User reviews

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.

There is a subtlety about this movie, that makes it so chilling, and so very real. It's a style of storytelling that seems to have been lost in recent years, with so much emphasis on gore and shock, that the story gets lost. Wolf Creek is chilling, believable, and even though at tines you know what's coming next, you cannot help but sit uncomfortably in your seat. The acting is great all round, very sincere, and the location work is of course fantastic.

It put me off wanting a trip to the Aussie outback, so it made an impact. I joke of course, but this is a truly classic horror movie. 7/10

I got this information from another website, and thought I might share it with you :) The true Wolf Creek story happened about two thousand kilometres from Wolfe Creek National Park, and not in Western Australia, but in the Northern Territory.

On July 14, 2001, British tourists Peter Falconio (then 28) and Joanne Lees (then 27) travelled on the Stuart Highway from Alice Springs in the direction of Darwin. It was night time.

Roughly half way between Alice Springs and Tennant Creek, just outside Barrow Creek, a mechanic called Bradley John Murdoch managed to make them pull over, and told them that sparks were coming out of the exhaust of their van.

Peter went to the back of the van with Murdoch to have a look, and Joanne was asked to rev the engine. She later said she thought she heard a shot. Then Murdoch, holding a gun, came to her window. He bound her hands and dragged her into his four wheel drive.

Then he disappeared for a while. It is assumed that he dealt with Peter's body during that time. That's when Joanne managed to escape. She hid in the bush as Murdoch was searching for her with his dog. Eventually he gave up.

Joanne waited for hours, making sure that he was really gone and not coming back. When she finally staggered back onto the highway two truck drivers stopped and helped her.

Murdoch was caught in the largest Northern Territory police investigation ever. He had been in Alice Springs the same day as Joanne and Peter, he had also visited the same fast food outlet.

Whether he targeted them at random or followed them from Alice Springs is not known. He claims he wasn't even near Barrow Creek, had taken the Tanami Road instead (a rough bush track from Alice Springs to Western Australia. It runs past Wolfe Creek National Park) Many questions remain. No weapon or body was found. The motive is unclear, too. But speculations revolve around paranoia and aggression induced by his heavy amphetamine use. Murdoch is a self confessed drifter, drug runner, and regularly transported large amounts of cannabis between Alice Springs and Broome in Western Australia.

His lawyers couldn't explain how his DNA had ended up in the blood on Joanne's clothes if he'd been nowhere near her. After a two month trial he was found guilty in December 2005. The verdict by the jury was unanimous. Murdoch will serve at least 28 years of a life sentence, unless his appeal is successful.

I followed the reports of the trial and admired Joanne Lees' stoicism. I believe it helped her to make an escape, but it often didn't help her before and during the trial. She has remained silent, withdrawn, not revealing her emotions (which are nobody's business in my opinion). No big magazine spreads and TV shows, just four days of testimony during the trial. Unusual in our age of media hype and rampant disclosure...

By the way the correct spelling is Wolfe Creek And that's it, the Wolf Creek true story. Or is it? Well, not quite. There sure are many parallels, enough for Murdoch's lawyers to prevent the movie from being released in the Northern Territory during the trial. But the true story above is not the only one that influenced the Wolf Creek movie.

The character of Mick Taylor, the seemingly friendly and helpful bush bloke, is modelled on Ivan Milat. Milat was a serial killer who picked up hitchhikers and took them into the woods where he tortured and killed them. These murders took place in the 1990s in New South Wales, not in the Outback (and have taken place in other form at other times in other parts of the world as well...) Milat, too, was caught and sentenced to life in prison.

You should also keep in mind that writer/director Greg McLean wrote the original story years ago, as a conventional and purely fictional horror flick set in the Australian Outback. He only became aware of the true cases afterwards, and took ideas and cues from them and blended them into his story. The line "based on true events" surely helps marketing the film, but it is misleading...

So what does the Wolf Creek true story mean for tourists to the Australian Outback? Should you be concerned? Absolutely. Stay away from amphetamines...

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!

