Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

A chilling, factually-based, story of three road-trippers in remote Australia who are plunged into danger when they accept help from a friendly local.


http://www.wolfcreekmovie.com/

Seems great!
a bit like the T.C.M. remake probably

This looks good, will definetly see this at the cinema.I think it is released on 16/09/05 in the UK.

I have been waiting for this film for ages, looks excellent. Lucky buggers at the London horror festival got to see this film.

looks decent

Originally posted by papabeard
This looks good, will definetly see this at the cinema.I think it is released on 16/09/05 in the UK. uh which month is the 16th month I hope I'm not being werid by asking that

This looks interesting. I might see this when I see more on it.

our date format is different ,

eg, day/month/year (UK)
month/day/year (USA)

oh ok

This film is not good, boring and uneventful.

Reviews I read said it was brutal, it is not brutal at all , dont be fooled, the film is weak, the acting is rubbish and the actors do not create likeable characters with any personality, and I wasnt convinced by the killer it seems like the actors were allowed to ad lib all the dialogue for the first 40 mins of the film, in which absolutely nothing happened, the first part of the film is very protracted and when what little violence there is begins its over almost as soon as it started, in fact there is no violence at all, only one scene, its all implied but not effectively. Dont waste your money, I got in to see this half price but its not even worth that, I actually considered walking out of the cinema.

4/10

my sister went to see this the other day she said it was horrible.

I agree with Papabeard, I was VERY disappointed with the film.

i haden't even heard of this until the other day. when i watched the trailer it didn't make me feel like i wanted to watch it

my sister said it was good


she also said it was terrorfying

I thought it was half decent. The 'severed spine' scene is pretty disturbing, but on the whole the concept has been done to death, and the killer is so steriotypically australian!

Originally posted by zombieman
I thought it was half decent. The 'severed spine' scene is pretty disturbing, but on the whole the concept has been done to death, and the killer is so steriotypically australian!

it was set in Australia..

I agree, but the severed spine and the fingers are the only moments like that in the film and they happen within seconds of each other.

SPOILER:
However, the fact that I thought that she would be the one who would escape, and she didnt was a nice touch.

REAL LIFE INTERFERES WITH WOLF CREEK

Unless you live in Australia this probably won't effect you all that much. But it seems that Roadshow Films has been contacted by Director of Public Prosecutions, Northern Territory, Australia. They are asking for a push back on the November release date of the film 'Wolf Creek' due to an upcoming trial.

See, the film is based on true events (I know this normally evokes groans from the audience.) surrounding a series of "backpack murders" where the real life killer was never captured.

Well, it seems that a man named Ivan Milat has been jailed and charged with related killings. Could the original case be reopened? His trial is forthcoming and prosecuters seem worried that this film may effect the trial.

This might very well be the first serial-killer film to be distributed during a trial. That is if it's all related...

The Peter Falconio murder case is very much the same deal and is on in NT, AUS at the moment. That is why it is being pushed back.

The Ivan Milat Backpacker murders were in NSW in a National Park.
He was arrested some years ago.

Yeah , I think they should have included that in the article.

For an Aussie movie this is pretty cool...

I'm not surprised that this movie is bad in the least. Not having seen the film, a majority of Australian films are pretty bad (with the exception of a few decent ones). I've given up seening Australian films after I saw Little Fish. We have a poor film industry.

Braindead and Undead and Bad Taste are ace australian horror films

i read a article about this movie in fangoria it sounds killer

but.....how realistic is this movie.........they said tcm was true.......but it more or less wasn't.....is this the same or not?

I am Australian and it is a pretty decent portrayal of the backpacker murders,
although they took place in forests and not in the outback.

John Jarrett plays the normal man/psycho very well indeed.

There is a part 2 being written... which will probably deal with the arrest of Mick.

The spine scene is cool and the decayed bodies look awesome!

My friend Jeremy said this movie sucked so bad, he gave out the ending, so should I still see it, or no?

If you liked movies like TCM then you should check it out.
You're friend is silly, this is a decent movie!

Originally posted by deathbycorn
If you liked movies like TCM then you should check it out.
You're friend is silly, this is a decent movie!

ok, thanks!

Saw this months ago, brilliant film, truly horrifying.

Saw the movie last night and it was amazing. I don't think it's what the average movie goer expects to see in a horror movie. They usually want generic catch phrases and mindless crap. If you're a true fan of horror than Wolf Creek is a must see. Not only is the cinematography wonderfully done but it raises the question of what lurks in the darkness of even the most beutiful places on earth. An amazing film indeed.

Hey, do you guys think this would be a good movie to see with the old man(dad)?

Yeah, why not.

i thought the film was cool,dosent have to be gory, it was intence.
and you never new who would survive.
pluse empire gave it a 4/5 stars i trust ther reviews.

I thought it sucked, sorry.

Watched "Wolf Creek" this morning, and I wasn't impressed. The premise has been done so many times, it's sickening. Kids take a trip, get stranded, run into trouble. It didn't even pick up until 1/2 through the movie, and when it did, it wasn't frightening. The last 15 minutes were the most enjoyable, but even then, it was too little too late.

