Wolf Creek 2

'Wolf Creek 2' suffers some of the similar problems seen in other horror movie franchises. Like in the later 'Nightmare on Elm Street' films, too much focus is placed on the antagonist, causing the film to lose quite a bit of suspense and tension. In the first 'Wolf Creek', released nearly a decade ago, John Jarratt's Mick Taylor was an enigma to the audience. He didn't make an appearance until nearly halfway through the film, and even then we had no idea what his deal was until he started torturing and murdering the main characters. In the sequel, Mick has been turned into much more of a comedic antihero, with there being a large emphasis on Mick and his pun-laden one-liners, which kills off a bit of the mystery and edginess that defined the first film.

Likewise, this leads to Mick's victims being that little less relatable and sympathetic, as we are much more familiar with Mick than we are with them.

Like the original, 'Wolf Creek 2' is obviously not for the faint of heart, with the gore and sadistic violence being ramped up. The film's car chases and fright scenes are all the more elaborate and effective due to an obvious budget increase. This much more polished look obviously removes a bit of the grindhouse aesthetic present in the preceding film, however makes up for it in terms of sheer scale.

On the whole, 'Wolf Creek 2' is still quite an intense thrill-ride, and one worth checking out, especially if you enjoyed the first. Unfortunately, the creative team's decision to spend more time with Mick and less with the unfortunate tourists who encounter him deprives the film of what could have made it a superior sequel.

(62%)Claims made by certain folk that this is an unnecessary sequel appear to be forgetting the fact that by and large all sequels, especially horror sequels, are unnecessary cash-ins on a successful production, and this is no different. The original was a slow burn grisly low budget shocker with a great panic stricken sense of hopelessness from a serial-killer who always appeared to be one step ahead of his prey whilst they trespass on his turf. While the sequel is a bit more of the same only with a swifter pace, and a slightly lighter tone. There's also quite a bit more car chasers, and a degree more humour from the great John Jarratt's character who turns somewhat similar to Freddy Krueger with his perverted view of the world and intense wickedness making this more of a exploitation drive-in movie than the original's softly approach into terror. The movie does twist and turn as it goes along, although most will have some sort of idea what's coming next, but this is still a very entertaining watch with some great gore effects and a good number of dark comedic one-liners. Even if this is a slightly different beast to the original, it's still as welcome addition, and a good slice of bloody outback horror in its own right.

It's fair to say that most people believe (quite rightly) that sequels are normally pretty inferior to the original and, in horror terms, it's hard to ever find a sequel that even comes close to its predecessor. I'm not going to say that Wolf Creek 2 surpasses the original, but at least it's watchable (which puts it head and shoulders over 99% of other horror sequels).

It's about mass murdering psychopath Mick Taylor (once again played brilliantly by John Jarrett) who lives deep in the Australian Outback and has a tendency to slaughter any hapless backpacker who passes through his town of Wolf Creek. And, when I say the film is ABOUT Mick Taylor, I really mean it. The film doesn't ever really focus on his victims. He is definitely the star. Granted, he deserves it – he truly plays the 'nutter' well. However, this does leave us not that bothered about whether his victims live or die, as we never really get to know them half as well as we do him.

Therefore, we're left learning more about the 'monster' than the 'heroes.' So, if you're not looking for a film where you're going to feel that sympathetic towards the victims, then you'll find what you're looking for right here.

It's not so 'condensed' as the first Wolf Creek. The original was mainly set in one location (when the murdering finally got going), whereas much of this movie is a cat and mouse style chase across the desert.

Don't expect much in the way of a story (well, about as much as the next slasher film), but if you're looking to see a really good/creepy performance from a mass-murdering villain then you'll find it here. My only real gripe was the ending, but you'll have to watch the last thirty seconds to see if you agree with me.

You have to have a brain that releases the reward hormones, etc. that are excited by horror and gore to sit through this Aussie rendition of a "not-so-nice-person" gleefully and with good Aussie nationalism dismember visiting hiking tourists or any others of similar persuasion who upset him or for that matter simply anyone who upsets him.

Well acted. The usual pursuit of the prey scenes, but what makes this a seven vs. eight or nine stars are the stupid decisions of our prey. A common problem in this genre and it's not clear if it's written into the script on purpose to annoy viewers or the writers simply need to prolong the agony to fill 90 minutes or they just don't have a good understanding of thinking under pressure.

I thoroughly enjoyed Wolf Creek. All elements of film making seemed to work, for me. I like realism in films and the sense of isolation in the Australian outback was palpable. After viewing the trailer for Wolf Creek 2 I thought that the film might fall into the Hollywood category. What I was hoping for was another gem.

John Jarratt returns as serial killer Mick Taylor. He delivers another strong performance. His laugh and hoarse, Aussie voice never falter. He gets totally into character and runs the show. He has too much screen time, however, to make him as scary as he should be. The viewer is given too much knowledge of his whereabouts, I felt.

The actors who play the tourists are good, notably Ryan Corr, playing well-educated British traveler, Paul. The film doesn't provide much insight into his character which might be the reason why I had little empathy for him, or any of Mick's victims in this film. Towards the end I was routing for the tourists solely because as the viewer we have witnessed the hell their put through. For whatever reason, I really liked the characters in the first film and it was hard to watch them meet their fate.

The sense of isolation is there but doesn't have the same effect as it did in the first film, probably because there are a few more characters in this film, and other devices used to create action, which made the film appear less chilling and more thrilling.

I liked that McLean used subtitles for the German couple because I wasn't expecting it. Of course English isn't always going to be a tourists first language and they're not going to speak it for our benefit. Fret not, once the screaming begins you don't have to do a lot of reading.

Some parts of the film felt a little odd to me at first, and there are a couple of comical sequences. I took it in the movie's stride. Perhaps that was writer number 2, Aaron Sterns, input. I didn't mind. There was enough Mick Taylor sadism to pull me back to the horror film I went in to watch. The setting at the end was a little disappointing because it felt too orchestrated and unlike Mick Taylor. It felt more like a scene from 'Hostel'.

The first film is a rare beauty, and Wolf Creek 2 is a good sequel - nothing more, nothing less IMO.