Post by StevePulaski on Jan 17, 2012 9:35:05 GMT -5
One of my favorite scenes in Wolf Creek.
Rating: ★★★
It's the mid 2000's, three new phenomenons are sweeping the horror nation; torture porn, PG-13 horror films, and remakes. Originality is slim, darkness is setting in, and companies are racing to see what new young, fresh teenagers they could include in their new films. 2005 was a very, very limited year for horror. Looking back, Wolf Creek seems like the only main horror film of the year. If all we got in the year 2005 was this, it was still a good year for horror.
Wolf Creek is a bleak, terrifying, yet intelligent horror film that uses its setting, its characters, and its head. Despite coming out two weeks before Eli Roth's Hostel, I think I'll do a comparison between the two. Both are very similar in quality, but one stems from the land of mediocrity while comes from the land of superiority.
The story of Hostel was three backpackers travel to Europe where they go strip club hopping before landing in a mad-man's clutches who loves to torture tourists upon traveling to Bratislava. The story of Wolf Creek follows two British backpacking girls and one Australian man as they plan to travel Wolf Creek National Park where they plan to see a crater formed by an enormous meteorite.
Upon returning to the car, it doesn't start. When they are just about to pack it in, along comes a tall, ominous Aussie named Mick (Jarratt) who agrees to tow them back to his house. The first rule in horror films is you never go to an ominous man's house, but later that night, they awake to find themselves tied up, gagged, and victim to the man's bloody and gruesome torture games.
Hostel used fifty minutes of its ninety-four minute runtime to showcase the three men at strip clubs, having sex, and just plain fooling around. No tension, atmosphere, or feeling was constructed, which made the rest of the film to be a tedious and artificial exercise. Wolf Creek constructs its characters efficiently. Not exquisitely, perfectly, or uniquely, but in an acceptable and likable form. If there's one rule that should be etched into the books of torture films it should be to establish characters believably and realistically. This makes the torture scenes a lot more personal seeing as we know enough about the characters to care. Watching random, identity-lacking people getting torture becomes weary and monotonous because there is no substance or likability in the characters to begin with. Something so ignored in horror films today is something that is so vital.
Wolf Creek uses sharp, dirty colors to enhance its eerie atmosphere. Hostel didn't do that too much. Sure, the lair where the men were tortured was vaguely terrifying, but there was no atmosphere that lied in it. It had the tension and physical qualities of a dark basement. The whole fifty minutes where the film was recreating someone's masturbatory fantasies, it could've been establishing characters instead of caricatures (IE: the smart guy, the street smart guy, and the pig) and brewing a terrifying setting.
The color scheme in Wolf Creek feels like someone rubbed red dirt all over the camera. As derogatory of a remark that might seem, I can assure you, that's a compliment on the film's part. It reminded me of the original Texas Chainsaw Massacre, a tension-driven, genre-paver of a film. In that film, the atmosphere was close to pitch-perfect.
The final comparison I'll make between the two horror films is the location. Hostel and Wolf Creek take place outside of the US, ironically, outside of the country where they're most successful. Hostel shows the dangers in Bratislava, while Wolf Creek shows the dangers in the Australian Outback. This is the part where both films succeed, yet, Wolf Creek does more. Both films showcase the unfamiliar setting of another country. The dangers and the unfamiliarity of the location play a big role in the film. We've seen so many horror films that take place in the woods and on American soil it almost doesn't cut it anymore. Wolf Creek ignores the cliches and sets it in the land down under where people might wind up down under.
Needless to say, Wolf Creek isn't perfect. It's obviously mean-spirited and grotesque, then again, that's something you tend to expect. It's not as gory or as vile as some have labeled it, but it seems almost more realistic that way. I believe the biggest problem I had was the lighting of the film. Lighting has been a continuous problem in horror films, and Wolf Creek can't seem to nail it down perfectly. Still, despite the dirty content, it's a well-done torture film in its own right. A title very difficult to achieve.
NOTE: Even if you're still skeptical on your viewing, I'd also like to make clear that John Jarratt's performance is easily some of the finest work I've seen in a horror movie in the last couple of years.
Starring: John Jarratt, Nathan Phillips, Kestie Morassi, and Cassandra Magrath. Directed by: George McLean.