I'm a big horror fan, but somehow I didn't get around to seeing Wolf Creek until a few days ago.
I know it made a quite a splash, what with being nominated for the big prize at Sundance in 2005 etc.
And I was particularly interested, because this was a first film for the director who also wrote the script.
Well. I don't know, I guess I'm not really sold on it. Overall, it's a C for me. I don't feel like I wasted my time, but I don't get how most of my friends think it's an excellent film.
WARNING: Some spoilers!
The good as far as I can see:
1) Excellent acting from the two girls. OK effort by the villain and also the male victim.
2) Nice atmospheres - the isolation, the landscapes, the villain's lair.
3) Nice touches on some of the props: corpses - especially the "Crucified Jesuses" where you are to surmise the vicious dogs mauled them.
4) Nice props with the junk cars and trucks
5) OK music
The bad as far as I was concerned:
a) The actual interactions between the villain and the victims - when he's got the girl tied up in the shed, his acting and actions are not especially scary and not especially grim... we've seen much more scary stuff in movies (f.ex. Hostel).
b) The lack of logic and consistency: how easy it was for the first girl to free herself, how she never finished off the bad guy once she shot him, instead she ineffectually smacks him on the back with the rifle; how she loses the revolver for no good reason etc.
c) Poor special effects: the car driven by the second girl rolls after being having the tire shot out, but it rolls completely unbelievably (clumsy computer effect), some of the body effects were poor (especially how the guy frees himself off the cross - the "nails" were neither good from an effects point of view, plus what a clumsy way to secure the victim by the villain).
d) The ending was sort of anticlimactic and awkward. I know it was based on a real story, but it just was a poor ending.
I think the number one problem of all was that it just was not hard core enough (full disclosure: I'm a fan of the first Hostel and first Saw, Audition and many other hard core horror movies, though I love more psychological stuff like The Shining as well). Wolf Creek set itself up in the vein of some heavy duty gore, and just did not deliver on that score.
I won't say it was a bad movie, I enjoyed it OK, good job for a first time director. Still it was only so-so, and I doubt I'll be re-seeing it anytime soon.
Seeing as most my friends thought it was just great, I was interested to hear what the folks here think of it. Opinions?
I know it made a quite a splash, what with being nominated for the big prize at Sundance in 2005 etc.
And I was particularly interested, because this was a first film for the director who also wrote the script.
Well. I don't know, I guess I'm not really sold on it. Overall, it's a C for me. I don't feel like I wasted my time, but I don't get how most of my friends think it's an excellent film.
WARNING: Some spoilers!
The good as far as I can see:
1) Excellent acting from the two girls. OK effort by the villain and also the male victim.
2) Nice atmospheres - the isolation, the landscapes, the villain's lair.
3) Nice touches on some of the props: corpses - especially the "Crucified Jesuses" where you are to surmise the vicious dogs mauled them.
4) Nice props with the junk cars and trucks
5) OK music
The bad as far as I was concerned:
a) The actual interactions between the villain and the victims - when he's got the girl tied up in the shed, his acting and actions are not especially scary and not especially grim... we've seen much more scary stuff in movies (f.ex. Hostel).
b) The lack of logic and consistency: how easy it was for the first girl to free herself, how she never finished off the bad guy once she shot him, instead she ineffectually smacks him on the back with the rifle; how she loses the revolver for no good reason etc.
c) Poor special effects: the car driven by the second girl rolls after being having the tire shot out, but it rolls completely unbelievably (clumsy computer effect), some of the body effects were poor (especially how the guy frees himself off the cross - the "nails" were neither good from an effects point of view, plus what a clumsy way to secure the victim by the villain).
d) The ending was sort of anticlimactic and awkward. I know it was based on a real story, but it just was a poor ending.
I think the number one problem of all was that it just was not hard core enough (full disclosure: I'm a fan of the first Hostel and first Saw, Audition and many other hard core horror movies, though I love more psychological stuff like The Shining as well). Wolf Creek set itself up in the vein of some heavy duty gore, and just did not deliver on that score.
I won't say it was a bad movie, I enjoyed it OK, good job for a first time director. Still it was only so-so, and I doubt I'll be re-seeing it anytime soon.
Seeing as most my friends thought it was just great, I was interested to hear what the folks here think of it. Opinions?
