Forums of Filth

"Santa Claus is here... bringing Christmas cheer..."


SHEESH!

Of all the films to get a Christmas opening! I don't recall any movies opening on Sunday before--and I was under the impression that this was going to be one of those limited deals that wouldn't show up in my neighborhood...

...and yet there it was.

Well, you essentially heard right--WOLF CREEK is a suffocatingly sadistic thriller with significantly more compelling acting and realism than a lot of them. And you heard it was based on a true story, right? Well, true enough--somebody related details of a crime in Australia... the victims were never found, no evidence, no suspect. So starting with the unproven story, the makers of WOLF CREEK came up with their own version. Tourists stranded with a car (and watches) that ceases to function when parked next to the mysterious Wolf Creek Crater. And here comes handy-dandy Mick, who can fix everything if they'll accept a lift from him. And he doesn't appreciate "Crocodile Dundee" jokes.

Takes a while to build up (plenty o' authentic local color, and it's certainly interesting enough)--then it's time for the sickness to start.

Well, here's the problem--it's believable, it's cringeworthy, it's shocking... and it's also (by this time) extremely par for the course. Without the genre nods of a HOUSE OF WAX or the mind-screwing of the SAW films, you'll know the pattern--you'll recognize every breath of hope, and you'll know exactly how it will be dashed away. Now, I suppose that's better than pulling a HIGH TENSION twist on you--but still, THAT's the film that WOLF CREEK resembles the most in tone and content. But with an Australian accent.

In the end, I wasn't sure if I wanted more or if I wanted less. There are only so many ways to tell this story, and I feel as if I've seen them all fairly recently. Can't assault the direction, the cast, the photography, or anything on a technical level. But I find myself appreciating "movies" more than "true stories" lately.

Let me know what you think--and one last Merry Christmas to you all!

I'm probably going to check this out tomorrow. I've heard a lot of good hype about it and that it takes a strong stomach the endure. It's been a while since I've seen one of them. I'm also looking forward to Hostel. I'm told it's similar in tone.

It wasn't playing in our town... so we went a town over to see it. Not one theater in the city here was playing it...

My thoughts?

Thought it took WAY too long for it to get going... I was fighting to stay awake for the first half. When it kicked in though... WOOAH! It turned into one hell of a movie...

Just wish that first half wasn't so draggy...

Went today, and loved having a bloody Christmas for a change. The theatre was packed too, but I was in Portland, so I don't know about Washington. I liked the movie, but it is VERY slow getting to the good stuff, but when it arrives, it's pretty brutal. I will give it a thumbs up, although I think this one was a bit overhyped (at least in the horror press). Can't wait until Hostel!

I really liked it. Just mean enough to satisfy me. It definitely took a long time getting rolling, but it paid off in the end. I'd like to know more about the murder that it's based on.

Latte Thunder wrote:I really liked it. Just mean enough to satisfy me. It definitely took a long time getting rolling, but it paid off in the end. I'd like to know more about the murder that it's based on.

The latest Rue Morgue says that it's actually a combination cases...

"The first, known as the Backpacker Murders, took place in the early 90's, and concerned a series of international travellers found shot or stabbed to death in rural Australia. Eventually a 49-year-old gun fanatic and former trucker named Ivan Milat was arrested, convicted and sentenced to life in prison in July of 1996. The second incident is known as the Falconio Case, named after a motorist who was allegedly murdered by Bradley John Murdoch in Australia's Northern Territory on July 14, 2001. According to Falconio's girlfriend, Murdoch flagged them down at the side of the road, shot Falconio, then bound and abducted her. She escaped, and police later arrested Murdoch after a large manhunt. Falconio's body was never found, and Murdoch is currently on trial."

Murdoch just got convicted - they're putting him away for life. They actually delayed the release of the film in the Northern Territory for fear it might influence the outcome of the trial...

And that 'head on a stick' thing was Milat's M.O. - morbid stuff.

