Karry Best movie of this year hands down!

Actuakers One of my all time favorites.

Stoutor It's not great by any means, but it's a pretty good movie that didn't leave me filled with regret for investing time in it.

Roy Hart If you're interested in the topic at hand, you should just watch it and judge yourself because the reviews have gone very biased by people that didn't even watch it and just hate (or love) the creator. I liked it, it was well written, narrated, and directed and it was about a topic that interests me.

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.

ericrnolan Is "Wolf Creek 2" (2013) a well made film? Yes. It's exceptionally well made. Would I recommend it? I'm not sure.I'd rate it a perfect 10. Its technical expertise in undeniable. The cast is roundly excellent. John Jarratt is absolutely perfect in the role he seems born for. He's so effectively menacing as this film's serial killer that I think I'd find it unnerving even meeting the actor in real life. The only other actor I think I can say that about is Ted Levine, who so indelibly portrayed Buffalo Bill in "Silence of the Lambs" (1991).Ryan Corr is damn perfect, as are the actors in smaller roles. I think Shannon Ashlyn portrays terror better than any other actress I've seen. She isn't just a horror movie "scream queen;" her performance was so skilled that she rises above such a trite label. (And I've seen a lot of horror movies, people.)It's extremely well directed. The conclusion of an action sequence involving a truck must have looked downright stupid on the page, but damn if Greg McLean doesn't make it plausible and shocking.The entire movie is gorgeously shot. It was enough to make me want to visit Australia … if the story didn't make want to stay the hell away from Australia.I just get the impression that some movie studio planned to produce a generic, derivative slasher movie … but just inexplicably employed the best creative talent available for all aspects of its creation.Now, about my reluctance to recommend this … Please understand that this film is incredibly dark, even by horror movie standards. At times it was just too much for me. I actually stopped playing this on Netflix several times to "take a break with something lighter" by watching "The Walking Dead." Yes, you read that right.The story depicted is just brutal. There are very few movies that are too dark for me … I think I could count them on one hand. (And one was 2005's original "Wolf Creek.") And this film is just so masterfully made that its victims seem like real people suffering — something at which the "Saw" films and various other slasher movies rarely succeeded.I honestly think it might have been so "good" that it went past the point of entertaining me. Can I honestly recommend a movie that I felt the need to switch off?You make your own call. Again — this is exceedingly dark material, even by horror movie standards. But if you think you're up to it, watch it.

WhitneylTerry 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.

Michael_Elliott Wolf Creek 2 (2013) ** (out of 4) Mick Taylor (John Jarratt) returns in director Greg Mclean's sequel to his 2005 cult film. This time out Taylor is once again hunting down tourists who have come to Australia and slipped into his territory. WOLF CREEK 2 is pretty much the first film done all over again with just a new group of characters to be brutally tortured and murdered. If you enjoyed the first film then there's not too much doubt that you'll also enjoy this one, although at the same time it's safe to say you'll hate this if you hated the first. I thought the first film was decent in its own right but I'm still a little confused why it was so controversial and why so many people were "shocked" by it. Both films aren't really nearly as graphic as some of the film's in this genre.With all of that said, there's some nice moments scattered throughout WOLF CREEK 2 but it's still nothing overly special. I'd say the best thing about the picture is the performance by Jarratt who clearly seems to be enjoying playing this evil character who lives to do nothing but torture. I think Jarratt is quite natural in how creepy he is but the only thing that hampers him is some rather silly lines of dialogue. The supporting players fit their roles nicely, although no one really stands out. The gore is pretty much what you'd expect, although it is a bit turned down from the previous film. The cinematography and music score are better than average and there's no doubt that Mclean knows how to tell a story.WOLF CREEK 2 runs on a bit too long and there's not enough tension to carry the film but it's certainly better than a lot of the films in the genre.