Wolf Creek -- what's the point?

[AuntiePam]

My daughter e-mailed me this (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/artsentertainment/2002699588_wolf25.html) link today. The Seattle Times reviewer walked out of the movie.

When did watching people being terrorized, tortured, and murdered become entertainment?

It's one thing to show graphic carnage (Saving Private Ryan), terror and helplessness (Marathon Man), sexual assault (The Accused) -- those intense scenes help us identify with the victims and they add realism, but they're not the point of the movie.

I just don't get it. What's the attraction for these movies? Who likes them? Why?

I know I don't have to watch them, but I don't even want the trailers on my TV.

[Revtim]

When did watching people being terrorized, tortured, and murdered become entertainment?I think the 1970's, roughly.

[Inner Stickler]

But it's BASED ON TRUE EVENTS! So everything must have really happened and it could be happening in your very neighborhood! Don't you want to be informed? After all forewarned is forearmed.
And fourarmed is twenty-fingered.

[Ferret Herder]

Ebert gave his explanation (http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051222/REVIEWS/51220004/1023) for the existence of the film: "It is a film with one clear purpose: To establish the commercial credentials of its director by showing his skill at depicting the brutal tracking, torture and mutilation of screaming young women."

I don't mind horror films either, like Ebert, and rather enjoyed even some disturbing films like Seven. But I fear I have yet to see any redeeming qualities in this film.

[Larry Borgia]

I agree with the OP. I like horror flicks, but there has to be some suspense, some drama, in there. Perhaps I'm being unfair, since I haven't seen this movie and never will, but it doesn't seem like there's any real point to this movie. That and I think this flick's most diehard fans are the ones watching it over and over, vigorously masturbating.

Another new pointless suckfest is Hostel, which appears to be an exercise in crudely aping Takashii Miike, without any of Miike's surrealistic vision, just the gore.

[John Mace]

Shouldn't it be "Dingo Creek" or "Thylacene Creek"? Wombat Wallow?

I'm supposed to go see this today. I'll report back later...

[River Hippie]

From Ebert's review:

"If anyone you know says this is the one they want to see, my advice is: Don't know that person no more."

Pretty much say's it all.

[mrunlucky]

I believe "Wolf Creek", much like another pointless, spiteful, meanspirited, unfun recent horror movie "House of 1,000 Corpses", are fanboy hommages to that kind of 70s horror movie style, epitomized by movies like "Last House on the Left", "I Spit On Your Grave", and "The Hills Have Eyes".

Except that those 70s movies have protagonists getting revenge on the antagonists. "House of 1,000 Corpses" is just a piece of fanboy onanism, that isn't fun for anyone, and is just horribly depressing and pointless. I don't think, from what I've read, that "Wolf Creek" has any revenge plot in it. It sounds pretty unredeemable. I don't overall personally understand the purpose of making meanspirited, pointless, unfun horror movies. I've seen some weirdspirited, seemingly pointless Japanese horror movies, but no matter how weird, there's still an element of artistry, or craft, or breaking new ground, or just something.

I personally will probably pass on "Wolf Creek" and wait for "Hostel", because Eli Roth, while paying hommage to other horror filmmakers and periods, is hardly meanspirited, and is often quite ridiculous.

[Tuckerfan]

From Ebert's review:

"If anyone you know says this is the one they want to see, my advice is: Don't know that person no more."

Pretty much say's it all.
There's also this little gem from his review"Wolf Creek" is more like the guy at the carnival sideshow who bites off chicken heads. No fun for us, no fun for the guy, no fun for the chicken. In the case of this film, it's fun for the guy.

[Larry Borgia]

Shouldn't it be "Dingo Creek" or "Thylacene Creek"? Wombat Wallow?

I'm supposed to go see this today. I'll report back later...

Wolfe Creek (http://www.calm.wa.gov.au/national_parks/previous_parks_month/wolfe_creek.html). Misspelled for the movie, naturally.

Wolfe Creek would be a good locale for a spooky supernatural thriller, possible involving aliens. Sadly this flick is what we get.

[Tuckerfan]

Wolfe Creek (http://www.calm.wa.gov.au/national_parks/previous_parks_month/wolfe_creek.html). Misspelled for the movie, naturally.

Wolfe Creek would be a good locale for a spooky supernatural thriller, possible involving aliens. Sadly this flick is what we get.
IIRC, there's some shots of it in Until the End of the World, or at least similar looking landscape.

[Ensign Edison]

From Ebert's review:

"If anyone you know says this is the one they want to see, my advice is: Don't know that person no more."

Pretty much say's it all.

And Ebert had good things to say about The Devil's Rejects.

[Snooooopy]

Wolfe Creek (http://www.calm.wa.gov.au/national_parks/previous_parks_month/wolfe_creek.html). Misspelled for the movie, naturally.

The evil killer carved off the "e" with a rusty hatchet!

[Hampshire]

and nice touch by them not only to make an offensive pointless flick, but to attempt to be really extra offensive and release it on Christmas day :rolleyes:.