Never gripped me, and given this was the "unrated" version, I imagine the theatrical version was even more tame, like "Cry Wolf".

I have no urge, whatsoever, to see this movie.

I had to give it a chance because it was "foreign", not that Australia is in the Orient, er whatever. I loved "Undead", but this one fell flat. I felt so bad, watching the making of, with the director talking about how "God blessed us with ________ and we cast her." and "What made the film work was that.._________". I was like..dude. It bombed.

Originally posted by C-Dic
I had to give it a chance because it was "foreign", not that Australia is in the Orient, er whatever. I loved "Undead", but this one fell flat. I felt so bad, watching the making of, with the director talking about how "God blessed us with ________ and we cast her." and "What made the film work was that.._________". I was like..dude. It bombed.
Yeah, that's why I tend to skip "making of" with movies I disliked. They always talk about how great their movie is.

I just rented Wolf Creek. I shall watch it sometime today probably.

I wouldn't call it horror, more suspense or thriller or something but I think it is a top movie.

this movie was awesome. definatley one of the better follower of tcm. A must watch.

I'd call it ambitious and derivative. Had potential, but never lived up to it. Just another teen horror movie.

What didn't it live up to? You're expectations?
The spine severing scene alone was worth the money I paid to see it.
Teen horror movie my ass, thats where Scream comes in.

I'd say it's above the typical teen horror, but below the great horrors. It was a bit over the top at times but the gore was nice in some parts.

Yeah it's not up there with TCM or anything but it's alot better than most of the horror stuff that comes out.

Originally posted by deathbycorn
What didn't it live up to? You're expectations?
The spine severing scene alone was worth the money I paid to see it.
Teen horror movie my ass, thats where Scream comes in.

"Scream" is the antithesis of teen horror, bub. It's pure satire, and it views as such. "Wolf Creek" is typical teen horror. Same situation, different bad guy. Kids go on vacation. Kids get stranded. Kids run into seemingly normal guy. Kids die. "Wolf Creek" is about as generic and simplistic as it gets.

Thankfully, my rental was free. So, no, "The Northern Australian Misogeny Massacre" will not be gracing my DVD racks in the near, nor distant future. There have been PLENTY of recent Horror films that surpass this P.O.S. by light years.

Yeah, definately wasn't impressed with this movie. It was like a teen horror movie on crack or something. A bit more extreme, but more of the same.

John Jarret was pretty solid as the killer though.

Originally posted by C-Dic
"Scream" is the antithesis of teen horror, bub. It's pure satire, and it views as such. "Wolf Creek" is typical teen horror. Same situation, different bad guy. Kids go on vacation. Kids get stranded. Kids run into seemingly normal guy. Kids die. "Wolf Creek" is about as generic and simplistic as it gets.

Thankfully, my rental was free. So, no, "The Northern Australian Misogeny Massacre" will not be gracing my DVD racks in the near, nor distant future. There have been PLENTY of recent Horror films that surpass this P.O.S. by light years.
You make me laugh.

Why? Because I'm replying logically. "Scream" isn't a mindless slasher film. It's a satire, like I said, and only fairweather viewers would suggest such. You even referenced "Wrong Turn" as a "slasher", the best one in years at that, and denied it was a TCM ripoff. Three things are certain here. "Scream" is a smart satire, "Wrong Turn" is another in a long line of TCM decendents, and...okay, two things.

So, in the words of Harrison Ford; "Laugh it up, fuzzball". I gots more where that came from. You've got to be logical when you're talking/debating with me. Anyone who knows me, or has matched wits, knows better.

Scream was average at best.

Your opinion. Not only did it save the Horror genre, it resurrected Wes Craven's career, albeit briefly. It made its mark on a stale genre, and that's all that matters. It was inventive, original, and made it hard for Horror movies AFTERWARDS, because they had to be careful not to fall into the cliches...although now it's trendy to bring back old school horror elements, no matter how shitty or unoriginal *coughelirothcough*

Ahhh theres much better movies that came out in 1996 than Scream.

From Dusk Till Dawn, Children of the Corn 4.

Scream both helped and hurt the genre. It itself was very solid as a fun parody, but then it started the whole shitty teen horror film that dominated and nearly killed the horror genre during the mid-late 90's.

Though, I love the original Scream, really fun movie to watch.

Originally posted by BackFire
Yeah, definately wasn't impressed with this movie. It was like a teen horror movie on crack or something. A bit more extreme, but more of the same.

John Jarret was pretty solid as the killer though. Damn, I just rented this, I should have read your review first. Oh well, I'll check it out anyway since I have nothing better to do with my life.

Originally posted by deathbycorn
Ahhh theres much better movies that came out in 1996 than Scream.

From Dusk Till Dawn, Children of the Corn 4.

Once again, presenting opinion as fact. "From Dusk Til Dawn" was decent, and namely because of the special effects. Otherwise, it's been done 1,000 times before. As for "Children of the Corn 4", nobodies seen it (much less give a shit about that franchise) to be able to contest your opinion.

Theres a big wide world out there for you to explore Cinema Boy, maybe go and rent it sometime.

