Wolf Creek (Greg McLean, 2005)

[Abulafia]

It's an Australian film, of course it's badly directed.

[Lino]

Hey, you guys -- give soma a break here. He's supporting the reasons why he loved Wolf Creek better than anyone on this thread has ever come close to. I, for one, am enjoying reading his posts.

[The Invunche]

A break? He's misrepresenting the views of those (some) who didn't like it.

[Michael]

Lino, I don't have a problem with soma expressing praise for Wolf Creek however I came to defend my reason for disliking Wolf Creek - the reason soma fails to recognize or understand. Anything wrong with that?

[Lino]

A break? He's misrepresenting the views of those (some) who didn't like it.

Well, apparently he thinks this is an excellent movie (so do I, by the way) and I think he has a right to express it. Was he misreading some of the comments here? I don't see where, specifically. In fact, I think he made some very good points in his defense of Creek.

Just going off on a tangent here, but some of my friends hate Wild at Heart whilst I particularly hold it as one of my very own favorite films ever. In cases like these, it's better if both parties keep in mind that they will never see eye to eye. That's why I retreated from this thread a long ago. Time to do the same again now.

[Cinesimilitude]

I hated this movie. they say it's based on true events, when they couldnt possibly know anything that happens to the girls after they are tied up.

Spoiler

since the guy is the only one that lived and he doesn't see the girls from his capture on.

everything that happens to them is speculation.

It was just another run of the mill, crazy man in the wild flick to me.

[rs98762001]

It's one of the least shocking and scary "horror" movies I've ever seen. A terrible film, and certainly not for any "moral" reasons.

[Mr Sausage]

But aren't knee-jerk reactions precisely what this kind of film depends upon?

How do you mean? To create buzz as the latest "video nasty"? Or something else?

Something else--namely, that horror movies such as Wolf Creek rely on the immediate visceral (aka. knee-jerk) reaction for their success.

I wouldn't disagree about Straw Dogs, ect. being just as disturbing (although I haven't seen Wolf Creek so I can only infer this), but I must point out that none of those films indulges in violence and disturbing content for its own sake as the whole of the viewing experience. Especially with Peckinpah, who wants to wring every bit of ambiguity and complexity out of his violence, which is the true end of it.

[soma]

Firstly, thanks Lino for your props and defense. I find the cat fighting here pretty amusing. Certainly no offense taken though, it's all healthy debate as far as I'm concerned and it's good to have landed in a forum where people clearly know their shit.

I believe there were several people in this thread who disliked the movie for the completely idiotic behavior of it's character (bad writing), rather than the violent/nasty content. This movie is in no way above the bad slasher movies of the 80's where teens would "fight" an unseen killer by splitting up and going alone into dark rooms. It's looks better though.

Please don't make us out to be religious moralistic crusaders.

I stand rightly corrected and realise that in the way I tackled my personal thoughts on the strength of the film, I've generalised my defense of it towards particular posters and reviewers. I didn't want to spend this much time on this debate but it would be wrong of me to not address yours and others concerns in the same manner I've addressed the film's strengths, especially considering the way this thread has progressed. My second post in particular was specifically targeted at Dear Catastrophe Totoro, rs98762001, NUMEROUS posters in the Cannibal Holocaust thread (which this thread links to and thus I curiously sidetracked) and good old Roger Ebert, whose Wolf Creek review I read out of interest some midway through this thread.

That said, you quickly dismiss many strengths that I feel have been rightly pointed out about Wolf Creek, both in my posts and those by others, with a variation of the same response.

soma, you're missing the main reason why some of us hate Wolf Creek. It's not the violence. It's just that it's so badly directed.

Read this thread again....carefully.

And so I have. Response is forthcoming.

In cases like these, it's better if both parties keep in mind that they will never see eye to eye. That's why I retreated from this thread a long ago. Time to do the same again now.

This is an excellent point and entirely valid. Beyond a certain level, film is completely subjective. Therefore intellectual debate on a particular film is much like sharpening a knife with a toothbrush. But we do tend to pick up the toothbrush regardless.

Apologies in advance for the long post, but I do feel prompted...

[soma]

Wolf Creek moves very straightforward with no surprises or twists unlike most current horror films.

It's elegance and simplicity definitely make it stand out from the increasing trend of horror films (and all genre films for that matter) that feel in order to be great they must pertain to the twist-reliant Usual Suspects style of filmmaking. This is a good point and I think it is a positive one.