When one thinks of horror films, one generally does not associate Australia with horror. Sure, they have had a few, but most genre fans think of England, Italy, and, of late, Japan. This film, made on a minuscule budget, is effectively creepy, imaginatively convincing, and just plain terrifying to many degrees. It is not a complete film by any stretch, but when one looks at the small budget used and the effective use of the Australian outback as a setting for horror, Wolf Creek makes the grade as being a quality horror film. We have all seen variations of the story before: a group of people, out on vacation, are tricked, captured, and tortured by a crazy man living in the middle of nowhere under his own code of ethics and what he believes is right and wrong. There really are a lot of similarities with this and movies like The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, The Hills Have Eyes, and countless other films, but all of those films have not used setting so effectively and created one of the films more modern truly despicable villains. Mick Taylor, the stereotypical Aussie in American minds, is a terrifying parody of outward Aussie charm with a perverse, psychotic, twisted inward mental persona capable of some of the most disgusting acts. Actor John Jarratt does a good job playing such a vile man - he made my skin crawl every time he was on screen in the second half of the picture. Wolf Creek moves at a fast pace - perhaps too fast at times, but we are able to invest some interest and care about the victims. I appreciate the ending and final scene, but I really wanted a more satisfying ending for closure. The film uses, what it says are true accounts, as the basis for the story and couches the film with such pieces of information at the beginning and end with missing people in Australia every year. This documentary device was also used in The Texas Chainsaw Massacre originally as well. So for me, Wolf Creek is effective in creating true, genuine horror although in many regards the film is very derivative. The change of locale to the vast, desolate Australian outback was wonderfully used. The tension throughout the film is like a roller-coaster ride. The acting is pretty good overall. The film has many distasteful images and will stay in your mind days after having viewed the film. That, to me, is a powerful horror film in some respect.

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.

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 has a completely standard basic story for this kind of genre movie - travelers in isolated location encounter sadistic nut. Despite this, it's what writer/director Greg McLean does with the details which makes a difference.

The outback locations are rendered with a nice eye and evoke a sense of spooky isolation - anything could happen to you out here and no-one would know, much less be able to help. There is also the much discussed 'dark side of Crocodile Dundee' element - frankly, I can't believe it's taken so long for someone to conjure this one up, and McLean clearly delights in stabbing a knife through the heart of the mythical Aussie archetype. I think he's actually gotten to an uncomfortable, close-to-the-bone truth about the psyche of certain Aussie males, and John Jarret is eerily similar to the kind of individual one would encounter in many a country pub down under.

The fact that this is an Australian film also makes it a rare bird indeed. For some unfathomable reason, the Oz industry rarely does genre, and when it does, usually doesn't do it well. With this in mind, Wolf Creek is something of a breath of fresh air. Yes, it hews pretty closely to the codes and rules of its genre, but for the most part it does it well, and for my money, what works about the film is strong enough to make some of the weaker plot moments forgivable.

Will Gibson's HD camera-work is impressive, maintaining a consistent style from start to finish, aided by solid editing, score and sound design. Now maybe people will stop whining about how 'we can't make genre films here' and we might see some imagination and variety creep into Australian cinema.

The following horrifying and scary story Wolf Creek being based on actual events . Wolf Creek results to be a thrlling and chilling movie based on true events about a series killer , dealing with a trio of friends : Cassandra Magrath , Kessie Morasi , Nathan Phillips set out in a risked journey throughout the Australian desert . Things go wrong when their automobile breaks down and they run into a vicious local bushman called Mick Taylor : John Jarratt . 30.000 people are reported missing in Australia every year. 90 % are found within a month. Some are never seen again . How can you be found when no one knows you're missing ?

A grim , tense , brutal and suspenseful film with a threatening as well as devastating atmosphere and gorgeous exteriors from Australian Outback . A road trip drama in which the thrill is the relentlless hunt carried out by a heinous and merciless murderer against some unfortunate travellers . It contains an excellent cinematograhy with splendid vistas photographed by cameraman Will Gibson from Western Australia , Sandy Creek, Semaphore , Adelaide, Finders Rangers , Port Germein, Hawker , and Wolf Creek meteor crater. This is a top-notch terror movie with a lot of chills , blood , gore , twists and turns . It was followed by a sequel Wolf Creek II (2013) and a TV series in 12 episodes , all of them starred by John Jarratt and mostly written/directed by Greg McLean .

The motion picture was competently directed by Greg McLean and it enjoyed world-wide commercial and critical hits . Greg is a good Australian writer/producer and director who started his career when he created this horror success : "Wolf Creek" that premiered at the Sundance and Cannes Film Festivals . His second movie was a Croc movie : "Rogue" . In 2016 he made the horror movie : "The Belko Experiment" and in 2017 the real-life adventure story : "Jungle". Greg recently was executive producer , show-runner for season 2 of the "Wolf Creek TV series" and directed 4 episodes od "The Gloaming" TV series for ABC studios and eventually he made 3 episodes of "Bloom" series for Sony International . Rating : 6.5/10 . Essential and indispensable seeing for the terror lovers .

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.

I will admit that I have a soft spot for all things horror and that I'm more than pleased about the huge amounts of gore and blood thrown into movies these days. However, that's not really what "Wolf Creek" is about. Unlike recent flicks such as "House Of Wax", "Wrong Turn", "The Hills Have Eyes" or "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre", which you may or may not have enjoyed, this movie is about realism. The violence is not the main focus here. Much more is it an element that serves the story instead of the other way around, which sets this movie a million miles apart from any of the slashfests mentioned above. Besides, the vast scenery of the Australian desert is a perfect and much more believable setting than some unknown little town somewhere in America. "Wolf Creek" is clever and unconventional, and I guess that's probably what a lot of people who wrote negative reviews didn't like about it.