I liked the movie. Thought it was great. But, like BLAIR WITCH, probably a one-time-only experience. An exercise that's admirable if not necessarily enjoyable. That rare kinda horror movie that's truly horrifying, almost wanting to send its audience scrambling over the back of their seats for the exits.

Noticed Fatty Ebert took great offense to this movie. Fair enough but typical of his self-importance. It would appear he thinks WOLF CREEK is immoral but on what grounds? That it cinematically portrays violence and suffering as despairing and ugly as opposed to unanswerably entertaining?

Boo fucking hoo. Anyone turned-off by this film deserves what they get.

'Griff [Mola wrote:']

Noticed Fatty Ebert took great offense to this movie. Fair enough but typical of his self-importance. It would appear he thinks WOLF CREEK is immoral but on what grounds? That it cinematically portrays violence and suffering as despairing and ugly as opposed to unanswerably entertaining?

Boo fucking hoo. Anyone turned-off by this film deserves what they get.

Yeah, zero stars. Essentially the same review he gave CHAOS (which I never saw, but which very few people seem to feel is worth defending) and the TCM remake.

He was right about one thing--some people in the audience seemed to think WOLF CREEK was the comedy hit of the year.

Beyond doubt, some people DO need the message rubbed home about the ugly reality of violence--but they're just never going to care about what they see in the movies, no matter HOW horrific it is.

Now, with complete disregard to star ratings and other subjective points regarding how "good" a film is, I'm sure we can all agree that WOLF CREEK is significantly "different" than THE MANSON FAMILY, HOUSE OF WAX, THE DEVIL'S REJECTS or the SAW movies--not all of which Ebert recommended, but all of which involve torture and sadism, and none of which offended him in a similar manner (though MANSON had him hovering between zero and four stars...). In reading through the CHAOS correspondence, Ebert says he has no room in his life for movies that offer nothing BUT despair.

So does WOLF CREEK qualify? And is the element that MAKES the other movies different the answer? Hell, there's no simple answer--the thing that "makes" it different, movie by movie, is... well... DIFFERENT!

Damn--think I've found an article here.

'Griff [Mola wrote:']
I liked the movie. Thought it was great. But, like BLAIR WITCH, probably a one-time-only experience. An exercise that's admirable if not necessarily enjoyable. That rare kinda horror movie that's truly horrifying, almost wanting to send its audience scrambling over the back of their seats for the exits.

I'll let you know how it holds up a second time. My wife and I are giving it a spin tonight or tomorrow depending since I watched it without her thinking this isn't the sort of thing she'd want to see. However, our tastes in horror differ in that she really doesn't go for the gore for gore's sake kind of movies. She likes the stuff that scares you because of its plausibility and Wolf Creek was definitely that kind of movie. I definitely found myself thinking back on all the times I hitchhiked as a teenager and all the weird fuckers that picked me up. It certainly makes me not want to ever accept help from any roadside samaritans in the future. I also have no plans of going camping in remote areas where someone might take it upon themselves to fuck with my car while it's unattended.

Jesus.

I think subsequent viewings of CREEK will be a more studious effort than an involving one. The lengthy set-up will suffer in particular. I think its main aim is to lull you into a rhythm and establish a stark sense of reality in which its later atrocities will have some gravity. Its a legitimate alternative to creating a scenario that befriends you and/or enticingly lures you into the shadows before bludgeoning you - its still effective manipulation but its craft is less appreciable and less likely to hold your interest the next time around.

Let us know how you go.

Maybe Griff can comment on this, but Wolf Creek was rated R here (which is like an NC-17 in the states) and I didn't really think it had the violence or the dark tone needed for that. I guess the buzz around the film, which was enormous here in Victoria, had me building it up into the crulest, most violent film ever.

My wife really liked the guy that played the psycho, 'cause I guess it's a riff on his usual rolls, but he was just some dude to me.

