Review of Wolf Creek (2005) by Mark V — 18 Dec 2009

Although, much to my own surprise and self-disappointment, I tend to be a fan of "torture porn" (at least more often than I should be -- and I hate that label), I found Wolf Creek to be a giant waste of time.

Throughout the entire film, I just kept asking the question, "Why?" Why were the idiot victims making dumb choice after dumb choice, and above all else, why was this highly irritating and obnoxious serial killer going to such lengths to pursue them all over this sizable piece of Australian landscape? In honesty, I mostly wanted the victims to "off" the killer because he was so annoying rather than to accomplish revenge or self-defense.

At least in Funny Games, The Strangers, Eden Lake, or the Saw movies (all "torture porn" classics), you are given something of an understanding as to why you are watching these evil people behave that way (certainly not sympathy, but something of an eerie explanation).

Wolf Creek provides no such sense of, well, story. It's tiresome. The only positive thing I can say for the film is that you'd never know it was so low budget -- there are plenty of decent/impressive shots throughout, and everything is very well staged.

Something else that troubles me is that Roger Ebert gave this movie 0 stars, yet he gave Antichrist 3.5 stars. Both are "torture porn" at its most merit-less and disgusting. In Ebert's review of Antichrist, it seemed that his highest praise of the film was some nonsense regarding the film as being a documentary of the actors partaking in actions in front of a camera.

Well, sure. That's mildly interesting. But also applies to EVERY film ever... not just the ones that Ebert chooses to make excuses for and give high ratings to. Wolf Creek is equally a documentary about actors in front of a camera, is it not? As is Epic Movie? And Gigli? It's simply an excuse, and it's not one that makes this film (or any others) any better.