All screenplays on the simplyscripts.com and simplyscripts.net domain are copyrighted to their respective authors. All rights reserved. This screenplaymay not be used or reproduced for any purpose including educational purposes without the expressed written permission of the author.
Wolf Creek 2 - 2013 - Streaming on Netflix (currently 2860 views)
Dreamscale
Posted: June 25th, 2014, 9:54am
Guest User
I've been waiting...and waiting...and waiting for this, for what seems like forever, and finally, yesterday, it was released in the states on DVD - and, amazingly, Netflix decided to stream it the very same day.
Perfect! Thank you, Netflix!
To say I loved the orignal Wolf Creek is a HUGE understatement. So, I've been waiting for a sequel since 2005, for God's sake! You know what usually happens when you wait for something, expecting to love it, right? Yeah...I know...it happens all the frickin' time to me - like seeing a smoking hot babe in a bar, working my best Brad Pitt imitation, getting her home, planting a wet one on her, and having her rip a belch so repulsive that I have to puke. OK...sorry...that's a little bit off topic...but...sorry.
Well, I'm extremely happy to say that this is not the case with Wolf Creek 2! This is a kickass, high energy, highly entertaining, rollercoaster ride that possibly outdoes the awesome original. Easily one of my favorite movies from the past 5 years, and maybe one of my new faves, period.
It's very different from the original, but also much the same. Really, it's alot more, as everythign is ramped up, everything looks better, and Mick Taylor is in very rare form.
My hat's off to Greg Mclean, as this sequel had to be difficult to write, based on the structure of the original. He pulled it off wonderfully, IMO. Right from the getgo, this is a crazy, wild ride and I advise each viewer to go into this as blind as you can.
Talk about a non standard structure, and you're going to talk about this. Just awesome how things unfold and keep you guessing, or shock the shit out of you. This is one wild ride that I for one will be taking numerous times.
John Jarratt is fantastic as Mick Taylor. I'd say much better than in the original even. This guy oozes character and shows so much with his eyes, his facial expressions, and the words he chooses to use. Seriously, just a great character/Antaganist.
I'm very surprised this never got an American release, as it's a very well put together film with a $7 Million budget. It looks more like a $20 Million flick with beautiful shots of the Aussie outback in both day and night and several well put together setpieces. FX are all on spot and seriously well done!
I'm not going to give anything away, but will say again, this is an awesome horror movie. It's just too bad and actually rather sad that a great film likes this goes DTV in the states, while garbage like Paranormal Whatever pulls in $100 Million. Sorry, but the general movie going public has it wrong, and maybe it's just our youth in general that has it all wrong.
After that glowing of a review I know what I'm watching when I get home from work. I haven't seen the original in years, but I remember being pleasantly surpised by how good it was. Definitely looking forward to it!
I liked the original. It was on TV a while ago and stands up well to a repeated viewing. It's pretty good for what it is.
However, this follow up was bloody awful. Nasty and gruesome. Not a patch on the original.
There was little tension and less plot. The character of Mick was far more interesting when the audience didn't know much about him. Finding out he's a bigot and a racist really didn't help much.
I yawned and prayed it would all end soon. It didn't. I'm still sorry I didn't walk out earlier on.
As a big fan of the original, I had been anticipating this for some time. Watched it. Not bad. 6/10.
The car chases were boring. Seemed like I was playing Far Cry 2 at several points. Just endless driving with no real destination. Fine, you want a car chase, make it exciting. They did about three or four car chases and they were pretty boring because they just went on and on and on... The gore seemed a bit hokey. Way over the top. Too much emphasis was placed on the violence. In the original, it felt real. Here, it almost feels like satire. Perhaps it was.
Whilst I enjoyed, or tried to enjoy the attempt, in the choice of sticking normal format up the ass, it just didn't work in this films favor. I don't know why they chose to go that route. Be different from the original? Make a statement about horror films? I don't know but as a film, I don't think it works. Plus points for trying something different, but negative points for the terrible execution.
John Jarret is an excellent actor, and plays his role as best he can. All actors are faultless. My gripes come with perhaps expectancy that this would be Wolf Creek 1 over again. But I knew they were gonna ramp it up and especially once the director/writer gained a bigger budget. He said this film would have been what the original would have been. Well, thank God, his budget was cut for the first film.
