User Score
5.9

Mixed or average reviews- based on 107 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 63 out of 107
  2. Negative: 31 out of 107
Watch On

Review this movie

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
  1. GrantZ
    Aug 24, 2009
    10
    Ignore the reviews that don't give this 8 and above. These people are idiots. They complain that the movie is sick and depraved. It's meant to be, did you walk into the cinema expecting bloody THE HAPPIEST LITTLE ELF. The film is epic, and real creepy, and because of it, it's inspired me and my friends to go their after our GCSE's to film a documentary on it. It really Ignore the reviews that don't give this 8 and above. These people are idiots. They complain that the movie is sick and depraved. It's meant to be, did you walk into the cinema expecting bloody THE HAPPIEST LITTLE ELF. The film is epic, and real creepy, and because of it, it's inspired me and my friends to go their after our GCSE's to film a documentary on it. It really is that good. Expand
  2. KeenanS.
    Jun 25, 2009
    10
    This is one of the best horror films I've ever seen, and one of the twenty best films I've ever seen. For a budget film, it was very effective, frightening, and it felt real. This film is actually terrifying and rather unpredictable at times. This film does start off slow, but once it picks up the pace, it's quite an amazing film. It's brilliant in every way and is This is one of the best horror films I've ever seen, and one of the twenty best films I've ever seen. For a budget film, it was very effective, frightening, and it felt real. This film is actually terrifying and rather unpredictable at times. This film does start off slow, but once it picks up the pace, it's quite an amazing film. It's brilliant in every way and is destined to be one of the best horror films of the decade. Expand
  3. IRP
    Jun 14, 2009
    10
    There is a feeling of great solitude and tense . It's not plainly torture, there is more realism, more sense-- something you may relate to than any horror-suspense movie out there. The movie has great picture, good acting and good direction. Certainly one of the better of it's kind if not the best.
  4. Anthony
    Sep 16, 2006
    9
    Finally a film that makes you wanna jump out of your seat and shout "Run! What you doing? Don't go back!". Ok it's basic, but it has classic moments and that feeling of total alienation works brilliantly.
  5. TedT.
    Dec 29, 2005
    9
    I just cannot understand the negative review of this movie by Ebert and others. How, I mean really, HOW is this movie misogynistic? This is a movie about two young women and a guy taking a road trip across Australia, and the whole time their friendship is believable and non sexual. Any other stupid horror film would have treated the two women as sex objects but in this movie they are real I just cannot understand the negative review of this movie by Ebert and others. How, I mean really, HOW is this movie misogynistic? This is a movie about two young women and a guy taking a road trip across Australia, and the whole time their friendship is believable and non sexual. Any other stupid horror film would have treated the two women as sex objects but in this movie they are real characters, and the pain that is put upon the three is never glorified in the slightest. Whereas in House of Wax there was joy in seeing the stupid, one dimensionsal characters killed in creative and goofy ways, and in The Devil's Rejects there was joy in seeing the human side of the serial killers, in Wolf Creek the joy is in seeing the real happiness of these three friends while on a road trip, and once it is replaced with their torture and pain the movie becomes truly terrifying. Perhaps I saw a different edit of the film, but I did not see this film as crossing the line at all; in fact, all the gorey scenes were very short and filmed frankly and without lingering on them (except, perhaps, one scene near the very end). I would consider myself a gorehound in some sense when it comes to some B horror movies, where the violence is obviously fake and all in fun, but Wolf Creek is a movie where the violence is taken seriously and realistically and, unlike Ebert insinuates, not once did I feel like laughing at these scenes. This is a truly powerful film. Unpleasant, yes, but not for the sake of being malicious. It is unpleasant because it lends a humanizing eye to its unfortunate protagonists, which is rare indeed in horror movies. Expand
  6. SimonB.
    Jan 18, 2006
    10
    Do you like horror movies? Then you'll love this. Its a masterpiece, plain and simple. Let the critics savage it (they mauled the very strong Haute Tension too) and allow its rep to slowly explode amongst genre fans. A future classic.
