Wolf Creek (UK - DVD R2)
Run! Run! Run for your life!! Gabe Powers reviews the horrors of Wolf Creek...
Feature
Once upon a time, in the outback or Australia, three young and innocent twenty-somethings made their way cross-country to the capital city of Sydney. Along the way they made plans to visit Wolf Creek, the worlds largest meteor crater site. When they get back to their vehicle, the engine won't turn over. Fearing they'll be stuck for an undeterminable period of time, they accept help from a helpful stranger who happens to be passing by.

The stranger kindly offers to tow the twenty-somethings to his own personal scrape yard, where he'll fix their broken engine, free of charge. The tow trip lasts much longer than they'd initially assumed, and in the darkness of night, they realize they've no idea where they are. After a chat and a drink with the seemingly charming Good Samaritan, they fall asleep, only to wake up bound and gagged.
Wolf Creek is the single most underhanded horror film of the last decade. Its great many accomplishments lie in its ability to make the audience like and care for its characters, including the monstrous villain. Fun slasher flicks succeed in that the audience knows the characters are going to die, and usually a great many of those characters are almost entirely irredeemable scumbags. The more jerks you have in your cast, the more fun the audience will have watching you kill them in horrible ways. It also helps for these slime balls to be horny and impossibly good looking, then the voyeuristic viewers can catch a little T and A action before the slaughter. It's a tried and true exploitation formula, and when utilized effectively, everybody wins.
Then along comes the twenty-first century, and young filmmakers want to regress back to the less fun Post-Vietnam era horror. Now there's a new crop of horror dramas that, gasp, make the audience think. Instead of having one identifiable, usually virginal heroine to root for against the killer(s), now we're given a small cast of downright likeable victims. On top of this, these post-modern enfant terrible supply us with identifiable antagonists, monsters we actually care for on a level beyond that of hockey-faced machete killer. The whole filming process changes too, and now instead of being voyeurs, the audience plunges into the abyss with these characters. Suddenly, horror flicks are horrifying again.

Wolf Creek doesn't only supply the viewers with likeable characters, but goes the extra mile to make them almost loveable. I could hang out with these guys any day, they're funny, charming, down to earth. This loving attention to character is extended most distressingly to the pictures main villain, who when we are first introduced to him is the very epitome of the stereotypical outback nice guy, willing to do anything to make you feel at home and at ease. Even while slaughtering the innocent (and remember, lovable) leads, he maintains his warmth a sense of humour, only losing his cool once. One gets the impression that the actors aren't even acting, which brings me a to another point, the realism of the film.
The fist fifty minutes are spent relatively fear free, following the mundane, yet fun journey of our three plucky heroes. During the making-of documentary and commentary track the filmmakers mention their want to create a documentary look to their movie. The film's final look actually goes beyond that, and there is a definite hyperrealistic notion to it. This hyperrealism makes for a more distressing atmosphere because rather than watching a film, I felt as though I was experiencing it.
There are some problems that keep the film from achieving neo-classic status, most markedly the fact that we've seen this all before. No matter how well made a film may be, it is hard to get excessively excited about something you've ultimately already experienced. I'm sure this was something the filmmakers took into account during preparation, and they do make strides to make the film as special as they can, but this was the kind of criticism that is kind of inevitable.
A misstep in the film's structure comes with its abrupt ending. In the prime days of grim and gritty psychodramas, which is what Wolf Creek ultimately aspires to emulate, shockingly abrupt endings were par for the course. It is a fine line between being shocking and running out of ideas, and though the supplementary material leads me to believe that the filmmakers were quite aware of the film's structure, I am given the impression that the crew ran out of time and sacrificed about twenty minutes of script. The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, The Hills Have Eyes, Last House on the Left, among others, all end when the narrative has run its course, dispensing with any form of coda, and it undoubtedly works. Had Wolf Creek also dispensed with the coda, maybe the abrupt finalization of events would've lingered more hauntingly.