The last half of the film was extremely hard for me to take because those young people were really likeable and the killer was very real... unlike the one in Haute Tension. During the first half, we get to know the young people just enough to make us care about them. Wolf Creek's intention is not to turn itself into a character drama but a simple, straightforward story about people being thrown in a bottomless crater with the most sick, sadistic killer you could ever seen. The film refuses to explain the killer's motivations. And we're left with only that and nothing more. So have fun.

Exactly. Your reason for disliking the film is in my eyes one of its greatest strengths. The tight scripting and solid acting in the first half and the fact that it takes two thirds of the film until the shit hits the fan gives us plenty of time to care about the protagonists before they're killed off in the most brutal fashion imaginable. This makes it all the more shocking. Part of its success lies in its restraint, and as Ed Gonzales called it, the "lyrical sense of doom" leading up to the finale is just brilliant. In this light it becomes both a play with our expectations of the genre and a running commentary against all the one dimensional and lackluster Hollywood-produced horror films of the last decade. As for explaining the killer's motivations, who needs to? So we can relax knowing there's an easy answer to everything? That his actions all boil down to basic Freudian psychology? Bullshit. His character is all the more chilling for it. A different film for sure, but I'm reminded somewhat of the killer in The Vanishing - completely devoid of moral reasoning or empathic understanding. Cold. Brutal. Merciless. A sociopath by definition.

How's this for character motivation? Because he can. Not only a sadistic killer, he is a sadistic killer with a severe god complex. Note the afore-mentioned sense of place I referred to. A strange comparison you might say but I equal Mclean's use of mis-en-scene to create a definitive, otherworldly sense of place as striking as that of Robert Altman's in McCabe & Mrs Miller. This is very much the killer's world and in it he is God.

With all the tools and weapons being available in the room, why didn't the women cut the killer's head off or rip his heart or face apart or light him on fire while he was lying down supposedly dead before they took off?

You could use this logic in a thousand movies, especially those of the horror genre. One may argue that's half the fun. I was at the premiere at MIFF last year with a particularly vocal audience and it was all part of the experience hearing the reactions, taunts, gasps and cheers of the crowd. Come on, this a horror film! If he died then and there where would that leave us as moviegoers? Completely unsatisfied that's for sure. The audience knows he isn't dead (of course he isn't)... and you know full well he's going to come after the girls again. If anything this just tightens the noose around the audience's neck and cranks that magical tension up another notch.

But if counter logic is what you're after, do you think perhaps they were simply terrified? I've seen people in the face of personal threat (though nothing like this mind you, thankfully) and more often than not, they freeze. The girls are hardly thinking at their logical best, nor have the hindsight of you or I in that we've seen enough horror films to know to finish that fucker off then and there (ha). Besides, what makes you think these girls even have it in them to "rip his heart or face apart or light him on fire". I doubt many would to be honest. They shot him in self defense, he's disabled. She tries to shoot him again but the gun jams, or is out of ammo. Her friend is on the floor, gagged and covered with blood and sobbing uncontrollably. At that point in time all they can think of is to get the fuck out of there, stat.

An easy point to pick on perhaps, in that you're somewhat declaring "That wouldn't happen in reality" - meaning you're suggesting it's a contrivance that serves plot continuation. Which it does. But what is more real? The Hollywood standard in that the killer is killed and the boy and girl lover make it shaken, but wrapped in each other's arms to safety? Considering the film is inspired (not a true story - but we'll get to that later) on the Australian backpacker murders, in which bodies were found, not victims - then isn't this version far more real? Let alone a further defiance of the dull and far more contrived Hollywood horrors it leaves in its wake. What you're really getting at here is that you and they have been terrified enough, and that you would have taken that chance then and there to kill him. As already mentioned, there are several perfectly believable reasons why the girls may not have done this - and only in addendum being that it would not suit the logical narrative conclusion of this film. That the audience is presented several times over with the chance that the girls may actually escape, only to have that hope brutally and abruptly silenced, is a cruel blow indeed. But all the more effective in creating a nasty slice of horror that fulfils and compounds its genre expectations.

When one of the women walked into that silo filled with rotting corpses, why did she have to do that? That was so stupid. She was supposed to be finding the way OUT.

I've definitely not seen this scene. It wasn't in the Australian theatrical cut. I've bought the R2 UK SE DVD so I'll have to watch it to see if it's been included there. This sequence does sound lame, but it was obviously not the director's intention for it to be included.

Anyone talentless hack can film torture, mutilation and sadistic murder in perverse detail and get a reaction out of an audience. There's a line where the act itself that horrifies the audience rather than how the filmmaker approaches it. Skill or talent doesn't even enter the equation.