  7. MIkeyG
    Jan 5, 2006
    9
    Living in Australia this film had a great deal of hype with the crimes the movie is based on virtually just down the street so I guess I look at the film a little differently but what I can't understand is the nothing happens. I saw this film two months ago and the thing will not leave my head, everytime someone is mentioned missing the scene in the shed pops into my mind. Yes it Living in Australia this film had a great deal of hype with the crimes the movie is based on virtually just down the street so I guess I look at the film a little differently but what I can't understand is the nothing happens. I saw this film two months ago and the thing will not leave my head, everytime someone is mentioned missing the scene in the shed pops into my mind. Yes it doesn't have anybody being skewered on a hook or cut in two with a chainsaw but wake up people the worst thing that could happen to someone you know is they vanish and you never know what happens and that is an area this film does very well. Expand
  8. GeorgeA.
    Aug 2, 2006
    8
    excellent thriller!! on the edge of your seat for most of the film.
  9. BarryM
    Feb 5, 2008
    8
    Brutal and sadistic, Wolf Creek makes you feel the pain. Obviously not for everyone it well offend the squeamish but its well written acted and directed.
  10. RickyM.
    Oct 18, 2009
    10
    Wolf Creek is a visceral as it is terrifying an instant horror classic and modern day cautionary tale for tourists.
  11. RichardH
    Oct 14, 2006
    8
    This is the best horror movies I've seen in a long time.
  12. Hardeeps
    Mar 19, 2008
    10
    It is one of the best gut wrenching, nail biting to the bone, atmospheric and claustrophobic rollercoaster of a ride horror movie i have seen in years. A must-see treat. I'm not easily scared but this movie scared the hell out of me!!
  13. TimL.
    Dec 27, 2005
    10
    Horror Masterpiece. Disturbing and terrifying in equal measure. Not to be confused with your cheesy (and in many ways more disgusting) kill-for-a-laugh flicks, this looks at the darker side of human nature in an uncompromising fashion.
  14. MaxS.
    Nov 27, 2006
    4
    Pretty scary movie that starts slowly and then turns torturous after a long while. I do not want to go to Australia after seeing this movie.
  15. May 11, 2012
    10
    an outstanding thriller/horror film, one of the best i've ever seen. tense and totally unpredictable, and jarringly nasty in parts, but it's far from just a mindless portrayal of torture and suffering. i think this movie is pretty unique. close to a masterpiece, if not one.
  16. BrianM
    Jan 2, 2006
    0
    Awful. If you want to be disturbed just for the sake of being disturbed take a look in the toilet bowl. And this is what this movie is. Nothing revelatory about it. There are more intriguing ways to examine dark human nature than this pointless excercise.
  17. Jason
    Jan 1, 2006
    0
    Worst movie ive ever seen. Period.
  18. JuanS.
    Jan 25, 2006
    1
    i wish they'd have charged me only half price for this... seeing as nothing happens at all for the first half... i already know what people sitting, talking, walking around a bit and smoking dope looks like... i know this was meant for us to care about the characters before they got massacred, but it didn't. the rest was just sick for the sake of sick, and i'm really not i wish they'd have charged me only half price for this... seeing as nothing happens at all for the first half... i already know what people sitting, talking, walking around a bit and smoking dope looks like... i know this was meant for us to care about the characters before they got massacred, but it didn't. the rest was just sick for the sake of sick, and i'm really not sure about how stupid they made the victims look. after all, these WERE real people, and it's not too considerate to show them, for example, pushing a car/truck (can't quite remember) off a cliff instead of either trying to drive away or running the killer over. for the other stupidity moments you'll have to watch the film, but you'll see what i mean. i also didn't know that crucification was so easy to escape from... there must be thousands of dead people looking at this and thinking "why didn't I try that when the Romans got me?". the 1 point is for the pint i had before i watched the film, it was good and i enjoyed it. the pint, not film. it made me want to walk out of the cinema for only the 2nd time ever... (the first was in 'down with love'... dear god that was awful too). Expand
  19. VictoriaD
    Jan 4, 2006
    2
    It was borrible. biggest waste of 105 minutes. I cant believe they actually have it playing in a theatre. DO NOT WASTE YOUR MONEY!
  20. KatieR.
    Dec 31, 2005
    0
    I regret going to see this movie. It was so boring, and took a long time before the action started. It's not even scary. Wolf Creek is nothing compared to The Texas Chainsaw Massacre. Save your money and don't go and see it.