My quibbles with the structure and originality are really minor, and as I've said, only keep the film from achieving true classic status in my eyes. Wolf Creek is one of the best low budget, freshman efforts I've ever seen. This is a horror film that isn't as much scary, as it is exceedingly and morbidly suspenseful. Scary is too cheap a word to do justice here.
Video
I expected very little video-wise from Wolf Creek when I stuck the disc in my player. From what I understood it was a relatively low-budget, gritty, Aussie horror show. I didn't realize, until after watching the supplemental features, that Wolf Creek was shot in High Definition digital, just like studio titles Revenge of the Sith and Sin City were. The results are nothing short of magnificent.
Detail levels are as sharp as the format allows at some points. Even the grain looks great. Any issues with the quality of the transfer, including the grain, is purely intentional or due to limitations during the filming process. The epic landscapes are as good as anything you'd see on Discovery HD, and the confined close-ups are so crisp you can practically smell the blood, sweat, and tears. The detail is so crisp that the solitary stock shot (of an airplane flying over the outback) sticks out like a severed finger, all aliased and edge-enhanced.

The film's look is greatly indebted to the digital gradation process, which seems to be the best thing (other than cost effectiveness) about digital film. The Making-Of Documentary on the second disc has a nice comparison sample of the before and after images, revealing what could've been a much less visually satisfying film.
Audio
Wolf Creek depends greatly on the merits of its soundtrack. The subtlety of the music and sound effects in the face of such immediate and exciting peril is more than commendable. Not once do the filmmakers cue up an cheap scare. This DVD is presented in Dolby Digital. Dialogue is well centered, and never garbled, throbbing ambient musical cues are deep, and incidental background noise is realistic. The Outback itself is such an important character in the film, and these tracks help push the haunting mood of the pre-mayhem nature shots. Keep your ears open for the fabulous sound design during the roadside sniper scene. There isn't any thing here to complain about, and I'd really picking the nit to do so.
Extras
Here we have another in an increasing line of lower budgeted films that plan ahead and create a decent DVD release. This two-disc set will tell you pretty much everything you need to know about the film. Disc one starts things off with an engaging commentary track featuring the director, the producer, and the two female leads. The track is an even blend of information and anecdotal fun, without ever getting too technical. There are very few silent stretches, and at some points the participants actually begin to interrupt each other.

The commentary goes hand in hand with disc two's making-of doc, and the two really compliment each other well without going over too much of the same ground. I'd actually recommend watching the commentary first, as some of the outtakes and behind the scenes footage discussed will make more sense - I was wondering about the particularly shoddy looking dummy used in the sniper sequence myself. The doc isn't quite as great as Rob Zombie's Devil's Rejects doc, but is well paced, and covers most of the bases.
Disc two continues with a selection of deleted scenes. These were all very obviously deleted for pacing reasons, though none of them are moot or boring. There is a lengthy addition to one of the more suspenseful scenes, that reveals a bit more about the killer's motus operandi and homestead, but contains quite a few cheap scares, and would’ve slowed the pace considerably. The film was apparently very much improvised while filming, and during the commentary the director makes mention of a great deal more deleted footage, which is not included.
The features are rounded out with a semi-irrelevant interview with John Jarret, who plays the homicidal killer, original trailers and TV spot, trailers for addition horror/thrillers (including Haute Tension, under the British moniker Switchblade Romance), and a short scene from that other wolf titled movie, Cry_Wolf, which frankly, looks like over stylized garbage. The only extra I might have wanted added to the set would be some kind of information on the real life murderer that was the basis of the killer. I can understand that this may have been a bit on the controversial side, but I am honestly interested.