I'm sorry but for Wolf Creek it clearly does. Take Saw and its sequel, Saw II, for example (while we're at it add The Ordeal and House Of 1000 Corpses; I haven't yet seen The Devil's Rejects, nor want to) - just as shocking in content as Wolf Creek, but made with no skill whatsoever. They are little more than gimmickry and violent spectacle. Wolf Creek on the other hand has CLASS. As I said previously, in its artistic integrity and sense of craft, alienated sense of place, brooding existentialism and lyrical deconstruction - let alone startling cinematography, play with genre conventions and some tight performances from the cast, it really is a cut above its peers. And that it revels in its deviousness is not such a bad thing.

I'd be interested in knowing how you and other fans of the film explain its casual, sickening misogyny. Any reason or justification for the treatment of the women in this film, who are not only shown making one dimwitted decision after another but are also tortured, disemboweled and shot without so much as a shrug by a wisecracking, pantomime male villain?

I am glad that someone else has already responded to this joke of a rebuttal. Join a protest rally, don't shave your armpits, I really don't care... but you have seen in Wolf Creek exactly what you wanted to, and in doing so justified your own faux interpretation that this film is in any way sexist or misogynist. As for "pantomime male villain", sister you need to see more movies.

Please tell me what it is about Wolf Creek that makes it a future classic. I've read every word on this thread and none made me think "future classic". Or you gotta be joking.

The horror film that deserves to be labeled "future classic" is Pulse.

I've already posted my direct thoughts on why Wolf Creek is a great film. If you would like further evidence please read the excellent Slant review as suggested.

Second, I completely agree that Kiyoshi Kurosawa is a master filmmaker - I own Pulse (Kairo), Cure and Bright Future on DVD and the man is in a class of his own. But genre similarities aside, comparing Pulse to Wolf Creek is like comparing chalk and cheese, they are of a completely different ilk. Compare Diabolique to the original Texas Chainsaw Massacre and see why this stance is irrelevant.

Well, I have no interest in seeing Wolf Creek again. Why bother torturing myself? It's not the violence that bothers me. It's how it's being used. If it's supposed to be a true story, then why over stretch the moments of the woman walking about the killer's lair like there's nothing? For instance, the silo and leaving the killer's body without really killing him, like anyone with a brain would. Are they being used as excuses for more and more senseless violence? I don't mind senseless, crazy horror films but Wolf Creek emphasizes so much on the fact that it's a true story and none of it feels true. What's the point of the opening and closing captions if it fails to stay true? I would equate this film with the Lifetime Channel movies.

Re: Silo scene and moot "leaving killer's body" points, see above.

In regards to the true story aspect, come on... did you really think this was true? I suppose you thought that Blair Witch was true also? Or Cannibal Holocaust? Or Wes Craven's The Hills Have Eyes? Or Tobe Hooper's Texas Chainsaw Massacre? Whilst taking its cue from the Australian backpacker murders and creating a chilling "what if?" scenario, it's only a play on a familiar genre riff as numerous films have done before it. I assume this motif was used to create a heightened sense of realism (and thus fear) from its audience, but it wasn't necessary and perhaps the weakest aspect of the film. That said, it would quickly get a chuckle from any true genre fan. A tip of the hat to those that came before it, if you will.

This has been a constant question from people: what is the worth of movie, what does it contribute or what does it communicate? It is not an enjoyable movie, as even its admirers concede, so that cannot be its aim.

As I've already said I enjoyed it, and know many others that did also. As both a genre fan and a fairly serious cinephile I was constantly delighted by the ferocity of the material and the strength and craft in which it was handled. By the time it reached the eclipse scene and the wide lens steadycam shots of the girl running up the highway I was thinking, "This is fucking brilliant".

Furthermore, as stated in my first post in this thread - it's primary objective as a genre piece was to frighten. In which it succeeded admirably. I'd be willing to bet that half the backlash against it was because it succeeded a little too admirably. All the more power to it.

If there's anything I really hate about horror movies it's stupid characters. It takes me right out of the movie when the girls make one bad choice after another.

Yeah, lets leave the creep knocked out of the floor, but alive. Lets dump the car because he's following us. Lets go back into his "lair" to get a new car because we dumped the other one. Jesus H. Christ.

Within the first sentence here you've already expressed your dislike for horror cinema, thus it feels to me like you went into this film looking for faults, rather than with an open slate.

