Simplicity has its advantages. Sometimes, a simple story well told is more compelling than complex and convoluted tales. Often, a simplistic approach can make a scary concept that much more frightening. Cinematic examples of this phenomenon might include the original Texas Chain Saw Massacre, and more recently, the August Underground films, where a bare-bones approach only heightened the tension and outright fear that we, as audiences, experienced while watching them. Indeed, that simplicity made us would-be participants in those films. We felt what the characters were feeling (in different ways), and we saw what they saw. So, you have simplicity, and you have immersion. If you have a film that uses those two things, and uses them well, then it stands to reason that you should have a scary, engaging movie, right? Well, not always, but in the case of Greg McLean’s Wolf Creek, it just works, and it’s pretty fucking scary stuff. It’s a simple story, well-told, and its only goal is to scare the bejeezus out of you. This is going to be one of those flicks that divides audiences, much like The Blair Witch Project did before. So, I’ve invoked a handful of fairly disparate, “zeitgeist-ish” movies. Can Wolf Creek live up to those lofty expectations and comparisons? Stick around…
The synopsis...
In another “ripped from the headlines” story, that of the still unsolved “Backpacker killings” in the Australian Outback in the 1990’s, Wolf Creek begins with a trio of kids getting ready for a combination road-trip/backpacking excursion to the titular “Creek”. “Wolf Creek”, as it turns out, isn’t so much a “creek” as it is a massive meteorite impact crater in the desolate heart of the Outback. Our protagonists consist of an Aussie “playa”-type fellow named “Ben” (Nathan Phillips), and a pair of vacationing English gals named Kristy (Kestie Morassi) and Liz (the subtly gorgeous Cassandra Magrath). They’re likeable enough kids, unlike most of the characters we’re subjected to in this kind of movie. They’re simply friends. Liz has a crush on Ben, as does Kristy, but she’s willing to “step down” and let Liz have Ben because, well, sometimes that’s what friends do. Ben’s a reasonably “together” and decent guy, though it’s suggested that he and Kristy might have had a drunken fling the night before leaving on their trip. Ben scrounges up a beat-up car, and the three of them pack their gear and start their long trip. Upon reaching their destination…or rather, the outskirts of their destination; Wolf Creek itself is only accessible via a three hour hike from the “main” road; they hoof it to the crater. After soaking in the wonder and awe of the scene, our intrepid party makes its way back to the car which, naturally, won’t start. Then it starts raining…hard. Then it gets dark. Stranded, they have no choice but to stay put and wait for a Good Samaritan to happen by and help them out of their situation. That help comes in the dead of night in the form of one Mick Taylor (John Jarratt), who pulls up in his clunky behemoth of a truck. Mick’s an odd sort, to be sure, but the kids take him for nothing more than a “Crocodile Dundee” type of guy…an old-time Aussie bloke who still says things like “pooftah” and “g’day, mate”. He’s such an amiable fellow, and he’s so willing to help the three kids that we instantly like this guy. Of course, it wouldn’t be a spoiler of any significance to say that Mick is all of those things, but he also harbors a decidedly…ahem…dark side, and soon, he’s towed the car (with the three kids in it) back to his “home”, which he’s built in an abandoned mining camp that is not only some great distance away from Wolf Creek, but is also in an area even more remote and even less familiar to our trio of backpackers. Still, they’re grateful enough, and when Mick suggests that he can have their car fixed by the next morning, our heroes settle down for the night in front of a roaring fire. And then, the kangaroo feces really hits the rapidly-rotating blades, as it were. Suffice it to say that extreme ugliness ensues.
At a glance, it’s understandable that many critics…and too-jaded fans…are identifying Wolf Creek as just another entry in the mainstream so-called “torture porn” subgenre of horror films, as supposedly typified by such films as The Devil’s Rejects, Hostel and the recent Hills Have Eyes remake. I would contend that Wolf Creek is the best of the bunch. Clearly, these films have much in common…at least on the surface. Rejects was a very enjoyable southern-fried nightmare that had its tongue planted firmly in cheek. Hills had more on its mind than mere torture…it was a geopolitical metaphor. Hostel was, well…it was Hostel…it belonged to its own genre, the “Eli Roth Film” genre. Wolf Creek, however, is really more (stripped to the essence) a “true crime thriller” than a straight-up “horror” film. Sure, McLean’s self-professed intention was to scare the crap out of the audience, but it’s all too easy to forget that these events aren’t all that removed from reality. That just makes it scarier, of course. These characters are fictional, but their basic situation isn’t. The villain is fictional, but his motivations and actions aren’t. Stuff like this happens all-too often in the “real world”, and sometimes it’s…ahem…nice to have a reminder that serial killers and their hapless victims aren’t just fodder for scoop-hungry journalists and 24-hour news channels. One might argue that, since these events do happen so frequently, there’s no need or point in showing stuff like this on the screen. Maybe. I’m not sure. That’s one of those issues that has followed the genre from the beginning, and will continue to follow it for the rest of time. All I know is that Wolf Creek is one of the more effective, beautifully executed horror/thrillers of recent vintage. Despite what “concerned citizens” would have you believe, this isn’t just torture porn. Even in this Unrated version, the violence is very intense, but isn’t as graphic as it could have been. The intent wasn’t to gross you out, but to make you nervous and give you the creeps. Yes, there are some palpably nasty moments (particularly the protracted, drawn out torture and humiliation of one tied-up victim, and the notorious “head on a stick” sequence), but these moments belie a deeper, more insidious tone. When the killer goes into full-on psycho/sociopath mode, he’s a truly frightening figure. And when the characters scream in terror at what they see and experience, we feel it too…we’re right there with them. That’s the ultimate success of Wolf Creek…it absolutely forces you into the shoes of the victims. Unlike most serial-killer movies…even most “Psychokiller” movies…Wolf Creek never puts you into the shoes of the killer. That is to say, at no time do we witness the events through the eyes of or from the perspective of the killer. It’s all about the victims, baby…and that’s pretty scary.
