El cazador

Yikes! This is one scary movie. After an innocuous build up the film reveals three back packers (two Brit girls and their Aussie boyfriend) in the clutches of a murderous psycho. The film is slow to start but we can sense that something evil is about to happen. The acting is decent enough with no stand outs. This film does occasionally cross over into slightly dubious territory with some nasty scenes of torture, but is generally far more controlled than bottom of the barrel stuff like 'The Devil's Rejects' and Hostel/Hostel 2. There are some genuine scares as the tension rises in the bloody second half. See this film if you enjoy visceral unsettling horror.

Overall 7/10

Wolf Creek is a fine example of a rare breed nowadays: a horror film that pulls no punches and makes no apologies for frightening and unnerving the audience.

Three young people are hiking in the Australian Outback when they're unlucky enough to meet Mick Taylor (played brilliantly by John Jarratt), one of the most twisted psychopaths to grace the big screen in years. Mick is a guy who did some hunting at one time, is pretty good with a rifle, and is a survivalist with some possible military training... we're not really sure of much else. All we know is that at some point he took up hunting people for his own amusement and found out he was quite good at it.

What makes this film frightening is how realistic and plausible the story is. Mick seems like a demon that could actually exist in the real world. He's not a super-genius serial killer always toying with the cops. He doesn't kill to fulfill some grandiose plan or message. He doesn't kill his victims in elaborate, unlikely scenarios or games. Rather, he's a pure sadist who just seems to enjoy watching pain, suffering and death. It's that simple. It doesn't take much imagination to realize, in the the middle of the Outback, it would be quite easy for a psycho like Mick to operate for a long time and never get caught.

Wolf Creek is brutally violent and unflinchingly realistic. It never gives the audience time to catch their breath or to feel any hope. This movie is not for everyone. It leaves you unsettled and feeling uneasy. This is only for real horror fans who desire a scare that will stick with them long after the movie ends.

I was thrilled to see a movie like "Wolf Creek" come out in theatres: a straightforward horror film not relying on clever twists (except one, small one) or gimmicks. It was the kind of film "High Tension" started off as before that last act mindf*ck. And while I ended up appreciating what that movie did, I would have loved it more without the twist.

"Wolf Creek" picks up where films like "Texas Chainsaw Massacre" and "Last House on the Left" left off, without feeling the need to necessarily "pay homage" to them. I wonder if the fact that it's not American-made has anything to do with that. I also wonder if the non-American influence kept this from becoming predictable or familiar in any way. What you think is going to happen in this film never quite happens. One of the original "Texas Chainsaw Massacre" taglines was, "Who Will Survive and What Will Be Left of Them?" I think this film asks the same question, but doesn't provide so simple an answer.

I think it's best to know little about "what happens" here before seeing it. Most people know the basics--three backpackers on a road trip, they stop at remote Wolf Creek, entering an odd Twilight Zone of stopped time and dead car engines. A friendly bushman stops by willing to help, let the nightmare begin.

I love that director/writer/producer Greg McLean never offers an explanation for the watches and the car engine. What happens in this film seems almost alien--three humans struggling to survive on what appears like a distant, barren planet, up against a hunter with no semblance of humanity in him. Yes, this movie is very similar to "Texas Chainsaw Massacre," but it is in no way a rip-off. While the early-morning showdown on the barren road may look similar to the climax of TCM, it is its own nightmarish entity. In fact, some of the scene reminded me of "Duel." The acting in this movie is brilliant. The three leads--Ben, Kristi, and Liz--are so wonderfully likable, and there is an odd feeling of improvisation in the acting. It's so natural, it seems impossible to script. When everything goes to hell, you want all three of them to survive, and you'll surely be devastated by the slightest injury any of them endures. Many have complained about the hour or so of build up, but I think it was brilliant on McLean's part to make sure we cared about these people, and then to put them through the wringer. It's sadistic, too, emotionally, but it's the sign of a great director.

John Jarratt, as Mick, is unforgettably cruel. Jarratt embodies this character from head to toe, and is fearless in his performance. Mick is an ugly, cruel man, and yet when we first meet him, he seems like the nicest guy in the world. One of the scariest aspects to this film is that you can see yourself falling for all of his tricks.

To be honest, I never want to see "Wolf Creek" again. It's not a fun movie. I left wanting to hate it, because I hated what happened. But I admire this movie for what it managed to do. I truly had to keep repeating to myself, "It's only a movie," (the infamous "Last House on the Left" tagline) but it's so realistic and so unflinching in portraying what happens, that you'll feel as if someone was always peeking around a corner with a camera, filming an actual event. Of course, this is based on true events, and frankly, there is some discrepancy to how "true" this film tries to be (obviously, much of the second act had to be dramatized, and you'll realize why once you see the movie) but it didn't need that "based on true events" tag. It's already very real.

I hate to end on the old "Jaws" cliché, but as I am going to Australia soon, I can say for a fact that this does do for backpacking what "Jaws" did for swimming. I consider this movie a parable of sorts. Well done.

wow! like many other movies i review, i literally only just saw this. and i must say that I'm impressed with the SAFC, this is a truly horrific movie. The highlights: * Unknown cast- gave the movie a very realistic atmosphere. i was so happy to realise that none of the actors were remotely familiar. * Low Budget- the obvious low budget gave the film a gritty and unsettling appearance. the locations were convincing and didn't look too perfected for cinema. * Character Development- This was my favorite aspect of the movie. unlike the corny Hollywood slasher/horrors that jump straight into the gore, this movie gave about an hour of very carefully planned events made solely to adapt to the characters. it was strange because although nothing was really happening during that hour, it still seemed interesting. I've come to realise that this was because of how realistic it was to show non-eventful scenes. not every second of life has something interesting. * Psycho- Mick Taylor was a very creepy character because of how familiar his behaviour is. before we see his psychopathic ways, he comes across as just some friendly bloke trying to lend a hand. and his creepy smile is still terrifying long after the movie has ended.

Negative points: * a couple of factual mistakes, none too bad though * only loosely based on true stories, therefore not as scary

Apart from that, this was actually one of the best horror movies out there. definitely the best gore-fest horror, anyway.

Congrats to the South Australian Film Corporation!

This movie is what others try to be, its not overly graphic with gore but it lets the story build up and the actors to execute what horror is and should be.

It doesn't feel cheap or low budget, but very VERY well done, from the directing to special effects(blood,gore) to the post production and audio. Which is where the movie won me over the audio is amazing,from the actors voice overs to the soundtrack that sends chills down your spine.

Now the acting is truly topnotch as everything is very realistic and that is what makes horror movies scary is that they can happen, none of what happens in Wolf Creek is out of this realm. And I guess the whole "based on true events" thing is played out(even if its true or not)it helps towards the realism of the film. Also as far as shock factor goes it won't make you throw up or have nightmares but it will make you think before taking something from a stranger.

The way horror movies are going and have been for this past decade is that everything needs to be more shocking and I know this was made in 2005 but that was the birth of this new shock genre which gave way to films like A Serbian Film, Martyrs, Ichi, and Hostel. But Wolf Creek gets back to basics and shows that CGI and gore aren't required to make a scary film.