Last night I watched Wolf Creek alone and survived...
December 8th 2006 21:05
As you will know if you've read my earlier posts that I'm not very good at watching creepy films alone. I'm too scared to do it. I don’t do it… usually.
Well, last night I noticed that for the first time Wolf Creek was on Foxtel. I wasn’t sure whether to watch it or stick with the safety and humour of Will and Grace. I decided that I would watch the first half of Wolf Creek and see how that went; I didn’t have to commit to the whole story if I was too frightened. And no one need know if could only watch half… I didn’t have to be ashamed.
I was surprised that the first half of the film was dedicated to building the suspense with quite a strong storyline of the backpackers and their Aussie counterpart’s relationship. According to a couple of reviews I read, many people complained about this build-up, but I think it was an effective device from director McLean' to make sure we cared about these people, and would stay with them during their ordeal.
Their trouble begins when they encounter car troubles in the middle of the isolated Wolf Creek area. They are relieved when Mick Taylor (Jarratt), pops up and is willing to help with their car troubles. He offers to tow them to his camp and to fix their car for free and they accept…
When Liz awakens to find herself tied up in a shed, we realise this is when the really chilling stuff us about to happen. She’s resourceful, she manages to escape and discovers Mick torturing Kristy. She shoots Mick with one of his own guns and escapes from the camp with Kristy in one of Mick's vehicles. Frustratingly, Liz's shot only maims Mick (of course, or else the film would be finished half-way through) and he follows the pair. With a cruel glint in his eyes.
The film is sadistic, both physically and emotionally. Mick relishes the various forms of torture he inflicts on the trio and his leer is haunting. I had to keep reassuring myself, ‘It's only a movie,’ and I kept an eye on the time, reassured by knowing what time it was going to finish. It was so realistic and so unflinching in portraying what happens, I felt as if someone was always peeking around a corner with a camera, filming an actual event. Paradoxically, it’s this realism that has kept me away from the film in the past, knowing that if I could visualise this possibly happening, then it would be too hard to watch. I knew that it was ambiguously based on real-life events and was worried that I would never travel through Australia as a result of seeing the film.
The film was effective and mesmerising. I wanted the characters to survive and I enjoyed (to an extent) the thrill of watching their plight. It was gory, chilling and suspenseful.
However, the ending perplexed and frustrated me. If you haven’t seen the film, then don’t carry on reading…
The final scene of the film reports, in mockumentary style, that Mick was never brought to justice; instead, Ben was accused of the murder of the two girls, but acquitted. This just seems too unlikely to me, there was a plethora of obvious evidence at the ranch-type house that Mick used. Surely this was enough to prove his involvement? There were rows of hanging dead people in the shed, pictures on the wall, video footage and an array of cars. To me this seemed like enough evidence. How he managed to get away without even being a suspect bothered me and detracted from my experience.
What did everyone else think of the ending of the film? I know I’m behind the times with this film as it was made last year, but I’m curious. And a bit proud that I managed to watch it… alone…
Well, last night I noticed that for the first time Wolf Creek was on Foxtel. I wasn’t sure whether to watch it or stick with the safety and humour of Will and Grace. I decided that I would watch the first half of Wolf Creek and see how that went; I didn’t have to commit to the whole story if I was too frightened. And no one need know if could only watch half… I didn’t have to be ashamed.
I was surprised that the first half of the film was dedicated to building the suspense with quite a strong storyline of the backpackers and their Aussie counterpart’s relationship. According to a couple of reviews I read, many people complained about this build-up, but I think it was an effective device from director McLean' to make sure we cared about these people, and would stay with them during their ordeal.
Their trouble begins when they encounter car troubles in the middle of the isolated Wolf Creek area. They are relieved when Mick Taylor (Jarratt), pops up and is willing to help with their car troubles. He offers to tow them to his camp and to fix their car for free and they accept…
When Liz awakens to find herself tied up in a shed, we realise this is when the really chilling stuff us about to happen. She’s resourceful, she manages to escape and discovers Mick torturing Kristy. She shoots Mick with one of his own guns and escapes from the camp with Kristy in one of Mick's vehicles. Frustratingly, Liz's shot only maims Mick (of course, or else the film would be finished half-way through) and he follows the pair. With a cruel glint in his eyes.
The film is sadistic, both physically and emotionally. Mick relishes the various forms of torture he inflicts on the trio and his leer is haunting. I had to keep reassuring myself, ‘It's only a movie,’ and I kept an eye on the time, reassured by knowing what time it was going to finish. It was so realistic and so unflinching in portraying what happens, I felt as if someone was always peeking around a corner with a camera, filming an actual event. Paradoxically, it’s this realism that has kept me away from the film in the past, knowing that if I could visualise this possibly happening, then it would be too hard to watch. I knew that it was ambiguously based on real-life events and was worried that I would never travel through Australia as a result of seeing the film.
The film was effective and mesmerising. I wanted the characters to survive and I enjoyed (to an extent) the thrill of watching their plight. It was gory, chilling and suspenseful.
However, the ending perplexed and frustrated me. If you haven’t seen the film, then don’t carry on reading…
The final scene of the film reports, in mockumentary style, that Mick was never brought to justice; instead, Ben was accused of the murder of the two girls, but acquitted. This just seems too unlikely to me, there was a plethora of obvious evidence at the ranch-type house that Mick used. Surely this was enough to prove his involvement? There were rows of hanging dead people in the shed, pictures on the wall, video footage and an array of cars. To me this seemed like enough evidence. How he managed to get away without even being a suspect bothered me and detracted from my experience.
What did everyone else think of the ending of the film? I know I’m behind the times with this film as it was made last year, but I’m curious. And a bit proud that I managed to watch it… alone…
| 97 |
| Vote |
Add To: 
subscribe to this blog
Comment by Bryn
Horrorphile
nice post.
(just quietly) yeah, the ending kinda bothered me too, but the journey up to that point had been so well executed (pardon the pun) that i kinda let it go ...
I actually thought (with the Kombi van) that the story was going to incorporate the Falconio murder as well ....
I rate Wolf Creek (reservations aside) as one of the best horror films of the past decade.
Comment by Tracy
Movies and Life
Thanks for your comments. Yes, I also though they were going to incorporate the Falconio murder too. I really liked the film and enjoyed stretching myself beyond my usual comfort zone. I read some reviews that said it was unnecessarily sadistically violent, but I didn't think so, especially as there was a strong plot and character background. It's definitely an excellent film, but I don't think I'll be trotting around that area in an old car for a while.
Tracy
Comment by Bryn
Horrorphile
Comment by Tracy
Movies and Life
Comment by BenP
They can't utilise evidence that they don't have.