Top positive review
19 people found this helpful
One of my horror favourites
on 25 April 2013
This is one of my favourite horror movies of all time.
And the late Roger Ebert gave it 0%. Not because it was a bad movie, he said, but due to its immorality and irresponsibility.
Mr Ebert, God bless him, has done many accurate and well-written reviews and some I did not agree with at all. This was one of the two reasons I can cite why I thought he could be a total ass sometimes.
The first was his infamous videogame qoute which states that no videogame can ever be art. As any gamer knows, there are already numerous masterpieces which can be called art. (Heavy Rain, Mass Effect etc.)
His Woif Creek review is the second.
Wolf Creek is a hard-hitting, no compromise, no punches-pulled gutpuncher of a movie without wallowing in gore and excess as some other movies do. There is actually very little gore here, aside from some old decaying corpses in the killer's killing room.
The brutality of this movie (which I do not recommend to sensitive souls) is due primarily to the acting which is uniformly brilliant.
I don't know if the cast is well-known in Australia, but they're definitely not well-known elsewhere although John Jarrett (the killer) is becoming more and more well-known. He even had a cameo role in Tarantino's Django Unchained.
They are first class, though. They sell the terror and panic of the characters and it makes the whole thing nauseatingly realistic.
It is hard to watch the screen when Jarrett is torturing one of the leading ladies in his killing room. Not physically torturing, mentally. Not a drop of blood is spilt. Because of the acting.
The movie is also very downbeat and depressing, well the second half is.The first half shows the four backpacking youngsters enjoying their holiday, with real love even creeping in between two characters in a very sweet scene, which makes the second half even more horrible.
But this is a horror movie and bad stuff gotta happen. As Stephen King once remarked, he wants to see a movie where it felt like you were watching a movie directed by a genuine madman who will do anything to get you. This is that movie.
Eber's problem was basically due to the fact that the movie was purportedly based on real events - i.e. the Ivan Milat killings.
Go do some research on the Milat killings in Australia and you will notice that the movie and the real story has very little in common except for the fact that backpackers were killed. The killer in real-life was not a bushdweller like ol' Mick here, but stayed in a big city neighbourhood and had accomplices. Even the killings are not the same. Maybe the movie was influenced by the real-life tragedies but so what? So was Psycho (Ed Gein), Texas Chainsaw (Ed Gein) and many other classics and they did not get 0%, did they, mr Ebert?
A great movie for hardened horror buffs who's sick of watered-down, PG-13 Hollywood 'horror' and wants an injection of the real stuff. This'll do ya!