Oh, please, stop, you guys are just too cutting edge taboo for me :rolleyes:.

[yojimbo]

It's a nasty movie now question about it. But in truth the only thing that makes it any different from popular horrors like Jeepers Creepers is that's is more gritty and realistic.

It's like an Aussie remake of Chainsaw Massacre.

I wasn't that shocked by it because I've basically seen it all before. A few years ago a French movie called Irreversible (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0290673/) shocked me to my core but that was a very different type of movie.

Oh and to actually answer the OP. The point was to get the director noticed and to make a few quid, like all movies :)

[Ellis Dee]

When did watching people being terrorized, tortured, and murdered become entertainment?I think it was around 2000 years ago.

[Silentgoldfish]

And here I actually get to defend it, being one of the only people in the thread to actually have seen it.

It's not actually any more brutal than any one of a million horror movies where a serial killer goes after teenagers. Is there anything redeeming about Friday the 13th parts 1 - 1000 or Nightmare on Elm Street? Or House of Wax or Jeepers Creepers, or blah blah blah.

The only big differences in Wolf Creek is that

a) There's about an hour of getting to know the protagonists, so when bad stuff happens you really identify with them rather than them being bimbos who have sex and die.

b) The protagonists don't really do anything stupid (except a couple of times) so there's no wishing the idiots would get killed for splitting up and walking through the haunted house backward or anything like that.

c) The setting of the middle of nowhere in Australia is used to great effect, as in, even if they get away from the killer, what are they meant to do?

d) There have been a number of backpacker murders in outback Australia over the years lending the movie an aura of plausibility that a zombie in a hocky mask lacks.

I think the strong negative reactions of a lot of reviewers really shows how well the movie works at what it's trying to do, which is scare you, and shows up how vapid many other movies that try to pull of the same trick really are.

While I would describe the movie as really REALLY brutal and intense at times it's not actually any gorier than most R rated movies. There's a lot of implied stuff, but onscreen there's not really that much.

Anyway, it's a horror movie, and one of the scariest I've ever seen. Decrying it for being effective at what it sets out to accomplish is disingenuous.

As for opening it on Xmas day, I really don't get the idea behind that. It's been out here for months.

[AuntiePam]

It's not actually any more brutal than any one of a million horror movies where a serial killer goes after teenagers. Is there anything redeeming about Friday the 13th parts 1 - 1000 or Nightmare on Elm Street? Or House of Wax or Jeepers Creepers, or blah blah blah.


I didn't like those either. :)

I guess my main gripe is that the explicitly gory chase-and-kill movies are crowding out the subtle, more effective horror. I like to be scared but I don't want to barf, and I don't want the special effects to overshadow everything else.

People on another board who are praising the movie are complaining about the first hour -- too much exposition, let's get to the action. :rolleyes:

From what you said, it sounds like the movie would have been just as effective without the explicit violence. Would it?

[Silentgoldfish]

The thing is, there isn't all that much expicit violence. That's kind of my point. By keeping things implied or off camera it's far FAR more effective than all the onscreen guttings in the world. I recommended it to a friend of mine who'se into horror movies and she didn't like it because it wasn't as gory as Saw or Saw 2.

[lissener]

I have not seen it yet, but I'm a pretty big fan of the nihilistic American horror movies of the 70s that it seems to be a descendant of. Which. What?

So I'll probly see it eventually. Also I'm intrigued that Roger ("I'm an idiot") Ebert hates it so much. Bumps it up my list a notch.

[The Long Road]

Nothing to do with Wolf Creek since I have not seen it but...


I liked House of 1000 corpses because I felt it was true horror. An idiot convinces his friends to go offroad and all sorts of bad shit happens in the backwoods. I can even imagine their being such houses in the remotes of the West where fucked up people do nothing but murder people. They are isolated wackjobs out to hurt others, pehaps because they were fucked up as a child. We see this on the news occasionally such as Jeffrey Dahmer. I'd imagine if he were in the backwoods like the Unabomber he might never have been caught.

Problem is, The Devil's Rejects was just a continuation of more fucked-up-ness with no point beyond the same evil fucks killing more decent people for no reason. It was nothing more than Rob trying to show more inventive ways to kill people. Nothing about the characters is fleshed out beyond the dad issue. On the DVD there is a "special feature" showing a main character beat the fuck out of a tied-up cheerleader and presumably later rape her while she cries out and screams in in pain. After seeing it, I could figure out if it wasn't some shit put in for sick fucks who dream about beating and raping women. It added zip to the movie. At that point I was wondering what the fuck happened to horror movies.

[soulmurk]

When did watching people being terrorized, tortured, and murdered become entertainment?

People garnering entertainment out of the torment of others is not a new phenomenon.

There was another movie out not too long ago that depicted brutal torture and murder for it's own sake, and it too was loosely based on actual events. Was an adaptation from an old book I think, an old cult classic.

The movie did pretty well I'm told, if Mel Gibson is to be believed.


I haven't seen Wolf Creek, and so can't justly defend it, but neither can someone who didn't sit through the entire movie rail against it in any fairness.