  21. ChrisC.
    Jan 5, 2006
    0
    Just stupid, mean-spirited, and awful. Not one single redeeming quality, and I'm a fan of the genre. Save your cash.
  22. billh.
    Jan 6, 2006
    2
    The only part of horror in this movie is the word horrible... DO NOT RECOMMEND.
  23. Kim
    Feb 15, 2006
    0
    This movie is horrible!! If I want to watch about nasty old men torturing and raping women I would turn on the news. Its sick! Why would someone even think of this stuff?
  24. GaborA.
    Apr 27, 2006
    1
    Possibly the most uninspired movie of all time. Upon taking a random sample of say five year olds id say 80 percent of them can come up with a more engaging story than the one not found in Wolf Creek.
  25. Mike
    May 22, 2006
    1
    a very very boring begining. After an hour of boredom. The movie started to get intresting for about 10 mins! and then it became very stupid!! Stay away from this movie. Boring and not scary.
  26. WayneM.
    Jun 11, 2006
    0
    it wasnt even scary in fact it sucked and I think if this is horror I will stick to comedy.
  27. SinDee
    Sep 29, 2006
    1
    This was the worst movie that I have ever seen. What a load of crap. "Based on a true story" you say? Pretty hard to base it on a true story when the only survivor doesn't even know what happened to the rest of his friends. If you are thinking about watching this movie...DON'T! It is far more entertaining watching rain on a rooftop for 2-hours. BY FAR THE WORST MOVIE EVER MADE.
  28. patrickd.
    Dec 27, 2005
    5
    I havent seen this yet, but I must say: Ron D, read Roger Ebert's review. It also mentions about biting off chicken heads.
  29. JoelT.
    Jan 12, 2006
    1
    Wow..talk about a slow...slow movie. You are bored to death and nearly asleep before you even meet the villain. Sadly, things don't get much better after that. Total snorefest.
  30. MikeA.
    Sep 28, 2006
    2
    A truly awful movie. The previews looked great. With its delayed release, I was thrilled to pay $10 to see it on opening day. This must be one of the absolute worst movies I'd ever seen. There goes an hour and a half of my life totally wasted!
  31. Carolyn
    Dec 31, 2005
    0
    There wasn't enough killing in the movie. The story line was too long. And we don't know what happened to the killer.
  32. Jun 12, 2011
    0
    The first half hour of the movie was completely irrelevant to the whole plot. The rest was just pure gore for the sake of it. Nothing really made sense...why would the bad guy let some of the victims escape so easily ? And why would they go through all the trouble of actually getting away, only to be slaughtered like cattle in the end anyway ? Redemption in this genre comes from one, andThe first half hour of the movie was completely irrelevant to the whole plot. The rest was just pure gore for the sake of it. Nothing really made sense...why would the bad guy let some of the victims escape so easily ? And why would they go through all the trouble of actually getting away, only to be slaughtered like cattle in the end anyway ? Redemption in this genre comes from one, and only one thing: reversal of roles, which means, somebody has to go after the bad guy, and get him. That never happened, and leaves you with a very empty feeling. There was just too much stuff from other movies, such as 'Wrong Turn' and 'House of Wax' in here to be really refreshing. It seems like the director just threw various plots from these and other movies on one big pile, and pushed the 'On' button on the camera. Very disappointing... Expand
  33. Jan 15, 2012
    5
    Torture? Gore? Horror? It's fine to describe a movie with buzzwords, but only when they are applicable. Wolf Creek is just an incredibly tame exploitation film that fails to both shock and scare. Some genuinely good acting and atmosphere does not hide the fact that it is quite simply an average piece of cinema. It follows many basic horror cliches, even when there's no reason for it. ThereTorture? Gore? Horror? It's fine to describe a movie with buzzwords, but only when they are applicable. Wolf Creek is just an incredibly tame exploitation film that fails to both shock and scare. Some genuinely good acting and atmosphere does not hide the fact that it is quite simply an average piece of cinema. It follows many basic horror cliches, even when there's no reason for it. There are many points when the characters will do something silly and questionable, completely undermining the hard work the actors put in to make themselves believable, three-dimensional human beings in the first act. The resolution of the movie is unsatisfying, and feels more like a cop-out than a conclusion. It was in no way necessary for this to be 'based on true events', and much less have text closing out the story, telling us what becomes of the characters. Also, even though it is wholly produced in Australia, it does nothing but reinforce Australian stereotypes by pandering to an international audience. Overall, Wolf Creek is a very forgettable horror film that will not affect a horror fan in any way, but can be quite enjoyable thanks to Jarratt's over-the-top performance. Expand
  34. Jun 10, 2014
    5
    Love the main villain, Mick, and he was hands down the most, and only, interesting thing about the movie. I will give it props though because it ended in a way that made me want more. Certainly worth checking out if you love indie horror films.