Movies like this just won’t work without solid, engaging performances. All too often, movies that “seriously” examine this kind of subject matter (regardless of budget or studio affiliation) are done in by performances that are hammy, wildly over the top, or just plain bad. Luckily, McLean and company have assembled quite a fine cast. Two performances really stand out for me, though. As “Liz”, Cassandra Magrath is downright beautiful…kind of cross between Keira Knightley and Reese Witherspoon, and she’s easily the most likeable of the bunch. She’s vulnerable, but doesn’t seem to take too much shit from anyone. She’s realistically delicate and sensitive, too. She reacts to things the way a girl of her background and age would, with confusion, fear, and revulsion. Ostensibly, she’s the “main character” (at least McLean seems to establish her as the most sympathetic and therefore relatable of the three protagonists), so we spend much of the film seeing events more or less from her perspective. The other performance that just works is John Jarrat’s “Mick Taylor. This isn’t some over-the-top one-liner spouting killing machine. He’s all too human, and has some serious vulnerabilities of his own. If, through whatever machinations, the story took place in a less-rural or at least more populous area of Australia, Mick wouldn’t have a chance in hell at doing the things he does. No, his chief advantage is the isolation and privacy that his surroundings afford him. And boy, does he take advantage of that situation. He’s a “hunter of people”, but he’s not just some stereotypical “great white hunter”. He’s a truly twisted yet ingenious guy…in the way that many real-life serial killers are. He’s an expert at exploiting weakness, using whatever is available, and he’s a damned fine shot. Hell, I’ve encountered people like Mick in my lifetime…except that they weren’t serial killers. Wolf Creek makes no attempt to explain or rationalize Mick’s actions, nor does it make excuses for them. Mick just is…and through Jarrat’s nuanced, excellent performance, he’s brought to vivid, terrifying life. Not since The Silence of the Lambs have two performances carried a film so well as do Magrath’s and Jarrat’s. Fine, fine work.
There’s just one more character to discuss. The Australian Outback; vast, desolate, barren, and possessed of fewer people per square kilometer than nearly any other place on earth, is as much a villain in Wolf Creek as Mick Taylor. The Outback has been similarly used before, notably in the Mad Max films, Picnic at Hanging Rock, and others. It’s beautiful…almost too beautiful sometimes, but that beauty is among the most crimson of red herrings. It’s a place dominated by Darwinian ethics; “survival of the fittest” is the order of the day. The creature most capable of dominating and utilizing its surroundings is bound to “win”, in the grand scheme of things. It’s a good thing that Darwin didn’t touch on mental and/or emotional stability as being necessary in that equation, or else we’d be in logical trouble. The landscape is both heaven and hell, where sky meets earth, both birthplace of beauty and graveyard of the weak. McLean and cinematographers Will Gibson and Brandon Trost have wisely utilized their setting to its fullest potential. Things as simple as a sunset or a flock of wild birds taking wing add to the tension here. These aren’t just purty pictures…they’re establishing shots. They established just how alone our protagonists are and just how completely fucked they are, as well. They’re in the wilderness…alone and frightened. Much like The Blair Witch Project did for Maryland woodlands, Wolf Creek will do for the Outback. This might be a pleasant enough place to take a leisurely hike in full daylight, but in the dark? Look out. Here there be tygers…
So, we’ve got all of these highly-successful elements in place here; does that make Wolf Creek a perfect movie? No. Not by a mile. But, what it succeeds in doing, it succeeds completely, and what it fails in doing, it only fails by inches. What failures, you ask? Well, McLean’s background is as a painter. That’s immediately apparent, as painterly skill is used to construct each scene, and not just visually. What we’re left with is a film that, on occasion, feels more like a collection of vignettes than a cohesive assemblage of scenes, dialogue, and set pieces. It’s nothing major, and the situation is helped immensely by the constant and ever-mounting tension that McLean generates. I don’t know if the film was shot “in sequence”, but it sure feels like it, and that’s a good thing. There’s an immediacy to the action, the dialogue, etc, that does make it feel like a naturally developing story, so even where there is a failure, it only serves to expose a deeper and more significant success. I guess that’s what they call “skill” or “savvy” or whatever. There is one scene, too, that stands out as being a bit unnecessary. That scene takes place fairly early in the film, when our protagonists stop at gas station/diner that’s officially on the borders of “the middle of fucking nowhere”. It’s a drawn out sequence, and I’ll not “ruin” it for you, but there’s only part of the sequence that is relevant to the story. The rest of it betrays the solid “economy of action” that McLean worked so hard to establish throughout the rest of the movie. So it’s a small gripe, but I thought it worth mentioning. Whatever.
