If you don't like this, we can't be friends.

Don't listen to the negative reviews

Blistering performances.

The film never slows down or bores, plunging from one harrowing sequence to the next.

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" has outback serial killer Mick Taylor (John Jarratt) at it again, hacking and slashing his way through ignorant tourists and backpackers who stumble into his desolate backyard.I remember seeing "Wolf Creek" right after Christmas 2005 when it was released in the United States. It was truly one of the most gut-churning, oppressive horror films I'd ever seen—it managed to capture the kind of raw grit that made Tobe Hooper's "Texas Chain Saw Massacre" such a terrifying sight to behold. In short, it blew me away.I was hesitant about a sequel to the film, so went into this with low expectations, in spite of it having the film's original writer/director at its helm. "Wolf Creek 2" takes the same formula of the original film, but strips away the frayed edges and instead turns the looney antagonist into a franchise movie villain, akin to Freddy Krueger or Jason Voorhees—which, in my opinion, is a problematic move to make given that the anonymity of the backwoods character is what made the original film so unsettling.That said, "Wolf Creek 2" is a technically well-made film. The cinematography of the the Australian outback is even more lush than in the original film, and it is punctuated with outstandingly graphic and creative murder sequences. There is also a ridiculous and fun underground finale that is reminiscent of "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2." The cast delivers solid performances as well, and Jarratt yokes the looney Mick character to the edges of black comedy. Ultimately, I cannot say that "Wolf Creek 2" is a bad film, because it's not. It is suspenseful, well- shot, and appropriately gruesome. As a hard-edged survival thriller, it hits its marks. But I cannot help but mourn the major tonal shift between it and its predecessor. The original film was truly something special—this sequel, while a solid flick, just doesn't have the same edge—and it seems largely to be the fault of the writers' decision to turn an anonymous backcountry looney into a one- liner slewing, flesh-and-bone Freddy Kreuger figure. 6/10.

I wasn't super impressed with the first Wolf Creek, but it had enough psychological elements to keep it going. And although I LOVE gore/slasher flicks, there are certain films that just don't fit that bill; this is one of them and it's absolutely terrible. There were moments I squirmed in my seat, but it wasn't from fear, it was from sheer embarrassment knowing that grown men (probably with families to support) blatantly stole money from the producers, wrote a crappy movie that took 2 lines of coke and some whiskey to write overnight, and pocketed the rest to save up for a 3rd (just wait, it's going to happen).They noticeably tried to make Mick into a character we want to see more of, but he's no Jason Voerhees, Michael or Charles Lee Ray. Each of these characters has a history and a reason for their madness; Mick is just crass and one-dimensional. On top of stupid mistakes like creating fires all over the place after you mutilate bodies (two of which are officers), when you could just as easily roll a car into the outback and no one would be any wiser, it's just plain mean-spirited. Pointless (and atrocious CGI) kangaroo slaughtering, shooting an old woman in the back and then point-blank in the face. You can't mix realistic psychological horror elements with nonsense, if you're going to try to break the rules of the slasher/serial killer genre, do it well or don't do it at all...I hate that I watched this movie.

The first Wolf Creek was brutal and unforgiving. Nothing out-of-the ordinary in story terms except that (spoiler alert) it had some decent performances and an unhappy ending. Wolf Creek 2 (spoilers ahead) doesn't have enough ideas to create one coherent story, so it combines three and allows some segments to become long and drawn-out. With obvious nods to Alien and Duel in places, performances are again decent but the lack of variety in the final act becomes boring. The film regularly pushes you over the limit of horror into abandon — too much violence and gore becomes tasteless and somehow turns you off to the peril. If this dude is gonna get away with it all the time; if the victims are all gonna make such dumb mistakes, why should I care?The opening scene is interesting — giving you a touch of empathy for the bad guy — but the rest doesn't live up to it. There's a modicum of hope that good will triumph, but not much. It could've been something different and memorable, but it's just a slasher film in the outback, despite its increased budget. Obviously, the producers want to keep this franchise going rather than just make a good two-film saga.Oh, and the Fargo-style, "this is based on a true story," lie has been done-to-death. You can stop that now.