  35. MattD
    Feb 28, 2006
    6
    Not as good as I was expecting from Sundance buzz, but still a merciless thriller.
  36. J.Johnson
    Dec 29, 2005
    8
    Is there a line, and does this movie cross it? I don't believe there is a set line, but this movie is pretty twisted, but not as nasty as the Texas Chainsaw remake. But it totally reminds me of the original Texas Chainsaw Massacre, which was pretty sick and demented in its own right. That was the movie that sparked all the ones that followed it. So I guess the question is, if there Is there a line, and does this movie cross it? I don't believe there is a set line, but this movie is pretty twisted, but not as nasty as the Texas Chainsaw remake. But it totally reminds me of the original Texas Chainsaw Massacre, which was pretty sick and demented in its own right. That was the movie that sparked all the ones that followed it. So I guess the question is, if there is a line -- where does it lie? Well I look at it this way: if "Chainsaw" set the standard (long ago), than that line is pretty low. There's no doubt that this movie is very well made. It's feels very real (I've seen some complain it's TOO real), and that's what makes it scary. So your liking of this movie I guess is determined by how well you can take in the violence and the horror. I can totally understand how this stuff can turn you off; I could barely watch one or two of the violent scenes. But this is a horror movie and- as far as I know, their suppost to scare you and make you feel uneasy -- this movie, at the very least, made me feel very uneasy, and that's why I consider it probably the best horror film to come out since the Blair Witch Project. It's brilliant, but it's not for everyone. It won't make you feel good, and it'll be stuck to you hours after you've seen it. But that's the point isn't it? Expand
  37. BryanC.
    Jan 8, 2006
    9
    Extremely disturbing, well-made and well-acted low budget outback thriller - inexplicably ignored by the squeemish Australian film industry awards. The "horror" genre rarely receives much adulation from critics (as does comedy or sci-fi), regardless of the film's craft. But Wolf Creek is not your average genre flick - if you've ever backpacked around Australia this should chill Extremely disturbing, well-made and well-acted low budget outback thriller - inexplicably ignored by the squeemish Australian film industry awards. The "horror" genre rarely receives much adulation from critics (as does comedy or sci-fi), regardless of the film's craft. But Wolf Creek is not your average genre flick - if you've ever backpacked around Australia this should chill you to the bone. One of the best films of 2005. Anyone for bushcamping? Expand
  38. SteveA.
    Apr 20, 2006
    6
    For a low budget movie this was done extremely well. The acting, in particular, was incredibly realistic. The setting was also spooky. Furthermore, there was this constant feeling of dread, even at the slow beginning. Unfortunately, there were a lot of things I didn't like about this movie. For one, there wasn't much of a movie here. [***SPOILERS***] It felt like a 30 minute For a low budget movie this was done extremely well. The acting, in particular, was incredibly realistic. The setting was also spooky. Furthermore, there was this constant feeling of dread, even at the slow beginning. Unfortunately, there were a lot of things I didn't like about this movie. For one, there wasn't much of a movie here. [***SPOILERS***] It felt like a 30 minute movie stretched out to two hours--basically a lot of running from the bad guy, like in the Chainsaw remake. Secondly, the gore was overhyped by the press, and the stuff about it being a real story and a "hunt" movie were a scam. There was really only one sick scene, devoid of blood (it's very cruel, though). Also, he wasn't hunting them: he was just chasing after them because they had escaped. Third, I found this to be an extremely creepy movie...until we finally meet the bad guy, and he's this big, old, goofy SOB who looks and acts more like the Skipper from Gilligan's Island than Hannibal Lector. I guess this is realistic (since he had to be the kind of person who people could trust and like). However, it just made the movie less scary to me. Fourth, I was confused by the scene where she wakes up in the morning, cuts off her rope, and walks out in the night (must have been some bad editing). Furthermore, I found it ridiculous that the girls would go through so much trouble looking for a vehicle, only to purposely drive it off of a cliff. Expand