Now, for a kick ass, dark, excruciating Aussie flick, check out Nick Cave's The Proposition...which got an MA here, so like an R in America.

Yeah, it was rated an R (Australia's highest rating next to X - which is exclusively for porn) and I think that, tonally, it is warranted if nothing more than for consistancy with other rulings. You'll find that alot of Aussie stuff is classified by tone rather than content and, of course, the relationship between the two. Personally, I found some of the infered horrors more unsettling than the showcase stuff so perhaps the censors responded similarly and consequently slapped it with a strictly adults-only rating.

Australia has had a really poor output of horror movies, both in quantity and quality, in the past 20 years and subsequently I didn't know what to expect from CREEK. To discover a serious and unflinching horror film that wasn't shamelessly emulating the latest thing from overseas was a pleasant surprise.

I missed THE PROPOSITION but I'm keen to check it out even though, unbelievably, I've never seen GHOSTS OF THE CIVIL DEAD.

The ratings thing does confuse me a bit here, like a bought a variety of kung fu films that range from M to R all for "medium level violence."

I enjoyed Wolf Creek, I just thought it was overhyped, and that The Proposition whooped its ass in every aspect.

Wait a second... Nick Cave made a horror movie?

Kick ass!

AAAAUUUUGGGHHHH!!!!!!

My PARENTS went and saw it! My dad just skimmed one of the good reviews and convinced my mom to go, too!!! They never asked me, that's for sure, and their reaction was... well... like Ebert's. Good grief--I can't blame myself for that one, but I never would have steered them into WOLF CREEK.

What I REALLY can't believe is that they sat through the whole THING!!!


James James said to his mother,
"Mother," he said, said he...
"You must never go down to the end of the town
Without consulting me!"
--A.A. Milne

I'll be checking this out real soon, looks great. I read an article in the latest Rue Morgue about all the of indie horror films from ireland, australia, usa etc being released. Calvaire looks interesting as hell, twisted plot if I ever heard one. Evil Aliens sounds like a gory blast of fun. Isolation sounds cool about the crazy rabid cows and behind the mask sounds great as well.

Has anyone heard anything about Eli Roth's Hostel? The story, premise, gore content etc? I caught a trailer last night on tv, it looks like its going to be a twisted film.

Boy, I thought this movie was a huge letdown. I pretty much agree with everything Remo said, except I didn't find any of it interesting. And I didn't think the violence was anywhere near extreme enough to compensate for the lack of story or originality. Somehow it seemed both too short and too long at the same time. No one else in the theatre seemed impressed either. There was a definite air of "eh" permeating the place.

Latte Thunder wrote:Wait a second... Nick Cave made a horror movie?

Kick ass!

Not really a horror movie, but very bleak, dark, and violent.

More of a Western if you want to genrify it.

Cave wrote the script.

I thought it was OK, no more no less. I liked the characters and their development.

Kimberly wrote:The latest Rue Morgue says that it's actually a combination cases...

"The first, known as the Backpacker Murders, took place in the early 90's, and concerned a series of international travellers found shot or stabbed to death in rural Australia. Eventually a 49-year-old gun fanatic and former trucker named Ivan Milat was arrested, convicted and sentenced to life in prison in July of 1996. The second incident is known as the Falconio Case, named after a motorist who was allegedly murdered by Bradley John Murdoch in Australia's Northern Territory on July 14, 2001. According to Falconio's girlfriend, Murdoch flagged them down at the side of the road, shot Falconio, then bound and abducted her. She escaped, and police later arrested Murdoch after a large manhunt. Falconio's body was never found, and Murdoch is currently on trial."

seems like a bit of a scam to me not saying murdoch didnt or did do it, just not alot of evedence, and there holding his past agaisnt him, he used to be a hells angel and he had been prison etc...which i dont think helped him,and they never found the body----and the british woman who was travleing had been haveing an affair so i think its a bit shady. good film tho---grimey