...advising me to look outside the box, when you've immersed yourself so throughly in a failed direct to video franchise, is so rich, so ironic. Not only are you biased, you're delusional.

Keep stating your opinion as fact. I'm through with you. Considering I'm about 8 years your elder, "boy", I don't think it's worth trying to get through to you anymore. I wouldn't want any of my pith or expertise to be absorbed by you.

Look at this way. "Wolf Creek" failed, but you'll always have the Crocodile Dundee trilogy to be proud of.

Wolf Creek did not fail, keep talking bullshit but mate it makes me laugh...

Crocodile Dundee? I'm more into Steve Irwin The Crocodile Hunter.

I thought it was a decent horror flick. It didn't entertain me as much as 'the greats', like the original TCM, or House Of A Thousand Corpses, or Halloween, but it did get under my skin. It was disturbing and nothing more.

The special features, I must say, were excellent. Mainly because they delve into the technical aspects of shooting on HD, instead of film. This is one movie where the special features were better than the actual movie, but I did respect the movie much more once I watched the special features, which unfortuneatly isn't a luxury you can experience in theaters.

i don't think there are any movie that is considered "original". So we can't judge movies on originality. Wolf creek definately took ideas from movies of the past, however, i think it is effective nonetheless at portraying that paranoia that comes with unfamiliarity(is this a word).

this movie looks at bit ^ as for taking ideas from movies from the past its made from true events so mayb them movies inthe past took ideas from these events

i may take a look at this next time im in the mood from a scare

In what other movie has the killer pretended to be a friend, offer a hand, then drive them 3 hours into the desert and drug them and tortue them?

No movie I have seen has come close.

Well, the "seduce and destroy" tactic is nothing new. Hell, "High Tension" used it a couple of years back, as did "American Psycho". Sharon Stone did it in "Basic Instict" as well.

There was no seduction in Wolf Creek. He drugged them to kill them, not to seduce them.
And Basic Instinct is far from a horror movie.

Seduction isn't always sex. Seduction and persuasion are closely linked, and used in all the movies I mentioned, including "Wolf Creek".

Saw the movie last night, and it was so refreshing to see a horror flick shy away from the teeny-bopper INWYDLS and Wrong Turn Eliza Dushku bulls***. I liked Wolf Creek, and would strongly recommend it for people who are fans of how horror movies used to and should always be made.

Wolf Creek is fairly bland. The killer is convincing. In fact as an Australian Mick seems like a typical guy you'd meet down the pub. Jeff Jarrett filled the role out well. The sadistic side he had warranted his fake nice side. He didn't actually turn in a bumbling maniac. It was more like one off those nicer maniacs. Jeff was serviceable as Mick Taylor. He was certainly a pro when it comes to Wolf Creek.

The other actors well they were believable but not too likeable. The girl who played Liz wasn't too bad. She was actually likeable and fairly brave. She wanted to help and for that her ending came about. The other two seemed very weak too me. Acting wise that is. They weren't believable in their roles and i don't think either will be seen much. Nathan Phillips done ok until his more serious scebes came about. That's an indicator off what type off roles he is actually suited too.

The murder scenes are fairly creative. The killer makes the movie watchable. There are a few mixes off some moves in here. Mainly the one in the car which reminded me off duel. That was a good scene. The movie from a setting point is gorgeous and probably another pro to the film.

For the hype the film carried it didn't deliver. It was watchable and in my opinion worth the movie ticket. I wouldn't say it's in my favourites and i want watch it ever again. It isn't appealing as a second view type.

2/5

The thing I didn't get about Wolf Creek is why they chose Wolf Creek to be their destination. The place was lame. Of all places in Australia to visit on a road trip, why pick a friggin lame ass crater in the middle of nowhere, and I don't even remember seeing a creek.

When the chick is looking through the camcorders, it doesn't make too much sense other than morbid curiosity and a sense of security which shouldn't exist as to why she is viewing the footage. But it's necessary because it explains a lot in the film. It's still a bit awkward, though.

Everyone.
there are people on the imdb board for this movie who claims MICK was an ALIEN! and that he teleported around and hehad 'alien friends' helping him.

All this is being said over there simply because he 'faded out at the end of the movie' and he was never found ????

anyone this is total BS like i do??

HOW can Mick be an alien?

He is not an alien.

He is not an alien, nor is he the greatest actor.

hahaha, that alien thing is pretty stupid.

I thought the guy who played him was very good though.

This was one of those movies where I thought the special features were far better than the film itself. Though, I do respect them for getting it done with all they had to go through.

I watched 'Wolf Creek' last week. I thought it wasn't too bad, and wasn't too good. In the end, only OK.

I thought it was pretty good, nothing too special.

My boy Jeremy, from work, said "Stop dissin his movie!"

haha hes been trying to get me to see wolf creek and i told him it got bad reviews on the msg forum i frequent .. so he said to tell you guys off hahaha

I won't say it's as gory or terrifying as all the hype says about this film. But it was a great attempt that stays true to the old school slashers with the picture quality to feel like your watching a old film. The acting is rubbish except from the serial killer who steals the show, and has some good twists with an unexpecting ending that will make you smile and go 'that is what horror films should be like'. Really disturbing and suspenseful.