  39. SaraZ.
    Apr 29, 2006
    7
    I watched this movie at night and home alone - not smart. As soon as the suspense started, it never stopped. Each new scene was highly unpredictable and kept your heart racing. However, I felt the ending was a little weak. I was hoping for a big finish, but then I guess, that would be predictable.
  40. KamilS.
    May 3, 2006
    7
    The plot is spine-tingling, let alone action was loosely based on the true murders that took place in the outbacks of Australia. On the other hand, the acting of victims seems to be a bit artificial (in a moments of extreme menace they watch belongings of another already dead victims instead of simply ruuning away - but to be honest, whatever they did they would be killed anyway). I The plot is spine-tingling, let alone action was loosely based on the true murders that took place in the outbacks of Australia. On the other hand, the acting of victims seems to be a bit artificial (in a moments of extreme menace they watch belongings of another already dead victims instead of simply ruuning away - but to be honest, whatever they did they would be killed anyway). I reckon it is worth seeing. Expand
  41. MarkS.
    Jul 5, 2006
    4
    This movie really made me angry. [***SPOILERS***] It took the only character worth watching, and kills her, and doesn't even bother being a good enough movie to have been worth watching if the should-have-been-hero gets killed. It simply wasn't a good enough movie to kill off the best character and still be worth it.
  42. JimmyB.
    Aug 3, 2006
    8
    Liked the cast a lot, good story too!
  43. NickA.
    Sep 16, 2006
    8
    It
  44. Paul
    Feb 17, 2007
    7
    If you're over the age of 20, enjoy horror movies, and male, you'll like this movie. It's not perfect, but pretty good. Yes, it does take a little while to build up to the climax, but it's worth it. The people who say its the worst movie ever are probably 13 years old who thinks 40 Year Old Virgin is the best movie ever. This movie's not strickly horror, but also If you're over the age of 20, enjoy horror movies, and male, you'll like this movie. It's not perfect, but pretty good. Yes, it does take a little while to build up to the climax, but it's worth it. The people who say its the worst movie ever are probably 13 years old who thinks 40 Year Old Virgin is the best movie ever. This movie's not strickly horror, but also a drama in a way, since there is a bit of dialogue in the first half. If you liked The Descent, Devil's Rejects, or any other current horror flicks, you'll probably at least enjoy this one (for a rental). Expand
  45. BillD.
    Jan 1, 2006
    8
    This was a good flick, for sure. What set it apart from the typical slasher, young people get slaughtered movies was that it actually took the time to develop characters. Nice.
  46. SeanC.
    Jan 17, 2006
    10
    This is horror at its best. Not the jump out of the shadows, sudden noises, splattered with blood kind of horror movie, which plays for laughs to a teen audience. This is a film which shows the real and almost supernatural lonliness of the Australian outback, and what it would really be like to be kidnapped by a malevolent local. Not fast-paced, not action-packed, but slow, methodical and This is horror at its best. Not the jump out of the shadows, sudden noises, splattered with blood kind of horror movie, which plays for laughs to a teen audience. This is a film which shows the real and almost supernatural lonliness of the Australian outback, and what it would really be like to be kidnapped by a malevolent local. Not fast-paced, not action-packed, but slow, methodical and very very unpleasant. Expand