Overall
Wolf Creek is The Texas Chainsaw Massacre remake that The Texas Chainsaw Massacre remake wishes it could've been. The film runs on the high-octane mix of camera work, editing, and thorough characterizations of believable characters. It isn't the most original film out there, but it's a damn site more exciting than anything to ever come out of Michael Bay (oh, you read that right Tom). This two-disc set is magnificent, with an amazingly crisp transfer and some ace special features. Highly recommended, especially to those that enjoyed Alex Aja's Haute Tension and Rob Zombie's The Devil's Rejects. It's a good time to be a horror fan.
You can purchase this title from Xploitedcinema.com.
Review by Gabriel Powers
Advertisements
Existing Posts
I'm willing to bet you haven't seen a single one of those films. And Friday the 13th was never scary, it is the epitome of a mindless gore flick. And old fashion? Those movies are less than 30 years old!
I hate they in today's society a horror film is based on how gory it is rather than scares. Old fashion horror films like "Halloween" and "Friday the 13th" worked so well because they had a nice mix of scares and gore, not just excessive gore. I am so sick of film that say they are scary and all they really are are just really gory. Gore is not what makes a horror film. Films like "High Tension", "The Devil's Rjects", "Saw" and "Saw II", "The Hills Have Eyes" and now "Wolf Creek" are not scary, just annoying and overly gory. I want to see more, R-rated psychological horror films (im sick of waterdown PG-13 horror movie s**t like "When a Stranger Calls"
Its a bad time to be a horror fan.

