Wolf Creek

It's rare that a new horror movie will introduce a new kind of villain.  How could you expect it after the legendary Freddy Krueger, the notorious Jason Voorhees, the cannibalistic Leatherface or the demonic Pinhead?  In 2004, we got ourselves a new psycho: Mick Taylor, and he took the world by storm.  This is a guy that strikes you as a friendly Crocodile Dundee-type.  He comes off as incredibly friendly and helpful.  But that's just the mask he wears.  What he really is, is a monster in human skin.

Wolf Creek opens on three tourists: Two British gals, Liz Hunter(Cassandra Magrath), Kristy Earl(Kestie Morassi)and Australian Ben Mitchell(Nathan Phillips).  Three party-going tourists on their way across Australia to a party, and on the way they decide to stop at Wolfe Creek Crater.  After reaching the crater, the decide to leave, but their car has died, so they decide to spend the night.  During the night, they're visited by a local pig-hunter, Mick Taylor(John Jarratt), who offers to give them a tow back to his camp and fix up their vehicles.  At the camp, they have a good time with Mick before heading off to bed, which is when everything goes terribly wrong.

Wolf Creek is an interesting movie.  It comes across as a kind of Australian "Texas Chainsaw Massacre."  Like Chainsaw, Wolf Creek has a documentary kind of feel to it, because of the way it was filmed, so there's an obvious influence right there.  It was kind of an experimental movie of sorts, because it didn't follow the usual tropes that horror movies like Friday, Chainsaw Massacre, and Nightmare on Elm Street generally followed, and as a result, it was a different kind of horror flick.  So, the question is:  Is it any good?  Let's find out.  Generally speaking, the opening of a movie will generally tell you what kind of tone the rest of the film will take, and Wolf Creek doesn't start off the way your average horror movie would.  Nothing actually really happens for about 45 minutes.  We basically follow these three people as they make their way across the country as good tourists do.  This is what a lot of people have problems with, as the horror part of the movie doesn't kick in until an hour into the film.  When it does kick in to high gear, it hits hard.  This is a brutal movie.  Not overly gory, so it is restrained, but the implications of what Mick is doing to these people is monstrous.  The last half-hour of the film is absolutely intense.

The performances?  Overall, pretty good.  The gals playing the British girls do a convincing job, while Nathan Phillips is.....not bad.  John Jarratt however, steals the whole show.  He makes Mick Taylor come across a kind of a cool guy and fun to be around, but when he turns, he's terrifying.  Jarratt's performance as Mick Taylor, basically put him on the map.  He really gets into it.  He portrays one of the most vile and yet compelling villains in decades.  And that's really what sells the movie.  When I said this movie wasn't really gory,  I meant it, I mean you really don't see intestines spilled and brains splattered all over the place, but what is there, is very unsettling.  In fact, the scene that I think really drove people crazy, was the "head-on-a-stick" scene.  That's pretty gruesome.  The film's score is appropriate is it's mostly string-based instruments and really adds to the sense of dread throughout the film.

Are there downsides?  A lot of people thought that it took too long to get the "good stuff."  I certainly understand that, but I also appreciate the risk that the filmmakers took in NOT going full-bore into the mayhem.  The restraint, I feel makes Wolf Creek a better movie, actually.  If people were expecting a splatter-fest bloodbath, you're not really going to find it here.  I meant it when I said it was restrained.  It's obvious what Mick Taylor's been doing to people, but you never see it happen, until the end of the movie, and the violence is NEVER over-the-top.  The other thing I noticed, was that, like the sequel, Wolf Creek claims to be based on actual events.  However, it doesn't specify which events those are, as it's clearly influenced by more than one crime:  The Backpacker murders by Ivan Milat, and the abduction of Peter Falconio and his girlfriend by Bradley John Murdoch.  This is generally the problem I have with movies that claim to be based on true crimes or events, when in actuality, they are based on MULTIPLE events, so there really is no single event that we can tie movies like Texas Chainsaw Massacre to.

Aside from that, this a very solid horror flick.  Good performances across the board, with John Jarratt stealing each and every scene that he's in.  The final part of the movie is extremely intense and brutal.  Issues: Pacing, and the legitimacy of it's true-crime roots seems...awkward.  Before I forget, I reviewed the sequel, which is an entirely different beast of a movie.  I think overall, the second movie is better in some regards, especially in terms of pacing.  But I feel that the first Wolf Creek is the better movie overall, because it really gets under your skin.  With a knife.  9.5/10.  Oh, and for the curious: The information about the actual crimes I mentioned above can be found on Wikipedia.