Wolf Creek (Greg McLean, 2005)

[Lino]

You see, Narshty, I decided long ago to stop watching the daily news altogether. I just couldn't take all the misery and the violence and the injustice that I was being fed each day during lunch and dinner times.

Movies like Wolf Creek and the like are the only way I can really connect with those issues and deal with them. Because at the end of the day, that's just what they are: fictional movies and not documentaries. And even those that are based on true events (again like Wolf Creek) give me a much safer aproach than watching people get killed unmercifully at the hands of the latest terrorist attacks. You cannot really blame me for that, can you?

[ben d banana]

I am dying for the answer to that.

[Lino]

RIP then, ben. And your banana too. Oh, I just realized I had already said that to you in the past, haven't I? Oh, well.

[The Invunche]

You see, Narshty, I decided long ago to stop watching the daily news altogether. I just couldn't take all the misery and the violence and the injustice that I was being fed each day during lunch and dinner times.

Movies like Wolf Creek and the like are the only way I can really connect with those issues and deal with them. Because at the end of the day, that's just what they are: fictional movies and not documentaries. And even those that are based on true events (again like Wolf Creek) give me a much safer aproach than watching people get killed unmercifully at the hands of the latest terrorist attacks. You cannot really blame me for that, can you?

Maybe I cannot blame you, but I'm glad most people I know aren't like that. There's something disturbingly shallow about the way you deal with the world. If everyone blinded themselves to the real suffering in the world like you do, it would be an even worse place.

Maybe you should be charged for oxygen.

[ben d banana]

Det er godt!

[The Invunche]

When did you learn Danish?

[Lino]

Maybe I cannot blame you, but I'm glad most people I know aren't like that. There's something disturbingly shallow about the way you deal with the world. If everyone blinded themselves to the real suffering in the world like you do, it would be an even worse place.

I do read the newspapers, though. I just cannot watch the news. So charge me for being too sensitive. But not for oxygen.

BTW, if anyone should be charged for that, it's you - you're so full of it...

[The Invunche]

If I'm full of oxygen, shouldn't I be paid for it?

[Lino]

No, honey. You got it wrong - you're full of air. And people like these, should have to pay extra.

[rs98762001]

I just watched WOLF CREEK, and I cannot believe anybody is defending what has to be one of the worst films I've ever seen in my life. Terrible amateurish acting, some of the stupidest characters put on film, pointless sickening nihilism, and a lead actor that's far closer to unintentional hilarity than anything vaguely scary. Just awful, awful filmmaking in every sense. I'm surprised the families of the two purported real-life victims haven't sued the filmmakers for post-mortem defamation.

[Fletch F. Fletch]

Look, no need to be Nashty... There are plenty of films out there whose only intent is to disgust people while showing mutilation and torture and still try to make it entertaining at the same time, if you can find that entertaining, that is... The Devil's Rejects comes to mind but to me misses the mark by a long shot.

I have to respectfully disagree with you in regards to this film. Very little actual gore is shown in The Devil's Rejects unlike, say, Saw, Hostel, et al which tends to revel in it. It's kinda like the original Texas Chainsaw Massacre -- because it is such an intense movie and so much is implied many people often come away thinking it is much more gory than it actually was.

I've seen Rejects a few times, listened to Rob Zombie's commentary track and his intention wasn't too make a gorefest or revel in torture but to make an entertaining exploitation flick which I think he succeeded completely. It's interesting because at several points in the commentary he talks about how he downplayed the gore because he felt that it is really pointless because it turns into a stunt and you've got all these guys who are trying one up each other and when does it all end and who really cares? At some point it takes away from the movie, it becomes a distraction. Anybody can show gore, it's implying things, letting the viewer fill in the blanks themselves that is infinitely more scary and hard to pull off.

[Lino]

Look, no need to be Nashty... There are plenty of films out there whose only intent is to disgust people while showing mutilation and torture and still try to make it entertaining at the same time, if you can find that entertaining, that is... The Devil's Rejects comes to mind but to me misses the mark by a long shot.

I have to respectfully disagree with you in regards to this film. (...) I've seen Rejects a few times, listened to Rob Zombie's commentary track and his intention wasn't too make a gorefest or revel in torture but to make an entertaining exploitation flick which I think he succeeded completely. It's interesting because at several points in the commentary he talks about how he downplayed the gore because he felt that it is really pointless because it turns into a stunt

In other words, he doesn't believe in what he's doing, does he? That's one of the reasons I dismiss this film. And just why did he have to play that soft music when the action was hitting as hard as it got? To me, it completely ruined the movie and the heights it could have achieved.