i bought this movie yesterday and it was a nice one, however do not expect to see a "Horror Movie", this one is 1h32 minutes long but the real thing starts after 50th minute (but the first part is pretty interesting since it will get you attracted to the characters and get to know them so that you'll feel with them later on), after the 50th minute things starts to get messy wont spoil anything but know that rather than being scared you'll be troubled and will have lots of thinking and ideas turning inside your brain and at the end you wont be able to speak for a while and think it over and over again... for horror goers approach this one carefully for suspence and troubled movie or for newcomers this is a must see. the only sad thing about this dvd is that there are no subtitles at all.
robert garcia wrote: Jeez. Am I the only one that actually liked this movie.
Er...Well, no. As the comments above show.
Er...Well, no. As the comments above show.
Jeez. Am I the only one that actually liked this movie. I went to see this movie and didn't expect very much. By the time the movie was over, I was still into it.
I have to side big time with Gabe here. As a horror fanatic, the first 60 minutes were crucial to make the film purely scary. Character development serves as a purpose in horror films that modern day slasher c**p films like SAW, neglect. Also the three central characters were so realistic to everyday life, what character in SAW II made the least bit of sense. WC made you care about the characters.
Also Michael, in 95% of horror movies, the captives never kill the killer when they have a chance, especially when the film still has another 40 mins to go.
The weakest scene in the movie, was when Liz was watching those videotapes in that room. It was like, Duh!
It's a shame WC didn't please the MTV generation enough.
Also Michael, in 95% of horror movies, the captives never kill the killer when they have a chance, especially when the film still has another 40 mins to go.
The weakest scene in the movie, was when Liz was watching those videotapes in that room. It was like, Duh!
It's a shame WC didn't please the MTV generation enough.
Ok, Dave said something close to what I was thinking. I think you guys just didn't like that movie, which is OK, but also don't really like the genre. I totally agree with the unoriginal comments (and anyone who READ MY REVIEW would know that), and agree that the script was a little on the weak side, but like I said, I think the film wroks because the actors are natural and the film is strong on style.
What, if any, films in this genre did you like, and what made them better than Wolf Creek?
What, if any, films in this genre did you like, and what made them better than Wolf Creek?
NO ONE EVER kils killers while on the ground. Ever. never have done.
But they just wanted to get out of there. fear and panic. Whatever. Unless you have been in that situation you can't say a thing about what someone would definately have done.
All the rest is petty and unimportant...And if such things registered you had already lost the movie and were already out of the whole experience. Who cares? It worked wonderfully. If you were not going with it by then...you were never with it in the first place.
But they just wanted to get out of there. fear and panic. Whatever. Unless you have been in that situation you can't say a thing about what someone would definately have done.
All the rest is petty and unimportant...And if such things registered you had already lost the movie and were already out of the whole experience. Who cares? It worked wonderfully. If you were not going with it by then...you were never with it in the first place.
Stupid characters because when they had him on the ground why the hell did they not bash his skull in instead of running. When humans is affraid for their lives they want to do anything to survive (thats the way humans fuction- Try to take a look at War of the worlds it shows you what humans will do when they are in danger)
Superhuman killer: How the hell could the killer know wich car the girl would pick, Unless he could read minds(readminds=Superpower)And there is more
Superhuman killer: How the hell could the killer know wich car the girl would pick, Unless he could read minds(readminds=Superpower)And there is more
Again, everyone who hates this always has dubious reasons.
'Superpowers'! WHAT?!
'Cheesy'? No, you need to bone up on the definition and watch some REALLY cheesy films. This is not one.
Unoriginal? WHAT ISN'T?! It's how you use what you have. (good tip for life that actually).
Like "The Hitcher"? No.
Ahhh....I see this as your loss not our delusion.
'Superpowers'! WHAT?!
'Cheesy'? No, you need to bone up on the definition and watch some REALLY cheesy films. This is not one.
Unoriginal? WHAT ISN'T?! It's how you use what you have. (good tip for life that actually).
Like "The Hitcher"? No.
Ahhh....I see this as your loss not our delusion.
Pretty bad movie. Not awful, but nothing good. It's unoriginal, derivative, boring, dumb, cheesy, stupid, and really really dull. I've seen this all before. I wanted a different type of horror film and I just ended up getting another quasi-"Hitcher" rehash.
OK, OK, I'll bite the bait, what the hell did the characters do that made them so very stupid that none of you could releate to them? Seriously, I'd like to know what made them stupid, and what "stupid" actions made them at all unbeleivable.
And what the hell was supernatural about the killer? The part where he drove a car? or the bits where he stabbed people, with his hand? And if these were supernatural, why does that make it a bad film. I'd like to hear a critical analysis of how this film failed.
And what the hell was supernatural about the killer? The part where he drove a car? or the bits where he stabbed people, with his hand? And if these were supernatural, why does that make it a bad film. I'd like to hear a critical analysis of how this film failed.
This movie was awful. The lead characters were more stupid then a door. The killer almost had superpowers
Just AWFUL!
Just AWFUL!