The first point we have dealt with. The second, simple - he is going to keep chasing them until the car stops, or they're dead. He's made his motivations clear. If they can create a mock accident that causes him to believe they've plunged off a cliff, and died in the process, then they're home free. As he decides to check the car, they consequently move to steal his car, a smart play that means to leave him stranded while they drive to safety. But of course he has taken the keys with him. The third point is explained directly by one of the characters from memory, something along the lines of, "We're in the middle of fucking nowhere, we need a car". I can see where you're coming from mate, but in needing a more substantial attack on why the film is bad, it's neither here nor there.

If human beings are feeling closer to our darker nature, then this is something to fear, not encourage. Studies have shown that viewing extensive violence can increase certain chemicals in your brain, actually causing you to be more in touch with your aggression. Even worse, violence in films can increase the level of hostility in minds that are still developing, giving them more aggresive dispositions. I'll try to find the link for that study (as I know what I just said was lacking to the point of being laughable), but I found it interesting, and emotionally I found it true. And actually, this backs up with Annie said about these films being "A Sign O the Times," except I see it as hostility creating more hostility.

Firstly, read this rather poignant post...

Another interesting aspect to the new crop of torture / horror pictures is that the attention to bloody details, to dragging each death out as long and painfully as possible, is actually the morally preferable approach, or at least morally preferable to other horror and action movies. Films like Wolf Creek at least don't let the audience off easily with quick, painless deaths - we suffer through each death scene, because they take death so seriously. Death hurts, physically and emotionally. The quickly dispatched faceless victim of so many sci fi/action flicks is a cartoon version of mortality, and I suspect here is where many people become desensitized to violence. I can't say I enjoy the torture genre, but would suggest many of them have more of a moral center than plenty of other, and far less bloody, films.

Then please read Roger Ebert's rather insightful review of Peckinpah's The Wild Bunch, which explores the implications and end justification for screen violence. A pity he forgot this in his incredibly shallow and biased review of Wolf Creek, to whom my "cozy middle-age comfort zone" remark is directly implicit.

These thoughts, so far, have been inspired by a visit to the Chicago Theater to see Sam Peckinpah's "The Wild Bunch" once again. It has become this year's controversial film about violence, the successor to "The Dirty Dozen," "Bonnie and Clyde" and the Italian Westerns. It is also, many critics agree, an extraordinary film.

In an article published a month ago, I described it as "an important act of filmmaking," and said the film "presents death and violence in such definitive (indeed, even excessive) terms that it becomes, paradoxically, a statement against violence and a reaction to it."

This has been my critical line for some time; I used the same reasoning in defending "Bonnie and Clyde." I think the argument is valid with "Bonnie and Clyde," but that it doesn't fit "The Wild Bunch." This year's movie has to be considered in fresh terms from last year's; society has changed, movies have changed, there have been advances in the philosophy of violence.

So I went to see "The Wild Bunch" again, this time not at a reverent screening but with a typical weekend Loop audience. And I learned a thing or two, I believe. Or remembered them.

Consider for a moment the various strategies in the controversy over violence in the movies. When a particularly violent film like "The Wild Bunch" comes along, there are usually three stages to the critical reaction. First, the film is attacked for its excessive violence. Second, it is defended by its admirers as a statement against violence. The excess of violence, it is argued, causes a reaction in the audience; the movie fights violence like an inoculation fights smallpox.

The third critical stage comes when a critic actually attends the theater where the movie is showing. He returns horrified. The audience, he reports, was cheering and applauding and laughing; far from being revolted by the excessive violence, the audience loved it. What went wrong? One Chicago critic was so shocked by his visit to the theater that he suggested members of the audience might be in need of psychiatric help.

I have a general theory, that audiences know what they're up to. If they laugh at violence, it is probably more useful to examine the violence than to psychoanalyze the audience. In the case of "The Wild Bunch," this is particularly true. Let me admit to heresy: I enjoyed the violence, too.

I suppose "The Wild Bunch" is the most violent movie ever made. Hundreds of men, women and horses are slaughtered. A man is dragged behind a horse. Throats are slit, broken, strangled. Blood flows in an unending stream. Thanks to recent advances in special effects, the blood actually spurts when somebody gets shot; there are geysers of blood everywhere. A friend of mine describes "The Wild Bunch" as being 200 simultaneous blood transfusions with no recipients.

So how could I possibly enjoy this bloodbath? Because it was no more real than the dozens of gunfights I have already survived, in the company of Rex Allen, Hopalong Cassidy and John Wayne.