Oh, and rs98762001: mark my words, Wolf Creek will be a classic many years from now. I just know it.

[franco]

Just to add a few more words of love: I thoroughly enjoyed the movie. The lighting, location, and mise-en-scene are simply incredible. The set-up is shorter than I imagined and more interesting than what others said. How could anyone find faults in the acting? The kissing scene will stay in my mind as the most touching and tangible depiction of innocence that I have seen.

Ed from Slant shows his usual eloquence in describing his admiration for the film.

Nevertheless, with its emphasis on realism, the movie is marred by a few choices:

Spoiler

Lizzie's interminable search for a serviceable vehicle, as well as the corpse silo scene Michael mentioned, exists for the single purpose of giving the audience a "tour" of Mick's lair. While I can understand the necessity to reinforce background information, the reinforcement severely compromises the plausibility of Lizzie's action. What kind of person, on the verge of life and death, would delay her search for safely just to monkey with other people's video cameras? While one can say that Lizzie delays her exit because she wants to look for Ben, she shows more distraction than enthusiasm.

The corpse silo scene, fortunately, is cut in the UK release and only included among the deleted scenes. I agree with Michael that the scene is just plain stupid. There's a reason why it's deleted. What was the North American distributor thinking?

Lastly, the opening and closing captions just... shouldn't be there...

It's a flawed film, but it will become a classic for sure.

[rs98762001]

Oh, and rs98762001: mark my words, Wolf Creek will be a classic many years from now. I just know it.

Hey, stranger things have happened. 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?

[ben d banana]

I've seen Rejects a few times, listened to Rob Zombie's commentary track and his intention wasn't too make a gorefest or revel in torture but to make an entertaining exploitation flick which I think he succeeded completely. It's interesting because at several points in the commentary he talks about how he downplayed the gore because he felt that it is really pointless because it turns into a stunt

In other words, he doesn't believe in what he's doing, does he? That's one of the reasons I dismiss this film. And just why did he have to play that soft music when the action was hitting as hard as it got? To me, it completely ruined the movie and the heights it could have achieved.

I don't get what you're saying re: Zombie not believing in what he's doing. It was a heavily stylized homage to 70's grindhouse/horror films (or blatant rip-off cash-in if you like), but to remove himself from the game of contemporary gore theatrics one-upmanship in favor of his preferred style is hardly the working of a directionless imbecile. And what's wrong with Terry Reid, Skynyrd, James Gang, country, etc? I'm at a loss as to what soft music to which you're referring. Three Dog Night?

Fletch, did you check out the Banjo & Sullivan album?

I still can't forget the girl in the theater laughing hysterically for ages as the woman

Spoiler

finally escaped and was then run over.

[Lino]

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?

That's your very personal point of view, of course. But you're missing out on the big picture, I believe. The women to me in this movie are very strong and they are depicted as the true heroes (even though they do not ultimately save the day). I mean, they are out there trying to escape and fight the big nasty villain while their male friend is locked up somewhere else.

And the villain is anything but pantomime - he struck me as pretty real. Not that I'd know of such things or would want to...

[Michael]

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.

[Fletch F. Fletch]

In other words, he doesn't believe in what he's doing, does he? That's one of the reasons I dismiss this film.

Wrong. In fact, he knows exactly what he's doing. His film shows an excellent command of craft, not to mention the superb feature-length making of doc included on the SE DVD shows that Zombie knew exactly what he wanted to do and knew how to go about getting it done.

He is simply of the school that excessive gore alone does not make a horror film and that in most cases it is simply the filmmaker showing off for no real reason and at the end of the day what we don't see is infinitely scarier than whatever a filmmaker could show.

Fletch, did you check out the Banjo & Sullivan album?

No, but I plan to some time in the near future. From what I've read it sounds pretty cool

[Lino]

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.

Definitely not, Michael. I truly believe that years from now, this film will be regarded as one that while borrowing from a classic tradition of horror films centred on the survival theme (or serial killer theme, you choose it), somehow managed to instill a deeper sense of realism while at the same time offering us some truly great performances from the 4 main characters, all wrapped up in a style of filmmaking fusing documentary and in-your-face moments that get ingraved in your mind for many, many days after.