  47. JoaoS.
    Feb 5, 2006
    2
    I think this movie drinks in "Chainsaw Texas Massacre" and "Blair Which", but without the family reunion and the "witchy effect" is hardly the creek of the title.Even the field trip stimuli it's undercover Sometimes it takes you to guess what's coming next but then it never reaches to real shock or scare. The beginning of the movie is cool, but there is simple no explanation for I think this movie drinks in "Chainsaw Texas Massacre" and "Blair Which", but without the family reunion and the "witchy effect" is hardly the creek of the title.Even the field trip stimuli it's undercover Sometimes it takes you to guess what's coming next but then it never reaches to real shock or scare. The beginning of the movie is cool, but there is simple no explanation for all the apparent evilness of the vilan. There are some good interpretations, the soft parts are pleasent but it end's like..."that's all folks!" and you realize that all the story could had been told in a 30 minutes short without loss. Sold as "Horror", "Wolf Creek" dissapoints. Expand
  48. G.Henderson
    Apr 19, 2006
    7
    Could have and should have been better. It took a little too long to get going and then when it does it has one of the most horrible "I can't believe they did that" scenes ever. I really hate it when the victims have the perfect opportunity to get themselves out of the situation they are in and totally let it go, be it by either killing the bad guy or having a perfect escape right in Could have and should have been better. It took a little too long to get going and then when it does it has one of the most horrible "I can't believe they did that" scenes ever. I really hate it when the victims have the perfect opportunity to get themselves out of the situation they are in and totally let it go, be it by either killing the bad guy or having a perfect escape right in front of them. You will know exactly what I mean after you watch this. For the most part it is pretty good and does have some very unsettling moments which make up for the long beginning and the lack of intelligence of the victims. Plus, had they killed the guy when they had the chance the movie would have been much shorter. Compared to "Hostel" this movie is a 10, but up against other better horror movies it fails a little bit. Expand
  49. Tyson
    Apr 7, 2006
    9
    This movie was not enjoyable and & left me with some pretty twisted images to shake off after leaving the cinema. However that is precisely the movie's strength. It is baffling to me why when at last a movie is released that is *actually* scary, critics cry murder. The main criticisms of "Wolf Creek" are it's lack of pace, a sense of misogyny, it's explicitness blah blah This movie was not enjoyable and & left me with some pretty twisted images to shake off after leaving the cinema. However that is precisely the movie's strength. It is baffling to me why when at last a movie is released that is *actually* scary, critics cry murder. The main criticisms of "Wolf Creek" are it's lack of pace, a sense of misogyny, it's explicitness blah blah blah. However these criticisms are born of matching it with the tired American horror precedents and Hollywood formula in general. Most mainstream audiences are obviously not used to generous character development and are spoonfed movies with constantly oscilating peaks and troughs. The criticism that 2 of the 3 protagonists were women is ridiculous: one out of three, two out of three - it's not worth discussing. Criticism here ignores the fact that the movie is based on a real killer Ivan Milat who murdered 7 people, 5 of which were women. If this were an American horror flick, all 7 would have featured and a whole heap of other appealing youths who managed to get away. "Wolf Creek" is brutal and caution should be applied. This being said if you want to be truely scared by a movie that is fresh and un-cliched - jump right in. Expand
  50. GrantN.
    Jan 16, 2006
    5
    Violent, violent, violent, but also filled with tension. I dont mind the movie taking so long to get into but when you still dont have a connection with the characers it bothers me. Also the main characters commit some of the most grevous horror movie errors ever. Including #1 not killing the villian while hes down.
  51. CharlesG
    Dec 31, 2006
    10
    A realistic and gory movie that doesn't hold back and delivers fear and shock very well. Amazing movie, must see.
