Titreenp SERIOUSLY. This is what the crap Hollywood still puts out?

Dorathen Better Late Then Never

mraculeated The biggest problem with this movie is it’s a little better than you think it might be, which somehow makes it worse. As in, it takes itself a bit too seriously, which makes most of the movie feel kind of dull.

Philippa All of these films share one commonality, that being a kind of emotional center that humanizes a cast of monsters.

shannen-l-c Wolf Creek remains to this day one of my favourite horror movies. I first saw it when I was around 16 years old and it has stayed with me ever since. When I saw Wolf Creek 2 I was dubious, because know from experience that sequels of this kind are usually dire, but this surprised me. Was it better than the first Wolf Creek? No. However, it wasn't THAT much worse. It has everything Wolf Creek has - violence, gore, torture, murder and a chilling villain in Mick Taylor. It does everything Wolf Creek does but with a few small changes here and there. The structure is very similar as is the tone, which does have it's cons in that there were no surprises or twists. Everything felt very predictable and at points it did feel I was watching Wolf Creek again. The strongest part of this movie was of course John Jarratt who plays Mick. He is INCREDIBLE and truly lives and breathes the character of Mick to the point that you can't separate the actor from the character. In fact, I read that when filming Wolf Creek 2, John remained in character in between takes and behind the scenes terrifying the rest of the crew, because he said it was so challenging to fully get into the mind-set of Mick that he had to dedicate himself to it 100%. John's dedication to Mick's character truly shows in this movie. He's a ruthless, manic, evil, cruel psychopath but yet there are moments where you're tricked into believing he is sympathetic towards his victims and may show mercy, only for it to be completely ripped away moments later. Unlike Wolf Creek, Wolf Creek 2 is much more focused on Mick than the victims. However, it doesn't really provide much more of an insight into Mick's past or how and why he came to be the monster he is. All it really does is follow the murders he commits throughout the movie from his POV rather than the victims. It also differs from the first in that it's not set in one specific location and is mostly set in the outback as Mick hunts down his victims. There's also slightly more gore, which at points does feel unnecessary. Yes, Mick is a hardened killer devoid of any human emotion, but was the the purpose or point of completely dissecting his victim? Scenes such as that did feel like they were added just to add to the gore factor but if they hadn't of been included it wouldn't have made a difference. Overall, Wolf Creek 2 is not a movie I will remember like I did with Wolf Creek for the simple reason that it didn't do anything much different than the first movie. However, it is worth a watch for horror fans, particularly those that enjoyed the first movie and are slasher fans.

Mike LeMar At the beginning, the two cops are driving off after giving Mick a ticket. I thought in two seconds: "Here comes a missile of a bullet from afar to the back of one of their heads, leaving the other to endure the car spinning out of control and off the road, leading him to be mangled, unable to move, but alive of course just so that Mick can come along to finish him off face to face as he helplessly begs Mick for his life." How he begs is telling him that he can make the charge against him go away. I thought, "Or he could just make YOU go away." Then Mick goes, "...Or...I can make YOU go away." As for unnecessary gore, I'm talking about chopping the guy's body all up into every little segment he possibly can once he kills the young couple. Gore, like this, for example, isn't scary. It's just gross. And also pointless, because we get it: he's dead; so move on.

WakenPayne I caught wind of this and I genuinely loved John Jarrat's performance and despite the original being considered a straight up horror movie, I knew this one was leading more towards it being a black comedy. I haven't seen the original but I know it's like... the single cash cow in Australian fiction, the rest are bad reality TV Shows. As i said I haven't seen the original but I quite enjoyed this one.The plot, Mick Taylor a "true blue Aussie" casually murders people in the outback, but mostly leans towards tourists because of his racism and... well, Outback Australia is a place with huge stretches of nothing. But enough of that I guess, we then cut to 2 German backpackers going around the Australian Outback and run into Mick and he kills the man but the woman manages to find an English tourist happening to drive by that corner of mostly desert 3 quarters the size of America (I might be wrong about the exact size but my point is clear!). S the English tourist has to run away from Mick but even when he thinks he's shaken him off, he finds a way to catch up to him.What is a problem with the movie?in a movie with ridiculous scenes I hate that the movie claims to be based on real events. I can see how it was inspired by them with Mick Taylor being very similar to real-life Australian serial killer Ivan Milat (in the sense that he also murdered tourists and put them in remote locations) but as far as anything else goes. it's just little bits and pieces rather than "Yes, this happened in exactly the same way it did here". But it's clear this movie put an emphasis on black comedy so it's clear that it's not a true story. If anything it should have said "Inspired by" because that way, it would work.The glue that holds this movie together is John Jarratt. He looks like he's having the genuine time of his life with the role. I'd also give praise to the other actors too and I'll say this movie probably has the blackest comedy while still being funny, it succeeds (for me anyway) to laugh at things that were meant to be funny while also thinking "I think I might be horrible". I don't think the cinematography is that bad.Whether or not I'd suggest it's worth watching is a genuine mystery to me. It is a pretty good horror/comedy in my opinion but I don't see the humour resonating with everyone. I'd say some of it stands okay as a horror movie as well but that depends on what scares you. John Jarratt however does more than enough to make up for the complaints I have, his performance is just so delightfully hammy it does get entertaining enough so that any parts that aren't as good is almost instantly forgivable every time he delivers a line.

David Arnold Katarina & Rutger are a couple of German backpackers touring across Australia and one of their stops along the way is Wolf Creek Nature Reserve. It's here that they decide to camp for the night, but it's also here that they come across outback bushman, Mick Taylor. Mick tries to "advise" the couple that they aren't allowed to camp there and offers them a lift to a place that does allow it, but when they refuse, Mick doesn't take it too kindly. While Rutger isn't so lucky, Katarina manages to get away and is picked up by unsuspecting traveller, Paul. Soon realising what is going on when Mick shows up, Paul is dragged into a vicious game of cat-and-mouse and a fight for survival.Wolf Creek 2 isn't actually too bad of a sequel, especially if you don't mind watching a movie you don't have to put any thought process into. The 1st one was a bit more on the psychological side rather than gore (even though there were a few gory parts in it). This one, however, is not psychological at all and is much more gorier than the 1st so gore fans should probably enjoy this one more. Basically, this time it really is your average slasher/serial killer movie.The casting isn't too bad again but some of them are a bit annoying in all honesty and there are much more of the usual cliché's along with those "why the hell don't you just...." moments i.e. being chased by a big rig when you're driving a 4-wheel drive jeep. Hmmmmm go over the rough terrain maybe?! John Jarrett does a good job once again as Mick Taylor, but here he's much more vicious than what he was before. Actually, maybe it just seems that way because you see much more of him here. The ending for this one really is a bit of a mess as well in all honesty as it's just not realistic....unless the Australian cops are just that gullible. It just feels that it was rushed a bit too much.Anyway, overall it's not too bad. Not as good as the 1st but still a decent slasher flick.