Instant Favorite.

what a terribly boring film. I'm sorry but this is absolutely not deserving of best picture and will be forgotten quickly. Entertaining and engaging cinema? No. Nothing performances with flat faces and mistaking silence for subtlety.

It's the kind of movie you'll want to see a second time with someone who hasn't seen it yet, to remember what it was like to watch it for the first time.

All of these films share one commonality, that being a kind of emotional center that humanizes a cast of monsters.

Wolf Creek remains to this day one of my favourite horror movies. I first saw it when I was around 16 years old and it has stayed with me ever since. When I saw Wolf Creek 2 I was dubious, because know from experience that sequels of this kind are usually dire, but this surprised me. Was it better than the first Wolf Creek? No. However, it wasn't THAT much worse. It has everything Wolf Creek has - violence, gore, torture, murder and a chilling villain in Mick Taylor. It does everything Wolf Creek does but with a few small changes here and there. The structure is very similar as is the tone, which does have it's cons in that there were no surprises or twists. Everything felt very predictable and at points it did feel I was watching Wolf Creek again. The strongest part of this movie was of course John Jarratt who plays Mick. He is INCREDIBLE and truly lives and breathes the character of Mick to the point that you can't separate the actor from the character. In fact, I read that when filming Wolf Creek 2, John remained in character in between takes and behind the scenes terrifying the rest of the crew, because he said it was so challenging to fully get into the mind-set of Mick that he had to dedicate himself to it 100%. John's dedication to Mick's character truly shows in this movie. He's a ruthless, manic, evil, cruel psychopath but yet there are moments where you're tricked into believing he is sympathetic towards his victims and may show mercy, only for it to be completely ripped away moments later. Unlike Wolf Creek, Wolf Creek 2 is much more focused on Mick than the victims. However, it doesn't really provide much more of an insight into Mick's past or how and why he came to be the monster he is. All it really does is follow the murders he commits throughout the movie from his POV rather than the victims. It also differs from the first in that it's not set in one specific location and is mostly set in the outback as Mick hunts down his victims. There's also slightly more gore, which at points does feel unnecessary. Yes, Mick is a hardened killer devoid of any human emotion, but was the the purpose or point of completely dissecting his victim? Scenes such as that did feel like they were added just to add to the gore factor but if they hadn't of been included it wouldn't have made a difference. Overall, Wolf Creek 2 is not a movie I will remember like I did with Wolf Creek for the simple reason that it didn't do anything much different than the first movie. However, it is worth a watch for horror fans, particularly those that enjoyed the first movie and are slasher fans.

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.

In a long time I hadn't been as excited about seeing a horror movie as I was when starting to watch Wolf Creek 2. The movie starts in a peaceful pace with two hikers roaming around the Australian outback.I absolutely think that this film achieves the same suspense and terror as the first film (Wolf Creek - 2005), and in my opinion is just as good. Without spoiling anything, the very first scene of the movie grabs the viewer right in with it. The scene is also one of the best opening scenes I've seen in a horror movie, with the amazing performance of John Jarratt, who fits the role of his character better than I could've ever imagined.In conclusion, if you dig horror movies, you won't be disappointed after seeing this one. Definitely check it out.

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.