Terreur à Wolf Creek

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!

This movie is what others try to be, its not overly graphic with gore but it lets the story build up and the actors to execute what horror is and should be.

It doesn't feel cheap or low budget, but very VERY well done, from the directing to special effects(blood,gore) to the post production and audio. Which is where the movie won me over the audio is amazing,from the actors voice overs to the soundtrack that sends chills down your spine.

Now the acting is truly topnotch as everything is very realistic and that is what makes horror movies scary is that they can happen, none of what happens in Wolf Creek is out of this realm. And I guess the whole "based on true events" thing is played out(even if its true or not)it helps towards the realism of the film. Also as far as shock factor goes it won't make you throw up or have nightmares but it will make you think before taking something from a stranger.

The way horror movies are going and have been for this past decade is that everything needs to be more shocking and I know this was made in 2005 but that was the birth of this new shock genre which gave way to films like A Serbian Film, Martyrs, Ichi, and Hostel. But Wolf Creek gets back to basics and shows that CGI and gore aren't required to make a scary film.

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.

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...

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.