Wolf Creek 2

I thoroughly enjoyed Wolf Creek. All elements of film making seemed to work, for me. I like realism in films and the sense of isolation in the Australian outback was palpable. After viewing the trailer for Wolf Creek 2 I thought that the film might fall into the Hollywood category. What I was hoping for was another gem.

John Jarratt returns as serial killer Mick Taylor. He delivers another strong performance. His laugh and hoarse, Aussie voice never falter. He gets totally into character and runs the show. He has too much screen time, however, to make him as scary as he should be. The viewer is given too much knowledge of his whereabouts, I felt.

The actors who play the tourists are good, notably Ryan Corr, playing well-educated British traveler, Paul. The film doesn't provide much insight into his character which might be the reason why I had little empathy for him, or any of Mick's victims in this film. Towards the end I was routing for the tourists solely because as the viewer we have witnessed the hell their put through. For whatever reason, I really liked the characters in the first film and it was hard to watch them meet their fate.

The sense of isolation is there but doesn't have the same effect as it did in the first film, probably because there are a few more characters in this film, and other devices used to create action, which made the film appear less chilling and more thrilling.

I liked that McLean used subtitles for the German couple because I wasn't expecting it. Of course English isn't always going to be a tourists first language and they're not going to speak it for our benefit. Fret not, once the screaming begins you don't have to do a lot of reading.

Some parts of the film felt a little odd to me at first, and there are a couple of comical sequences. I took it in the movie's stride. Perhaps that was writer number 2, Aaron Sterns, input. I didn't mind. There was enough Mick Taylor sadism to pull me back to the horror film I went in to watch. The setting at the end was a little disappointing because it felt too orchestrated and unlike Mick Taylor. It felt more like a scene from 'Hostel'.

The first film is a rare beauty, and Wolf Creek 2 is a good sequel - nothing more, nothing less IMO.

It's fair to say that most people believe (quite rightly) that sequels are normally pretty inferior to the original and, in horror terms, it's hard to ever find a sequel that even comes close to its predecessor. I'm not going to say that Wolf Creek 2 surpasses the original, but at least it's watchable (which puts it head and shoulders over 99% of other horror sequels).

It's about mass murdering psychopath Mick Taylor (once again played brilliantly by John Jarrett) who lives deep in the Australian Outback and has a tendency to slaughter any hapless backpacker who passes through his town of Wolf Creek. And, when I say the film is ABOUT Mick Taylor, I really mean it. The film doesn't ever really focus on his victims. He is definitely the star. Granted, he deserves it – he truly plays the 'nutter' well. However, this does leave us not that bothered about whether his victims live or die, as we never really get to know them half as well as we do him.

Therefore, we're left learning more about the 'monster' than the 'heroes.' So, if you're not looking for a film where you're going to feel that sympathetic towards the victims, then you'll find what you're looking for right here.

It's not so 'condensed' as the first Wolf Creek. The original was mainly set in one location (when the murdering finally got going), whereas much of this movie is a cat and mouse style chase across the desert.

Don't expect much in the way of a story (well, about as much as the next slasher film), but if you're looking to see a really good/creepy performance from a mass-murdering villain then you'll find it here. My only real gripe was the ending, but you'll have to watch the last thirty seconds to see if you agree with me.

And while over 7 years have passed since the first one was released (I'm assuming you know the first Wolf Creek or don't care that I refer to it, because this builds up on that), our main "character" is still the same. As you know (or are about to find out), he is the villain and the audience is expected to root for him somewhat this time around. The actor is really charismatic.

The first encounters seem random which might make a case for anyone to not like this movie that much. Also there is some "german" thrown in, with a heavy accent. Do not judge them if you understand what they are saying. We do get a player in the end who seems to be up to par with our villain and the movie seems undecided which one we should root for. Although it does tend to swing into the villains direction. Very gruesome and very violent this is not everyones taste ... but if you're hooked (no pun intended) on our main villain, you'll love it

You have to have a brain that releases the reward hormones, etc. that are excited by horror and gore to sit through this Aussie rendition of a "not-so-nice-person" gleefully and with good Aussie nationalism dismember visiting hiking tourists or any others of similar persuasion who upset him or for that matter simply anyone who upsets him.

Well acted. The usual pursuit of the prey scenes, but what makes this a seven vs. eight or nine stars are the stupid decisions of our prey. A common problem in this genre and it's not clear if it's written into the script on purpose to annoy viewers or the writers simply need to prolong the agony to fill 90 minutes or they just don't have a good understanding of thinking under pressure.

The lead actors in the film, both the villain and protagonist are great. Very scary movie. Some scenes are brutal and pretty hard to take. The supporting roles in the beginning are played by great actors too and the writing makes you care about the characters. Great little film and super fast-pacing make it a thrill ride from start to finish.