Comments on: Review: Wolf Creek

By: HorrorsNotDead.com -- The next big Horror blog for twenty-two years running.

HorrorsNotDead.com -- The next big Horror blog for twenty-two years running. — Sun, 13 Jul 2008 20:02:00 +0000

[...] wasn’t the biggest fan of Mclean’s debut WOLF CREEK, so the varying degrees of success found in ROGUE bode well for the lad. The success, or lack [...]

By: Jason M.

Jason M. — Mon, 05 Jun 2006 18:25:10 +0000

This movie isn’t watchable at all, in my opinion. I made it to the terrorizing stuff at the end because I had some hope in this flick, but once it came I was ready to turn it off. I think the film is utterly worthless. I regret renting it.

By: feral cat

feral cat — Mon, 05 Jun 2006 13:59:08 +0000

I found this one to be “Watchable”, but the incredibly uninteresting first half of the movie in which we are meant to connect with the characters did test my patience. A few minutes more and it would have been switched off and hurled against the wall. While the horror element was fun it was short and generic and the insipid behaviour of the characters pretty much took away most scare factor it might have had. I fail to see why so many people where hailing this as a modern classic and scary as hell. I agree with you though John Jarratt gives a standout performance and is for me the main thing that lifts this film above the level of dross. The campfire chat seen is very good though I’ll give it credit for that. I’m glad you addressed the “True Story” element; stuff like that really gets on my nerves.

By: Peter

Peter — Sat, 03 Jun 2006 16:51:07 +0000

Oh, noes! My mind has just been blown by Wolf Creek.

:-\

By: Tom

Tom — Sat, 03 Jun 2006 14:55:28 +0000

Take it you didn’t work out it was all aliens then.

By: Peter

Peter — Sat, 03 Jun 2006 14:06:57 +0000

Yeah, I’m kinda weird with my ratings. If I hear nothing but good things about a movie, especially an indie, for months on end, and then it ends up being only run of the mill, I tend to just completely bleed it dry in a review. The worst offender of this was with The Descent, which I’ll give another chance on the eve of its US theatrical run. It’s certainly not the best treatment to give a movie, but at least I can admit to the hype-machine bias.

I think it is watchable because it never does anything that badly (though the night sky repetitions did piss me off), it just never does anything that well either.

By: m13b

m13b — Sat, 03 Jun 2006 12:38:46 +0000

Wow, you really laid into this one, and yet rated it “watchable”? Which is it, man?

I thought the inital torture scene was tres creepy, and if the rest of the film could have kept up with it, McLean really would have had something there. Unfortunately, all we got was are supposed “hero” making stupid cliched decisions.