I don't want to slate this film. It's pretty much the film I always wanted to write. But after seeing it -- I'm gonna have to change my view. There is no one here to care about. No characters at all. One or two pop up, but you don't even know who they are, and once you find out about them, they get done in. Then, the main lead I guess (?) goes on a chase with Mad Mick, gets caught, has a torture scene, you know the rest.
I think what went wrong here is also the only thing that worked right. John Jarret's character Mick is the main focus, and whilst the opening is terrific, and he's always in character, we see waaaay too much of this guy. His methods and motives were clear enough in the first film, yet there was an air of something else about him. Here, he's just a bigot. It's made clear several times. This kinda hurts his "aura".
Now, that'a not to say I didn't enjoy the film. I did. It's got some great sequences, some surprises ( not many), and terrific gore if you're into that type of thing. Mick cuts a menacing figure, but seems a lot less like The Hitcher (1985) from the original, and more like a member of the Texas Chainsaw Massacre Part 2 clan. In fact, when we go to Mick's lair, it screams TCM2.
It also has an ending which builds up to something climatic... and ends in something mindboggingly silly.
I appreciated the change of format, but it went nowhere new. In fact, it went nowhere. It was fun to watch. But pointless.
After watching the original, I couldn't stop thinking about it. After watching part two, I'm struggling to remember it.
Pretty much agree with a lot of things you say on this, Scoob.
Wolf Creek - the original, left a lasting impression - it was inventive and scary as hell, (even if it is based loosely on Ivan Milat and the backpacker murders here in Oz.) Number two just did not distinguish itself in any way, for me. Instantly forgettable.
I commend Ryan Corr for his acting in this though because it would have been tough given it basically ends up being a two-hander with his character Paul and (John Jarrett) Mick Taylor. The problem, as I see it, is that the character of Mick in this follow-up is more caricature than anything else, which is a shame. Also, if you're going to give me gore that's fine, but give me a fully fledged and engaging plot, and edge of the seat suspense - like the first!
Guess I once again stand on my own little island...but I stand proudly.
Good on you, Jeff! I'm really happy it met your expectations and then some. I get right behind the OZ film industry so it's nice to hear that one horror aficionado, (at least) loved it.
We have a movie review program here with two stalwart well respected hosts who flat out refused to review it on their show - that really irked me - cause for one we didn't know why,?? and two, they usually get right behind the local product. It really was a bit strange....
Wolf Creek 2 was as usual beautifully shot and I think horror in particular is quite subjective.
I'm still really looking forward to seeing what McLean comes up with next.
I'm worried about Greg's future, actually, as the Weinsteins threw such a HUGE buget at the AWESOME Rogue, which turned out to be a major BO disapointment, and, although well reviewed and loved, disappeared pretty much from memory of the masses, then his follow up to the awesome Wolf Creek went DTV and garnered little to no success.
I honestly believe McLean is a genius who's yet to be discovered by mainstream movie goers...but then again, I honestly believe mainstream movie goers are complete idiots, as evidenced by the successes of such utter shite over the last few years, maybe it will take some kind of crazy fluke to bring him to mind?
Horror ain't horror anymore and it makes me very sad and upset, but maybe it's just the way it is as we/I age and expect something we've come to expect, that will never be again.
Oh, man, oh man... I was not a fan of the original "Wolf Creek." In fact a friend and I use to get into huge debates between "Wolf Creek," "Hostel," and "High Tension." I was big on High Tension compared to wolf creek. Though, I thought Hostel had a great hook that as good as it was creators missed out on an even better story.
But, yeah, I have to check out "Wolf Creek 2," not only because you suggested Dream but so I can renew an old civil war, muhahaha.
BLB
Commodus: But the Emperor Claudius knew that they were up to something. He knew they were busy little bees. And one night he sat down with one of them and he looked at her and he said, "Tell me what you have been doing, busy little bee..."
Obviously I wasn't impressed with WC2, so going in I was skeptical what a mini series could/would offer, but I loved this!
Casting is great, cinematography is great, the opening set up is brilliant, the young female protagonist pursuing Mick really has to carry the series single-handedly (a Ripley/Alien type worthy opponent), though not so much that you think it's in the bag.