Highly Overrated But Still Good

Great Film overall

The movie turns out to be a little better than the average. Starting from a romantic formula often seen in the cinema, it ends in the most predictable (and somewhat bland) way.

After playing with our expectations, this turns out to be a very different sort of film.

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.

Wolf Creek 2 is the sequel (duh) to 2005's Wolf Creek, and writer/director Greg McLean is once again at the helm.Let me start by saying that I think the first one (WC1) was not an out-of-this-world kind of picture...it wasn't even "scary" to be honest. But it had 1 "redeeming factor" going for it: it was entertaining as hell! And sometimes that's the only thing that matters. Even if a movie isn't "Grade A" material, if it accomplishes the not-so-easy task of "giving you a good time" while watching it...it deserves to be recommended.Also the fact that a movie may not be "mainstream Hollywood" doesn't make it "an instantly bad movie".I just want to establish those grounds so that people can understand that I'm not basing this review on one of those dumb reasons.OK, I'll be brief: Wolf Creek 2 is a REALLY BAD movie. Don't watch it.Well...that's it. Thank you for reading my review. Bye bye!I'm just kidding!"Why is it so bad", you ask? Here's why: while the first movie had some kinda ridiculous moments here and there...it also had some eerie sense of "realism" that pulled you into the action, mainly because you were seeing things, thinking "this definitely could happen...for real!". And that's one of the most powerful things a movie can do, especially a horror one. If the acting and the story has "some" ground where you can latch onto, things can go from "this is cool" to "OMG, this feels so real! I can't watch it anymore! It's disturbing!". And let me tell you: that's a GOOD thing for a horror movie. ;)The acting is not atrocious...but it's not as good as WC1's cast. The only redeeming factor, of course, is John Jarratt, repeating as Mick Taylor, the star of the whole show. The rest of the cast goes from "acceptable" to "mediocre".But the main problem with this movie is the fact that everything is just a huge mess. Aside from 1 or 2 things...nothing has any sort of "plausibility" whatsoever. Almost all the things that happen in this movie are complete and utter NONSENSE.I know, I know...Suspension of disbelief, right? Yeah...no. When you're seeing sequences and behavior that have zero chances of happening in real life it's almost impossible to "suspend" anything.Remember what I said about the first movie earlier? Well this one does almost the opposite of all that.Every couple of minutes you just watch the action unfold while thinking "seriously? You gotta be freakin' kidding me!".And the reason for that is a poorly written script. McLean takes not only the premise of the first movie...but basically everything else too! There's not a single "new" element on this thing. It's like if he simply changed some names here & there, added a lot of nonsense...and said "done". And I'll give you a good example: remember watching the Droopy the dog cartoons while growing up? Remember how he had the "ability" to appear anywhere in a blink? No matter what? Well now apply that cartoonish approach to a human being and tell me: is it still funny?And you know why they did that on the cartoon? Because that was an easy way to simply not care about any situation: if the dog can appear anywhere no matter what, you can write any nonsense and everything will be fine at the end. And that's exactly what McLean did on his script. Some truly lazy way of not having to care about what happens on screen...because the main character can do basically impossible things, allowing him to get away with anything.Bottom line: if you're able to completely shutdown your brain while watching a movie maybe this one will be "almost bad" for you. Otherwise there's no way a smart person will be able to withstand so many ridiculous plot holes and nonsensical "twists" without trying to crush the TV in the process.This is an obvious attempt to cash in on the success of Wolf Creek while not caring about trying to develop new things and/or telling a coherent story. This is as bad as sequels can go.Save yourself of wasting almost 2 hours on this one...and just watch the first movie.

One of the best horror films of recent years was the Australian "Wolf Creek". Its success has lead to this belated sequel, simply entitled "Wolf Creek 2", (and now a television series in production), which is even more effective and a lot nastier than the original. John Jarratt's Mick Taylor is still out there, slicing up backpackers; first a couple of young Germans run up against him and then Ryan Corr's gutsy Pommie falls foul of him in the middle of nowhere. This is a nerve-shredder of the first order, terrifically played by Jarratt and to a slightly lesser extent Corr and brilliantly directed, once again, by Greg McLean with a couple of nice nods in the direction of both "Duel" and "The Night of the Hunter". Terrifying and terrifyingly funny in almost equal measure.

I'm totally worried that wolf creek is about to become a sleazy parody of itself.people have already remarked on the cgi kangaroos in 2 . as an old time busker,woodsman,hitcher , busker myself - John Jarrat's characterful portrayal of Mike Taylor is a classic spin off if you like of the wild guy Crocodile Dundee who stormed our screens in the 80's - 'Thats not a knife - this is a knife!'.Mick is a really cool Ozzy name,and my dad and brother are both Micks.His sideburns,and his Unpredictive responses are what make the film entertaining - not the blasting of half a guys head off.Yeah - shocking but in doing that you are digressing from the ORIGINAL may i say that again 'original' concept.there are several elements in the very first film.1.The desert.2.John Jarrat who sounds just as friendly as Mick Dundee,but spoofs us all.3.the outcome - all the time,it seems so possible for someone to escape but they never do.you have to think about that one - its that essential ingredient that plays with the viewers mind.the first wolf creek,i thought,she's gotta get out alive.2nd wolf creek,English dude was being interviewed - surely he'd get out alive....those elements were the most effective in the film. indeed,i think by now we are all obsessed with why John Jarratt has such a chip on his shoulder.one thing i've never seen done in a film - apart from 'schindlers list' memorably is where a complete control freak of the whole film turns around and offers his victims a way out - a way to in actual fact become the new star of the film.Film makers have got quite boring with their 'bad turns good' story lines - there's more plot to a story than that!I'd like to see John Jarrrat minding his own business on his own land,taking good care of his crops,and nurturing the land before something - either his own past/something in nature changes him and he becomes not just a 'falling down' character but a personal serial killer in his own fantasy of fame.Why do people become total morons? - this is what fascinates people,not necessarily how they kill them - spend less time on effects and shocking death and make up for it in quality story telling - it wins every time.John Jarrat is not dead yet,cos my old man smoked Filterless cigarettes and drank 10 pints a night all his life - he never murdered anyone,but has got 4 Stents and still drinks me under the table.i think there is a possibility for humour in the film,but only if it starts taking the pistol out of itself because it realises its first film was a classic.be very careful - cgi almost had fans turning away in laughter,i think.The details in the first film about him being wood wise,mushrooms,Cappin g the spine like an animal etc were the most frightening aspects of the film - take mushrooms alone - instead of a quiz about Australia,making it all a bit political - why not just a simple unidentified mushroom eating contest - .deathcaps make you hallucinate,feel 100% hungry,totally sane,then you writhe on the floor and die.you could spend your cgi money on a 'bad mushroom event' - just an idea.just don't let the methods and shock value of the cruelty of Mick take over the film,its a great concept and you shouldn't forget the original inspiration.by the way in UK - every bloke thinks they are bear grills.personally - if i ever get as funny as this guy on you tube,then I'll be perfectly happy eating my own.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-SUhJT3g1chave been a massive fan of 'the year my voice broke' since i was 10 oh and that film where they meet up in the desert to shear sheepCheers