Well, I guess we all like different stuff. Thanks for the info Mal and Adam. Robie, did you quote the wrong person there?
I suppose I just wrote a freakin' essay on the film, so I'm not really compeled to back up my opinion here. I'm personally not even slightly disturbed by supernatural films like Ringu, because no matter how well made they are, I know it isn't real, so films like this that present a real world situation affect me more. Have you guys considered that perhaps you don't like the same types of films that Tarentino likes?
And Kaya, perhaps you should, y'know read my review and/or see the film before you make such broad comments. D**ky and Robie saw the film, and their opinions are valid, and though I disagree with them, I can at least respect them.
And Dave, thanks for the comments, we seem to be on a simular level, but I do have to admit that I was pleasantly surprised with Wrong Turn.
I suppose I just wrote a freakin' essay on the film, so I'm not really compeled to back up my opinion here. I'm personally not even slightly disturbed by supernatural films like Ringu, because no matter how well made they are, I know it isn't real, so films like this that present a real world situation affect me more. Have you guys considered that perhaps you don't like the same types of films that Tarentino likes?
And Kaya, perhaps you should, y'know read my review and/or see the film before you make such broad comments. D**ky and Robie saw the film, and their opinions are valid, and though I disagree with them, I can at least respect them.
And Dave, thanks for the comments, we seem to be on a simular level, but I do have to admit that I was pleasantly surprised with Wrong Turn.
Oh give me a break! The guy was married to Noni Hazlehurst for Christs sake. He was a joke and his performance was as scary as Big Ted and Jamima out on a date.
-QUOTE- . No matter how well made a film may be, it is hard to get excessively excited about something you've ultimately already experienced.-QUOTE.
True...and yet also not true.
there was much famliar stuff here of course...but it's this movie's psycho that adds something fresh.
Here is a guy, not looking or really acting like your average killer, who is actually one of the most brutal, uncompromising, disturbingly realistic psychos ever put on screen.
The greatest strength, the amazing strength that this character has, is that McLean makes sure that never, not for a second, does the audience ever feel safe. T
he character becomes so extreme, so uncompromising, and McLean lets him run totally free with it, that perhaps for the first time ever in this kind of movie you really do feel that no one is beyond his reach, beyond his sadism.
In “Wolf Creek” we never have a feeling of safety even in our darkest ideas of how the characters may fare. It’s a constant, unsettling, disturbing plummet into superbly crafted uncertainty that we are embarking on.
Will that ‘thing’ really happen? Maybe not, and yet with what we have experienced it just might!
Will this character really be smashed into a direction we never expected? They may not, in fact surely not, and yet...
That is what gives the real punch in the guts power to “Wolf Creek”, the fact that we truly could be about to watch the unthinkable and the genuinely shocking unfold before us, that here we have a film that really could blow away any expectations we bring with us.
For the first time, in a long time, while watching a film I for one never once felt safe in what to expect and in with what the killer may indeed be allowed to do.
This kind of horror film making is as far from totally safe, we all know Dushku won't even break a nail, crud like "Wrong Turn" and it's ilk as you can get.
SHAME on those not appreciating it.
True...and yet also not true.
there was much famliar stuff here of course...but it's this movie's psycho that adds something fresh.
Here is a guy, not looking or really acting like your average killer, who is actually one of the most brutal, uncompromising, disturbingly realistic psychos ever put on screen.
The greatest strength, the amazing strength that this character has, is that McLean makes sure that never, not for a second, does the audience ever feel safe. T
he character becomes so extreme, so uncompromising, and McLean lets him run totally free with it, that perhaps for the first time ever in this kind of movie you really do feel that no one is beyond his reach, beyond his sadism.
In “Wolf Creek” we never have a feeling of safety even in our darkest ideas of how the characters may fare. It’s a constant, unsettling, disturbing plummet into superbly crafted uncertainty that we are embarking on.
Will that ‘thing’ really happen? Maybe not, and yet with what we have experienced it just might!
Will this character really be smashed into a direction we never expected? They may not, in fact surely not, and yet...
That is what gives the real punch in the guts power to “Wolf Creek”, the fact that we truly could be about to watch the unthinkable and the genuinely shocking unfold before us, that here we have a film that really could blow away any expectations we bring with us.
For the first time, in a long time, while watching a film I for one never once felt safe in what to expect and in with what the killer may indeed be allowed to do.
This kind of horror film making is as far from totally safe, we all know Dushku won't even break a nail, crud like "Wrong Turn" and it's ilk as you can get.
SHAME on those not appreciating it.
The Falconio/Lees similarities got this film a lot of publicity over here.
Some background info:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Falconio_dis...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backpacker_murders
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolf_Creek_%28film...
Some background info:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Falconio_dis...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backpacker_murders
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolf_Creek_%28film...
Worst Nightmare wrote: Gabe, This is very "loosely" based on the murder of Peter Falconio, a backpacker travelling in the northern territory of Australia with his girlfriend Joanne Lees. This occured on the 14th of July, 2001.