I am aware that the shootings in "The Wild Bunch" are the most realistic ever filmed. But realism is not the same thing as reality. The wounds look terribly real in "The Wild Bunch," yes, but it is impossible to forget that this is a movie. Indeed, the extreme realism of "The Wild Bunch" actually reminds you that it's a movie.

To finish this off, "studies" have shown a lot of things. "Studies" can show that smoking is definitively not bad for your health. This information, or study you speak of, is nothing new. It pops up every now and again from conservative media and politicians in response to say, the Columbine massacre. Perhaps fouled minds may be inspired by on screen events, but I can assure you those minds were fouled long before they saw said violent film. This is indeed one of those knee-jerk "moral" judgments I referred to, and detest. Enfant terrible as film, is a poor man's scapegoat.

I for one am grateful that films during WW2 were mostly escapism, or films with social commentary smuggled into classical genre films. It would be horrifying if in their place we received dozens of horror films about death camps.

Why? Because you would be confronted with the truth? How awful for you. Of course ignorance is bliss, as they say. You're right, during our current "War On Terror" you know what the world needs isn't United 93 or Turtles Can Fly, it's another Michael Bay film. Bring on that escapism!

Seek out a Romero film and learn something about social commentary within the horror genre. Don't be so simple minded.

By the way, I've heard a rumor around my city that a Faces of Death movie might be playing at a local multi-plex. Please tell me that it is illegal to publicly show snuff films? However, the fact that people are believing this and possibly anticipating it could show how this recent trend of horror films could be numbing our reaction to violence. And actually, now that I think about it...when the remake of Texas Chainsaw Massacre was released, I heard from two people that they were surprised that they actually showed police footage of the real attacks. I tried to tell them that it wasn't real, but they were convinced that it was, and with this being considered, their overall reaction toward the movie was, "really good, really scary." If anything is attracting young audiences to horror films, it is the truth of their true nature that they do not even recognize anymore in our sanctioned, commercialized society. Grizzly Man is a good place to start if one wants to learn a greater truth, but I doubt Wolf Creek is going to enlighten anything.

Did it ever claim to? Was it ever supposed to? It's a genre film, a horror film. It's designed to scare. Although I believe Wolf Creek to have relative depth to it when compared to its peers, I don't think anyone goes into it expecting to be enlightened. Furthermore your all-too-easy pigeonholing of its audience and their nature is knee-jerk and flimsy at best. But you know, whatever helps you sleep at night.

Secondly, Grizzly Man; whilst an informative, well directed if not sometimes overbearingly opinionated documentary, is hardly that enlightening beyond our musings (and Herzog's obviously) on a very quirky man. Use the term enlightening along with films such as Kurosawa's Ikiru and Tarkovsky's Solaris, if you please.

And as far as "recent trend of horror films numbing our reaction to violence", I suggest you go back to the 1970's and look at films such as Texas Chainsaw Massacre, Last House On The Left, The Hills Have Eyes, Suspiria, Deep Red and Cannibal Holocaust (1980 to be precise), for example. Your statement is the whole 1980's "video nasty" debate all over again, and a defunct one. Why not rile the media and the video game industry while you're at it?

I loved the film. I thought it was one of the best horror films in recent years. Part of why I loved it was because it was so brutal, and in a much more real, horrific way than something like the shitty Hostel. I think two examples of the film's strength within its genre are the killings of the two girls. First, he explains briefly what a "head on a steak" is, then immediately does it to her. And that's it. She's dead. There is no added faux drama, no mercy. It reminds me of the first death in The Texas Chain Saw Massacre. Then later, when the other girl seemingly escapes, he catches up to her, holds the gun to her, then kills her. The brutality and cynicism of his killings is what impresses me about the film, because it doesn't pull any punches (like Hostel does).

Excellent point.

After seeing Wolf Creek, most other horror films just seem to pale in comparison.

There was an article that someone linked to back on this thread that really put in perspective today's horror film scene and I found myself agreeing with the writer. He makes a juxtaposition between the kind of very hard and raw films that are coming out right now (High Tension, Wolf Creek, The Hills Have Eyes, Hostel et al) and the kind of political and social times we are living in. I think he's right on the money when he says that today's young audiences are connecting more and more with this kind of movies than the ones about monsters and ghouls and other fantastical creatures because unfortunately in today's society we are experiencing a kind of senseless sort of violence that is invading our subconsciousness and making us be afraid of Man(kind) and start seeing him/it as the real threat, the real monster.