Director/writer Greg McLean takes an incredibly long time to set his story up, although it didn't really seem that long to me. The first two thirds of the movies unfold like a love story rather than a horror flick. The cinematography is beautiful and it's real nice to see the three main characters hanging out, having fun and falling in love with each other as they travel across the country. Those aren't your average shallow horror characters. You can identify with those people, you like them and the more you do, the more you feel uncomfortable as they descend into trouble. BIG trouble!

The cast is amazing. I've hardly ever seen anyone looking as genuinely terrified on screen as Cassandra Magrath and Kestie Morassi. They act and react just like you'd imagine someone in their situation would. John Jarratt as the villain, however, steals the show. Again, this guy just seems so REAL. You could easily see yourself falling for his tricks only to wake up to him torturing you. This is no chainsaw swinging, skin wearing monster, but a seemingly regular guy that turns out to be a relentless psychopath.

Greg McLean may not re-invent the wheel with "Wolf Creek" but he manages to drive an old genre to near perfection. The movie remains unpredictable throughout and never relies on old tricks. The most disturbing thing about "Wolf Creek" is that you really feel like this could happen to you, which is quite an achievement in a genre that's usually so over the top, it makes you laugh instead of scaring you. "Wolf Creek" will achieve what your mother never could: you'll think twice about trusting helpful strangers.

It is impossible to love a film like Wolf Creek. It is perverted to the cinematic extreme. On the other hand it would be wrong to dismiss first time director/writer Greg Mclean as an ugly, incompetent storyteller. He was trying to adapt a true story for the screen, which is perfectly fine (movies do this all the time). Wolf Creek is an unhappy story, but it shows you just one of the many ways in which the world is not always pretty place.

The events on which this story is based took place ten years ago. We follow three kids in Australia who are taking a road trip to Wolf Creek, the sight of a famous meteor crater. On their way back, their car breaks down, leaving them stranded in the outback, That night they meet a stranger with a tow truck who offers to give them a tow back to his place where he will fix the car. He then holds them captive because he is a sadist and a killer. According to the film, they all managed to escape but only one survived.

The killer pretty much steals the movie in the second half. At first he is set up to be a sort of classic 'easy-going' outback Australian like Crodidile Dundee, and then suddenly he is not. Like many cinematic killers, this guy has really no motive for his Inhumanity, but the script suggests in a very small way that he hates tourists, and being subject to stereotypes. He truly is menacing, not necessarily well acted, but menacing.

Personally I don't much care for this category of Horror film, but Wolf Creek turns out to be surprisingly exceptional, but if you are gonna see it, prepare to be disturbed. It makes Texas Chainsaw Massacre look like Barney.

Wolf Creek does not deserve to be called a horror movie. It is essentially a snuff film with art-house cinematography, and only the thinnest, barest premise of a story. Three tourists in the Australian outback are captured, tortured, and humiliated by a bully. That's it. No plot development, no surprises, and thus not a lot of fun. You get to watch people cry, suffer, and eventually die.

What's truly sad? Even the fans of this movie won't dispute the claim that there is no plot, but rather they'll rebut by complimenting Wolf Creek for being so "uncompromising" in its depiction of sadistic murders. Essentially, they're employing a kind of dimwitted bizarro-logic that goes something like this: if someone who sets out to make a fun, enjoyable movie deserves praise if they succeed, then by de facto reasoning, the creators of a detestable, unenjoyable movie should also be praised if their actual intent was to produce something detestable and unenjoyable. If after the credits start rolling you find yourself feeling lousy, applaud enthusiastically and give them their due credit. What a pathetic way to judge the merits of a film, or any medium.

Reality check: if movies like Wolf Creek only come along once in a while, it isn't because Hollywood's not bold or innovative enough to make films like this, it's just that most people don't have time to waste on creating mean-spirited trash. Wolf Creek is about a guy with weapons bullying some kids who don't have the means to defend themselves. You'll find there's nothing bold or innovative about that if you pick up a newspaper once in a while. Maybe Wolf Creek fans should schedule there next vacation in Rwanda, so they can enjoy watching some brilliant, uncompromising guerrillas hack up helpless victims with machetes.

I love a good horror film, and violence can really spice up a movie when there's some effort to express an idea, or just provide pure entertainment. But Wolf Creek has nothing to say about anything, and its purpose is not to provide any kind of thrill. Beyond cruelty for cruelty's sake, this plate of garbage is devoid of any ambition other than to make a few million bucks off of anyone who's lived such a sheltered, boring existence that they find the waste of human life to be titillating rather than depressing. One star.