[AuntiePam]

The thing is, there isn't all that much expicit violence. That's kind of my point. By keeping things implied or off camera it's far FAR more effective than all the onscreen guttings in the world. I recommended it to a friend of mine who'se into horror movies and she didn't like it because it wasn't as gory as Saw or Saw 2.

Then the trailers aren't doing the movie justice. (Like that'd be a first.)

What prompted you to see it? Are you a horror fan? Did you read any reviews first? Was it what you expected?

[Silentgoldfish]

Then the trailers aren't doing the movie justice. (Like that'd be a first.)

What prompted you to see it? Are you a horror fan? Did you read any reviews first? Was it what you expected?

No, no, and no. I was going to the movies with my sister and a friend and we picked it because it was Australian and we'd seen everything else. It wasn't anything like we were expecting because we weren't expecting anything. I wouldn't say it's my favourite movie, because it's just too brutal, but I appreciate it as very effectively accomplishing what it set out to do, and for literally being the scariest movie I have ever seen.

We were talking about it for a few weeks afterwards.

[Silentgoldfish]

Incidentally, I disagree with the Ebert review and think he dropped the ball on this one.

Here's what he had to say about Aliens (which he gave 3/1/2 out of 4 stars to):

"The movie is so intense that it creates a problem for me as a reviewer: Do I praise its craftsmanship, or do I tell you it left me feeling wrung out and unhappy? It has been a week since I saw it, so the emotions have faded a little, leaving with me an appreciation of the movie's technical qualities. But when I walked out of the theater, there were knots in my stomach from the film's roller-coaster ride of violence. This is not the kind of movie where it means anything to say you "enjoyed" it. ... I'm giving the movie a high rating for its skill and professionalism and because it does the job it says it will do. I am also advising you not to eat before you go to see it."

I think exactly the same thing could be said for Wolf Creek for exactly the same reasons.

[AuntiePam]

I think exactly the same thing could be said for Wolf Creek for exactly the same reasons.

I'm glad I started this thread. I do love horror movies, and everyone's comments have helped me get some perspective. I know I've probably missed out on some good stuff because of my gore aversion.

I wonder if any reviewers will walk out of Hostel. The trailers for that one look pretty raw too.

[Tuckerfan]

I'm glad I started this thread. I do love horror movies, and everyone's comments have helped me get some perspective. I know I've probably missed out on some good stuff because of my gore aversion.

I wonder if any reviewers will walk out of Hostel. The trailers for that one look pretty raw too.Well, some of the promos for the flick are using the old Roger Coreman trick saying that paramedics had to be called during screenings of the film. Might be true, might be total advertising BS.

[kambuckta]

Sorry to resurrect a slightly old thread, but I watched Wolf Creek for the second time today, at home as opposed to the first time at the cinema a few months back when it came out.

Then, I was absolutely horrified by the story and the scenes. It was all I could do to stop myself running out of the theatre. By the end I was a mental wreck, sweating like a mad thing and palpitating to the buggery.

Today it was still equally shocking. The main difference though is that I was able to look 'beyond' the horror and to try to understand the mentality of a man who likes to inflict pain upon unsuspecting victims

And that is, I think, the 'point' of Wolf Creek. No matter how hard you try to look for an understanding and possible redemption of the perp, the bottom line is that their actions defy comprehension.

[Caiata]

I saw Wolf Creek in the theatres when it first came out here in Australia, and felt much the way kambuckta did; it was the scariest move I can remember seeing.

I was interested in the film because, as a student of the forensic sciences who has moved here to Australia to pursue a career, I feel it's important to know about the major Australian crimes that have occurred. I know Wolf Creek isn't a literal representation, but the fact that it was based on a true Australian story piqued my interest.

I know this will sound bizarre but I really appreciated the sense of fear, hopelessness, and depravity that the director was able to leave me with. My heart was pounding when I left the theatre. I was torn between a sort of sick fascination with the events (you know, like a really bad car crash?) and the very strong desire to look away from a very emotionally tiring and stressful film.

Not only do you get to know the protagonists, but you also see a lot more of the human side of the antagonist in this movie than in others, so when the antagonist "turns", it's really sickening and frightening. It felt very real - I mean, sure, the antagonist is a bit over-the-top in his vileness, but I was able to empathise with the protagonists to a greater degree and this gave the film so much more impact.

Yes, it's gory - in a couple places. Yes, it's a terrible situation to be forced into identifying with. Also, it's not entirely sensical in some respects - the evilness was kicked up a notch too high sometimes. But it's not often that a movie is able to really affect me that much - I think K-19: The Widowmaker came close, but only because I have a "thing" about radiation poisoning that certainly wasn't ameliorated by watching that movie!

If you can't handle gore, I wouldn't recommend this movie. But if you're a true-crime buff, or find something interesting in being frightened and disgusted by an exploration of the real depths of human depravity, I'd say it's a must-see. (Maybe opening the film on Christmas wasn't a great idea.)

I should clearly never be a film critic ... damn it's hard to describe the emotional impact of a film without referring directly to events in it!