We experienced a kind of similar thing back in the 70's after the whole sordid business of the Vietnam war and when films like Deliverance, Straw Dogs, Texas Chainsaw, Last House on the Left and the like started to come out of the woodwork and making important statements about the poor health of the human spirit. It's sad to be witnessing this again. But it's always great to see excellent filmmaking, nonetheless.

Another excellent point.

It's one of the least shocking and scary "horror" movies I've ever seen. A terrible film, and certainly not for any "moral" reasons.

No, certainly not for any "moral" reasons. Like its "sickening misogyny"? Thanks for another of your insightful posts.

But how can you not be frustrated by the sheer stupidity of the girls? How is it possible to ignore that while watching?

I agree with your defections most of all, and respect that you are able to present a logical argument devoid of moral highground. We're obviously never going too see eye to eye, but my argument is rather multi-tiered compared to your fairly solitary point. It does tend to feel like you're dismissing this film with a variation of the same response. You give Wolf Creek no credit at all, and therin lies my problem.

The movie is not completely perfect, but it's by far the best horror film to come out in the last couple of decades. I've only seen this once so now I have the DVD perhaps I should go back and watch it with your cynicism in mind. But on first viewing I wasn't particularly bothered by anything I felt to be mood-crushing contrivance or dull formula. If these negligible traits are indeed present then I was far too caught up in the tension and sheer mood of it all to notice. It's a genre film, I expect certain things to defy logic. But it's all in good (or should that be nasty?) fun.

But despite any perceived faults, the characterisation is infinitely better than the cookie-cutter, one dimensional logic of I Know What You Did Last Summer and its peers. I can't remember being that bothered by the incidents you refer to but even if upon second viewing they are as glaring as you claim, they are minor faults in the overall schematics of an exemplary genre entry - one that creatively and stylistically surpasses anything that precedes it in some time.

[brendanjc]

A did a quick search for this flick on a whim and am surprised by the amount of discussion about it. I don't have any deep insight to add, other than that this struck me quite the same way that Ils did, which is to say it was quite a disappointment. I've read through most of the discussion about why people watch horror films and I don't want to belabor that point; I'm in the camp that tends to enjoy them. However Wolf Creek really didn't work for me. I think the problems I had with the plot were mostly covered before (the fact that two of his three victims managed to escape his initial kidnapping even though it's suggested that he's killed many before, the idiotic decisions the women make including not ensuring the killer is dead, returning to the camp, and wasting time watching videos, the killer choosing to wait in the correct car out of a dozen, the should-have-stayed-deleted corpse scene, the inexplicable watch stoppage, and so on) - the story is sloppy, way too sloppy for such a simplistic plot. The two other big problems I had with the film besides that were the killer himself, who came off as more caricature than character (if they made Australian-stereotype masks he could have been wearing one). The (very-long) post above compares the killer to the one in The Vanishing, but that couldn't be more wrong. That film is brilliant because a lot of it is about explaining the killer - there's nothing lazier than putting a knife in someone's hand and making no attempt to characterize them. The other problem is that fact that the film was so...empty. If you don't find it scary it's nothing more than a bit disgusting, there's no intellectual component at all - if all I want is something a bit disgusting I can dig around in the back of my fridge. That's the reason that this won't go down as a classic in the same way that Texas Chainsaw Massacre has - you can't suspend your disbelief, so it's not really that shocking and it doesn't play up on any fears that horror cliche hasn't already driven into the ground. I'll admit that technically the film is well-made; I particularly enjoyed the beautiful exterior shots of the Aussie landscape. Also, McLean does handle the first half of the film quite well, right up until the campfire scene and the villain's proper introduction. Ultimately though, it felt like reading a typo-riddled article about a shooting in your local newspaper - the flaws jump out at you, you think to yourself "People sure can be horrible," and you forget all about it by the next day.

I do want to bring up the one-dimensionality of the story a bit, though. Say what you will about Saw and Hostel, but there is at least an attempt at bit of moral complexity to those films. Sure all the twists in Saw are ridiculous but it does raise some moral questions about punishment and people's inherent self-interest (eg. the heroin addict who thinks her trap improved her life, would you kill someone else to live?) even if it does lose sight of that message by the end. Similarly, as another poster pointed out in this thread, Hostel does have a brief moment of genius with it's meta-critique of our need for pushing the boundaries of entertainment. I mean, even if you're in it for nothing but pure horror, there are scenes in both those films that were far more effective for me than this one. I'd love to be enlightened, but as it sits right now it seems like this movie had nothing to offer except a decent Crocodile Dundee joke and the single memorably horrific image of the "head on a stick".