  52. Al
    Jul 29, 2006
    8
    I found this movie deeply affecting, but then I live in Australia and I remember the murders that this movie was based on. [***SPOILERS***] John Jarrett's giggling psycho may seem to some like a caricature, but if you've ever seen the newsreel footage of Ivan Milat, the killer upon whom the character of 'Mick' is based, it's frighteningly real (to this day, I found this movie deeply affecting, but then I live in Australia and I remember the murders that this movie was based on. [***SPOILERS***] John Jarrett's giggling psycho may seem to some like a caricature, but if you've ever seen the newsreel footage of Ivan Milat, the killer upon whom the character of 'Mick' is based, it's frighteningly real (to this day, whenever Milat is on camera, he grins at his audience like a lupine lottery winner). I also remember some of the gruesome details of his work. Two of his victims were kidnapped at the same time, and one was made to watch the rape, torture and murder of her friend, all the time knowing that she was next. I've never forgotten that, and it made the events of this movie seem much more to me than a 'brutal celebration' or a 'boring waste of time'. It's not terribly original, and the protagonists are such idiots that they're as much to blame for their ordeal as the killer. But the ghosts of the real victims still haunt me, and it made this film real. I wouldn't call it entertaining, but I haven't been as moved by a film in a long time. Expand
  53. DB
    Aug 24, 2009
    6
    Not nearly as scary or gory as some of these reviews might indicate. It's a well crafted, well-shot, well-acted film, but the horror bit kicks in a little late (making the film feel really top-heavy) and the hunting referenced in the film's tag line seems almost matter of fact in its explicitness, rather than horrifying. Like a Michael Haneke film without the playful high Not nearly as scary or gory as some of these reviews might indicate. It's a well crafted, well-shot, well-acted film, but the horror bit kicks in a little late (making the film feel really top-heavy) and the hunting referenced in the film's tag line seems almost matter of fact in its explicitness, rather than horrifying. Like a Michael Haneke film without the playful high concept. What does that mean? Sure, the film comes off real, and that's admirable, but admirable doesn't take the place of juicy thrills and gratuitous violence. Frankly, the Saw movies are more effective genre pictures. Expand
  54. Aug 22, 2011
    5
    The attributes of the film "Wolf Creek" are somewhat unusual, after all the greatest merit that can give this production written, produced and directed by Australian Greg McLean is that he can keep the tension and nervousness on a stage next to the spine-chilling and in the case of a thriller is there to satisfactory. The end turns out to be done hastily by the fact that their redemptionThe attributes of the film "Wolf Creek" are somewhat unusual, after all the greatest merit that can give this production written, produced and directed by Australian Greg McLean is that he can keep the tension and nervousness on a stage next to the spine-chilling and in the case of a thriller is there to satisfactory. The end turns out to be done hastily by the fact that their redemption is so trivial (nothing compared to what happened to the other victims) and leads us to believe that one of the survivors said criminally by the events by the absence of evidence, but not enough to affect the outcome of production that strangely meets unfulfilled promises and what is cruel and shocking sequences, such as one in which Mick Taylor shows us how to create a head on a stick. Expand
  55. Feb 22, 2013
    7
    On the surface, Wolf Creek appears to be just another slasher film, that is until you learn the scary truth. The truth is this film and the majority of the horrible gore and torture actually happened. The story is about one of the worst serial killers in Australian history. A man, who would frequent a remote tourist attraction, disable a vehicle, show up to assist the people, and then drugOn the surface, Wolf Creek appears to be just another slasher film, that is until you learn the scary truth. The truth is this film and the majority of the horrible gore and torture actually happened. The story is about one of the worst serial killers in Australian history. A man, who would frequent a remote tourist attraction, disable a vehicle, show up to assist the people, and then drug and torture them for days or even weeks. The film shows one fictional groups encounter with this man and shows just how twisted some people can be. If this were a fictional slasher film, I'd call it nothing special. The fact that it's based on real events and knowing that a lot of this stuff actually happened, make the movie especially creepy. As far as I'm concerned, the creepier the better! Expand
  56. Jan 22, 2013
    3
    Terrible and short. Just another mix up with horrible twist with The Happiest Little Elf which is a great movie compared to this c*** which really is true.
  57. Feb 15, 2013
    0
    stretch of boredom, followed by pointless nastiness. an ugly film, not what i call entertainment. was angry i paid to see this. another reviewer aptly said after watching the hobbit, 'did we need this movie?' the comment seems perfect for wolf creek...
  58. Nov 14, 2013
    3
    Wolf Creek can not cause any feeling, fear, tension, surprise, or even entertainment, presents us with a dumb villain who presents a weak slaughter, poorly made, poorly directed, no creativity, no nothing.
Metascore
54

Mixed or average reviews - based on 26 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 14 out of 26
  2. Negative: 5 out of 26
  1. Reviewed by: Daniel Bernardi
    100
    Every single performance is the result of a cast that has gone to the far reaches of acting ability and even exceeded them.
  2. The ambitions are so paltry that our response should be too: Wolf Creek is unimaginative, light on the grue and heavy on the faux-serious desperation.
  3. Writer-director Greg McLean, who has many shorts and commercials under his belt, makes a significant feature debut here, with unapologetic horror that doesn't compromise.