This Unrated version DVD release from Dimension Films is suitably excellent. First up, we have the transfer. Wolf Creek was shot on HD Video in the 1.78:1 aspect ratio, and that proportion is maintained here. What can I say…it’s a great print. I don’t own an HDTV, but the transfer looked absolutely spectacular on the two different TV screens, one CRT computer monitor, and one LCD screen I used. For a movie that relies so much on its “look” for its success, the print quality is quite important, and I wasn’t disappointed. HD Video doesn’t have to look like standard “shot on video”, and McLean and his cinematographers seemed to realize this. The print looks more like regular “film” than film does, except without a trace of grain or grit. This is definitely one of the better prints of a movie that I’ve had the pleasure to view in a long time. The sound is, likewise, quite good. It’s presented in both English and Spanish DD 5.1 Surround tracks, and while it’s not exactly a bass-booming, audio-rich movie, the sound quality is uniformly excellent…especially at night. With true surround-sound headphones. Eek. On the “extras” front, we’ve got a great commentary with director Greg McLean, who shares the mic with executive producer Matt Hearn as well as the two leading actresses. It’s a fine commentary, balancing the dry and the funny, the technical and the anecdotal with equal measure. There’s also a making-of featurette, which goes a bit beyond the back-slapping, shameless self promotion “oh, the cast was so great to work with”-type fluff we’ve become accustomed to seeing. Here, they actually discuss the making of the film, again balancing the technical aspects of the production as well as anecdotal experiences of the cast and crew. Oh, and there’s a completely pointless deleted scene (guy goes into a store, buys a handful of maps…leaves store), and the requisite trailer. Again, the best thing about this release is the exemplary digital transfer…it’s almost an excuse, in and of itself, to go out and buy an HDTV…
Wolf Creek, at the risk of overstatement, is a damned fine film…one of the best horror films I’ve seen in a dingo’s age. It’s a film that draws you in, not through manipulation of events or playing with perceptions, but through skill, the strength of the performances, and the strength of the premise. Again, it’s not a complex story…in fact, it’s quite simplistic. But, as we all know, simplicity just works in films like this. It’s unfair to simply level accusations of sadism and cruelty at those involved in making Wolf Creek. While it’s not a “message” movie (it’s very W.Y.S.I.W.Y.G.), it’s so expertly crafted and engaging as to make the gorge rise, and to literally make you grip the ends of your chair while watching the film. Not too many movies have made me do that lately. Far too few, in fact. We forget, all too often, that these films are called “horror” for a reason. They’re not supposed to make you feel good or warm and fuzzy. They’re supposed to, ideally, smack you upside the head and make you scared…something that Wolf Creek does better than most. I give it the highest possible recommendation and it gets the Atrocities Cinema Essential award! Go out there and buy this sucker…now!
Simplicity has its advantages. Sometimes, a simple story well told is more compelling than complex and convoluted tales. Often, a simplistic approach can make a scary concept that much more frightening. Cinematic examples of this phenomenon might include the original Texas Chain Saw Massacre, and more recently, the August Underground films, where a bare-bones approach only heightened the tension and outright fear that we, as audiences, experienced while watching them. Indeed, that simplicity made us would-be participants in those films. We felt what the characters were feeling (in different ways), and we saw what they saw. So, you have simplicity, and you have immersion. If you have a film that uses those two things, and uses them well, then it stands to reason that you should have a scary, engaging movie, right? Well, not always, but in the case of Greg McLean’s Wolf Creek, it just works, and it’s pretty fucking scary stuff. It’s a simple story, well-told, and its only goal is to scare the bejeezus out of you. This is going to be one of those flicks that divides audiences, much like The Blair Witch Project did before. So, I’ve invoked a handful of fairly disparate, “zeitgeist-ish” movies. Can Wolf Creek live up to those lofty expectations and comparisons? Stick around…