So, you're telling me that you didn't like it? Did you get stuck in its sickness and fail to see that it managed to upset you like very few in recent memory? And I strongly disagree with anyone who says that this film feels gratuitous in its violence. The whole set-up is laid down in a sort of crescendo of horror that puts the audience in a sort of unnerving unease and at any time the viewer is expecting something very terrible to happen because in the first two thirds nothing really does. And when it finally hits you, it's right between your eyes and it really feels like a knock-out. For me it did, anyway.

This is great filmmaking, at least in my book. Oh, and Fletch: I didn't say that Zombie did not know his trade (which he certainly does). What I did say, was that he did not believe in what he was doing. Really, his film could have been so much better if he didn't restrain himself and went all the way. Sometimes it felt that he was consciously avoiding censorship by playing down certain scenes. A shame, really.

[Michael]

So, you're telling me that you didn't like it? Did you get stuck in its sickness and failed to see that it managed to upset you like very few in recent memory?

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.

[Lino]

I understand where you're coming from but I still stand by what I said, nonetheless. 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.

I've only ever seen Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer once and don't plan to revisit it anytime soon but that doesn't mean that the film was bad. Quite on the contrary. Too real. Much like Wolf Creek, in fact.

[rs98762001]

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

Absolutely. That is a true horror movie, made by a brilliant filmmaker, that is both terrifying and thought-provoking. WOLF CREEK is cliched, pointless hack work. MacLean or whatever his name is needs to be strapped to a chair Alex-style with his eyelids opened and forced to watch Kiyoshi Kurosawa for a couple of years before anyone lets him handle a camera again.

[Lino]

Well, at least one Aussie agrees with me. And it's always great to see that a movie like this is still capable of polarizing public and critical opinions. Over and out, guys.

[Fletch F. Fletch]

Oh, and Fletch: I didn't say that Zombie did not know his trade (which he certainly does). What I did say, was that he did not believe in what he was doing. Really, his film could have been so much better if he didn't restrain himself and went all the way. Sometimes it felt that he was consciously avoiding censorship by playing down certain scenes. A shame, really.

Ah, my bad... I guess I wasn't quite understanding what you were saying, there.

I don't think that Zombie was restraining himself, though. Especially in this day and age when you can have unrated versions released on DVD you can really amp up the extreme elements in the film if you want to. I don't think Zombie was avoiding censorship (in fact, I think a couple of seconds had to be trimmed for theatrical release) but, again, he wasn't interested in drenching the film in gore because it has already been done to death (pun intended) so why repeat what others have done? No matter how creative you are with it, someone is going to come along and try and top it and it basically degrades into a pissing contest on who can make the goriest film. I think that Zombie was more interested in making a film that was disturbing for what you don't see or what is merely suggested. And he certainly backs this up on his commentary track on the DVD.

[Mr Sausage]

this film will be regarded as one that while borrowing from a classic tradition of horror films centred on the survival theme (or serial killer theme, you choose it), somehow managed to instill a deeper sense of realism while at the same time offering us some truly great performances from the 4 main characters, all wrapped up in a style of filmmaking fusing documentary and in-your-face moments that get ingraved in your mind for many, many days after.

This isn't a particularly convincing explanation since the only point you make that is specific to Wolf Creek is the equivalent of: it gets stuck in your head. What a "deeper" sense of realism is, I do not know, since all realism in movies is an illusion created by artifice to ironically hide itself; how one achieves this "depth" I also cannot say since you decline to tell us. Nevertheless, this element alone is not unique either as an element in movies or as praise. It could easily apply anywhere.

"Great performances" also tells us nothing since horror movies have never required superior acting to be successful; and considering the acting in this movie is likely only perceived as superior relative to the genre, it is certainly not enough to ensure the quality of the overall product. Again, this is also an unspecific and general comment that can be applied anywhere.

All this leads to the main issue: style and acting are not ends in themselves. They are each elements that are necessarily in the service of something larger in the film. You have not once brought these elements together to elucidate any overall reason why Wolf Creek is as a whole a great movie destined for classic status. 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. Is it all just torture and gore and unpleasantness as an end in itself? If so, people are quite justified to call the movie bad since it offers nothing but the emptiness of their own pain (which the movie has caused), which by itself is of little value.