blood thrown into movies these days. However, that's not really what "Wolf Creek" is about. Unlike recent flicks such as "House Of Wax", "Wrong Turn", "The Hills Have Eyes" or "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre", which you may or may not have enjoyed, this movie is about realism. The violence is not the main focus here. Much more is it an element that serves the story instead of the other way around, which sets this movie a million miles apart from any of the slashfests mentioned above. Besides, the vast scenery of the Australian desert is a perfect and much more believable setting than some unknown little town somewhere in America. "Wolf Creek" is clever and unconventional, and I guess that's probably what a lot of people who wrote negative reviews didn't like about it.

Director/writer Greg McLean takes an incredibly long time to set his story up, although it didn't really seem that long to me. The first two thirds of the movies unfold like a love story rather than a horror flick. The cinematography is beautiful and it's real nice to see the three main characters hanging out, having fun and falling in love with each other as they travel across the country. Those aren't your average shallow horror characters. You can identify with those people, you like them and the more you do, the more you feel uncomfortable as they descend into trouble. BIG trouble!

The cast is amazing. I've hardly ever seen anyone looking as genuinely terrified on screen as Cassandra Magrath and Kestie Morassi. They act and react just like you'd imagine someone in their situation would. John Jarratt as the villain, however, steals the show. Again, this guy just seems so REAL. You could easily see yourself falling for his tricks only to wake up to him torturing you. This is no chainsaw swinging, skin wearing monster, but a seemingly regular guy that turns out to be a relentless psychopath.

Greg McLean may not re-invent the wheel with "Wolf Creek" but he manages to drive an old genre to near perfection. The movie remains unpredictable throughout and never relies on old tricks. The most disturbing thing about "Wolf Creek" is that you really feel like this could happen to you, which is quite an achievement in a genre that's usually so over the top, it makes you laugh instead of scaring you. "Wolf Creek" will achieve what your mother never could: you'll think twice about trusting helpful strangers.

Possibly the worst thing I've seen on the big screen

[KapitanKraut · 1/10 · 9 November 2005]

"Wolf Creek" is certainly not a film for the faint-hearted, and let me preface this by saying that I'm hardly faint-hearted. However, it's also a terrible film and one which really doesn't deserve the reputation it's achieved.

The plot, such as it is, has a trio of young travellers driving across the Top End of Australia and running into Mick (John Jarratt) who offers to fix their car. Unfortunately, it turns out that Mick is a sadistic nutcase who enjoys torturing and killing people - with all parallels to Ivan Milat being entirely non-coincidental. So the rest of the film features various attempts to escape from the madman as he hunts them down.

Admittedly, this is a straight-out genre flick, but that hardly exempts it from the requirement that it have vaguely three-dimensional characters and a halfway decent script. "Wolf Creek" has neither. The three travellers are humanised a little bit in the first scenes, but not really enough to actually make the viewer care about them when they are captured. As for Mick...well...he's "just evil", by the looks. I might be in the minority, but I prefer my sadistic killers to have a backstory. The script, too, has some heavy-handedness about it. Mick reveals at one point that he's taken parts out of the threesome's car, which makes sense. What doesn't make sense is the fact that he hasn't done the same to the cars of his previous victims - as one of the girls discovers when she miraculously starts up one of these cars. Of course, it's just her luck that it's the same car that Mick's been hiding in - what a coincidence.

A further problem is the way the filming was done. I know it's trendy to use hand-held cameras, but watching an entire film on one is quite an ordeal. This is particularly true when the tension rises and the camera starts jiggling up and down and side-to-side. Clearly, the cameraman was getting into the moment, but it is disconcerting at best and downright infuriating at worst to have this happening all the time. Similarly, much of the film takes place at night - so many of the scenes consist of barely-visible glimpses of characters and locations. At least this distracts from the home video-style filming, but it makes the action more confusing.

Ultimately, however, this film is all about gratuitous blood and guts and pulls very few punches in showing them. People are shot, hit with guns, beaten up, nailed to things, shot again and hacked up with knives and the jiggly handycam shows every single moment of it. Viewers with weak stomachs will probably feel ill - if they haven't already got motion sickness.

So, Australia has produced a genre film. Are we meant to be happy about this? Frankly, it just isn't worth the fanfare to see four people acting badly (Jarratt's good in his part, but even he seems to be going through the motions in places) and being cut to pieces. This really is a step backwards in Australian film, since all involved seem to have decided that just because the country hasn't done this sort of thing yet, they have to. Perhaps they do, but there are significantly better ways of doing it than this garbage.

Stay away from this one. Believe me, there'll be more than enough chance to see it - and probably the inevitable straight-to-DVD sequels - when it's available in shops.

Step aside Leatherface, here comes Uncle Mikey...

[jules-108 · 26 May 2005]

Necks don't come redder than they do in the Australian outback, and if you find yourself stranded and in need of assistance from one of the local yokels, for god sake, don't go cracking jokes about Crocodile Dundee, otherwise 'Uncle Mikey' might take offence.

Reportedly shot for $1.4 on Hi-Def, this new psycho killer pic from down under has been purchased by Miramax for a cool $8 million, and world domination awaits.

If you found the brutal violence of HAUTE TENSION hard to stomach, then stay clear of WOLF CREEK which makes the latter Gallic splatter fest look positively anaemic. It even gives Tobe Hooper's Texas CHAINSAW MASSACRE a run for it's money. Just replace the sea of OPEN WATER with the dry arid desert of Nic Roeg's WALKABOUT, then switch the shark for a MR BLONDE/CROCODILE DUNDEE combo and you've got the best bloody horror movie in decades.