They were driving on the Sturt Highway when a car came up beside them and told them the van they were in was putting out sparks. They pulled over and Peter went to the back of the vehicle to check this out and then he was 'alledgedly shot'. His girlfriend was tied up and put in the back of the killers' vehicle. While the killer drove their van into the bushes, the girlfriend escaped.
This movie was actually held out of the movie theatres whilst this case was in the courts.
The killer was caught.....
I must concur. This was by far one of the worst horror movies I've seen in a long time. The only reason I thought it might be good is because Quentin Tarantino gave it a good review.
Avoid this movie like c**pping in your favorite pair of pants.
They were driving on the Sturt Highway when a car came up beside them and told them the van they were in was putting out sparks. They pulled over and Peter went to the back of the vehicle to check this out and then he was 'alledgedly shot'. His girlfriend was tied up and put in the back of the killers' vehicle. While the killer drove their van into the bushes, the girlfriend escaped.
This movie was actually held out of the movie theatres whilst this case was in the courts.
The killer was caught.....
I must concur. This was by far one of the worst horror movies I've seen in a long time. The only reason I thought it might be good is because Quentin Tarantino gave it a good review.
Avoid this movie like c**pping in your favorite pair of pants.
Gabe, This is very "loosely" based on the murder of Peter Falconio, a backpacker travelling in the northern territory of Australia with his girlfriend Joanne Lees. This occured on the 14th of July, 2001.
They were driving on the Sturt Highway when a car came up beside them and told them the van they were in was putting out sparks. They pulled over and Peter went to the back of the vehicle to check this out and then he was 'alledgedly shot'. His girlfriend was tied up and put in the back of the killers' vehicle. While the killer drove their van into the bushes, the girlfriend escaped.
This movie was actually held out of the movie theatres whilst this case was in the courts.
The killer was caught.....
They were driving on the Sturt Highway when a car came up beside them and told them the van they were in was putting out sparks. They pulled over and Peter went to the back of the vehicle to check this out and then he was 'alledgedly shot'. His girlfriend was tied up and put in the back of the killers' vehicle. While the killer drove their van into the bushes, the girlfriend escaped.
This movie was actually held out of the movie theatres whilst this case was in the courts.
The killer was caught.....
WC was a big disappointment for me. Bad scripting, and a painfully slow start, made none of the characters likable (or even 'characters', don't know which version you watched) or even actually human beings, therefore I didn't care about them at all. Oh and they were REALLY stupid!
The killer is a joke! He's like a cross between Alf from Home and Away and Freddie Kruegger and his constant 'bad' jokes took any suspense away from the 'killing' scenes. The whole second half of the film was just so totally implausible that any scares were lost due to the fact that you just wanted these STUPID people to die really quickly so you could go home!
Very disappointed!
The killer is a joke! He's like a cross between Alf from Home and Away and Freddie Kruegger and his constant 'bad' jokes took any suspense away from the 'killing' scenes. The whole second half of the film was just so totally implausible that any scares were lost due to the fact that you just wanted these STUPID people to die really quickly so you could go home!
Very disappointed!
Nqnpipnr Nqnpipnr wrote: Horror movies these days are either really great or really terrible.
I agree with the second part. Not one modern horror movie has impressed me nonetheless scared me as they should. I think The Ring was the only one I recently remember that I liked. Then again, maybe I'm being Hans Zimmer biased right now, not sure why? lol. Anyway, I like my horror movies that use atmosphere to scare the hell out of you, not slow build ups and quick jumps cause everyone has done that a billion times, and you know when it comes now. I'm having high hopes for Silent Hill, even though I probably shouldn't, but the game used atmosphere to perfection, hopefully Cristophe Gans translates that into the film.
I agree with the second part. Not one modern horror movie has impressed me nonetheless scared me as they should. I think The Ring was the only one I recently remember that I liked. Then again, maybe I'm being Hans Zimmer biased right now, not sure why? lol. Anyway, I like my horror movies that use atmosphere to scare the hell out of you, not slow build ups and quick jumps cause everyone has done that a billion times, and you know when it comes now. I'm having high hopes for Silent Hill, even though I probably shouldn't, but the game used atmosphere to perfection, hopefully Cristophe Gans translates that into the film.
I don't know. Horror movies these days are either really great or really terrible. I guess I'll have to see if this one can top any grisly pleasures.


Suitable only for persons of 18 years and over
Disc Details
Release Date:
16th January 2006
Discs:
2
Disc Type:
Single side, dual layer
RCE:
No
Video:
PAL
Aspect:
1.85:1
Anamorphic:
Yes
Colour:
Yes
Audio:
Dolby Digital 5.1 English. Dolby Surround English
Subtitles:
None
Extras:
Commentary with Director Greg McLean, Producer Matt Hearn And Cast Members Cassandra Magrath And Kestie Morassi, Behind The Scenes Footage, Meet Mick Taylor An Interview With John Jarratt, Deleted Scenes, Trailer, Teaser, Other Release Trailers, Cry_Wolf Scene
Easter Egg:
No
Feature Details
Director:
Greg McLean
Cast:
John Jarratt, Cassandra Magrath, Kestie Morassi, Nathan Phillips
Genre:
Horror
Length:
99 minutes
Ratings
Awards

Amazon.com
FOLLOW DVDACTIVE
Follow our updates
OTHER INTERESTING STUFF
Released Soon





Thrilling Reviews





Hot Articles





Most Talked About




