katmeow
Bluelight Crew
[Copied from Aust Social]
Went and saw Wolf Creek tonight. I'd read several reviews ranging from a 'best horror film in ages' to 'I walked out because of the sadistic violence'. Anyway, I tried to put all of that aside and judge impartially, but to be honest, I can't say I'm that impressed.
The dialogue at the beginning felt sort of amateurish, the conversation between the three characters seemed stilted and unnatural. One thing I will give the film marks for was the cinematography - the outback scenes looked awesome and really contributed to the sense of isolation. But overall, the first half really dragged on a bit.
John Jarrat was creepy as hell, but in terms of being a horror film - I think there is so much more you can do in terms of suspense than what this film displayed. I didn't really have any edge of the seat/nail biting moments.
As for the violence, yes it was graphic, but I didn't find it any more shocking than some of the other slasher flicks I've seen. Maybe I've become a bit desensitised, but it didn't impact me that much. From the reviews I thought the violence was going to be constant throughout the film. I'm a bit torn between whether I think it was necessary for the story, or whether the film could have been more suspenseful without it. Some of the scariest films I've ever seen actually contain very little blood and gore.
Even though it was based on true events, I found the plot a little farfetched at times and it just ended really suddenly. I didn't walk away feeling particularly entertained, frightened or disgusted... it was a bit of a non-event really.
I give it 2/5 - I was really expecting more...
Anyone else seen it yet?
Went and saw Wolf Creek tonight. I'd read several reviews ranging from a 'best horror film in ages' to 'I walked out because of the sadistic violence'. Anyway, I tried to put all of that aside and judge impartially, but to be honest, I can't say I'm that impressed.
The dialogue at the beginning felt sort of amateurish, the conversation between the three characters seemed stilted and unnatural. One thing I will give the film marks for was the cinematography - the outback scenes looked awesome and really contributed to the sense of isolation. But overall, the first half really dragged on a bit.
John Jarrat was creepy as hell, but in terms of being a horror film - I think there is so much more you can do in terms of suspense than what this film displayed. I didn't really have any edge of the seat/nail biting moments.
As for the violence, yes it was graphic, but I didn't find it any more shocking than some of the other slasher flicks I've seen. Maybe I've become a bit desensitised, but it didn't impact me that much. From the reviews I thought the violence was going to be constant throughout the film. I'm a bit torn between whether I think it was necessary for the story, or whether the film could have been more suspenseful without it. Some of the scariest films I've ever seen actually contain very little blood and gore.
Even though it was based on true events, I found the plot a little farfetched at times and it just ended really suddenly. I didn't walk away feeling particularly entertained, frightened or disgusted... it was a bit of a non-event really.
I give it 2/5 - I was really expecting more...
Anyone else seen it yet?
Last edited: