Fluentiama Perfect cast and a good story

SnoReptilePlenty Memorable, crazy movie

FuzzyTagz If the ambition is to provide two hours of instantly forgettable, popcorn-munching escapism, it succeeds.

Portia Hilton Blistering performances.

Planet-38 Throughout the first hour of this movie, I kept thinking I had seen it before.I then realized that I was just watching "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre" set in Australia. Perhaps I actually had seen "Wolf Creek" before, and it bored me then also, I don't know. To me the movie is just stupid people doing stupid things (Did these people know nothing about the Australian Outback? Why beat the guy on his (mighty, powerfully built) back with the gun? Why not bash his head in? etc.) I kept telling myself that these were young people that generally feel they are invincible, and so probably didn't plan or really look into the culture, background, possible problems of the place they were visiting. Plus they were terrified so probably not thinking rationally. But, even adopting that attitude didn't make this movie any more convincing.

sol- Stranded in the outback after their car breaks down, three young friends begin to question whether the local man who has given them a lift is really as friendly as he seems in this acclaimed Australian horror thriller. John Jarratt is excellent as the mysterious man in question with a lot of tension as the friends joke about him being like Crocodile Dundee, something that he does not find amusing at all. The second half of the movie is especially enthralling as a darker side of the Dundee stereotype persona begins to emerge. The film is, however, let down by a humdrum first half-hour of routine ups and downs as the friends set out on their journey. It is only as Jarratt enters the picture around a third of the way in that the film truly takes off, but certainly once it starts, the movie rarely lets up. This is not a film for the squeamish, though with a very low body count, the juice of the film comes from there being a sense of threat (sometimes real, sometimes perceived) in the air. Indeed, the film is more a testament to mysteriousness and uncertainties of Australia's vast outback with a sense that familiar urban rules are no longer in force a la 'Wake in Fright', to which 'Wolf Creek' has been compared.

meddlecore I'll start off by saying that this film is genuinely f*cking terrifying.Everything begins, when a couple of female tourists and their Sydney dudebro guide, set off, on what seems like a relatively banal hiking adventure, into the Wolf Creek crater in the Australian Outback.It starts off slow...kind of like Bruno Dumont's Twenty-Nine Palms. And you start to expect it's going to play out like that (long, drawn out, banal drama- triggering your expectations and, thus, creating anxiety- followed by fleeting moments of the extremely shocking, if you aren't familiar with his model) too. But this is not how it plays out at all.It gets real shocking, real fast. And continues to be extremely shocking right up until the very end (so, for about an entire hour). Sadistic torture; vicious sexual assault; and a character that exudes a malevolent evil so twisted...that you would laugh...if you weren't so goddamn horrified throughout it all.You tend to question every decision they make; and yell at the screen every time you feel they squander a potential oppourtunity to escape. But you've got to give it to them...under the circumstances...they do a pretty damn good job at surviving...even if they do make every wrong f*cking decision.There is one survivor in the film- which is claimed to be an adaptation of actual events. But it's not really even a remotely accurate depiction of actual events, if you read the true story behind it.Either way, however...if you want to be scared. Watch this film.7.5 out of 10

johnwiltshireauthor I'm pretty sure I'm not the only viewer of this movie who gives up watching at the scene in the shed when girl No. 1 saves girl No. 2 by wounding the bad guy who's been torturing and raping her... and then just leaving while he's unconscious but still alive. Seriously? He tortures people to death (there's the carcass of a previous victim hanging in the shed who apparently lasted a few months), you wound him enough to knock him out, but then just leave. Uh-huh. He has a knife the size of Australia on him but, no, you don't think about finishing him off there and then. You just leave him to revive. Nope. Too daft to watch. And I get that for the movie to continue the bad guy has to live--I'm an author; I get plotting. But action has to be credible. So, when he's knocked unconscious, make him fall into a pit they cannot climb down into--whatever. But no one, no one would just leave that guy alive. Stopped watching this for the third time at that point. I just can't get past it. Shame.