Wolf Creek

User Score
5.8

Mixed or average reviews- based on 116 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 63 out of 116
  2. Negative: 34 out of 116

Where To Watch

Stream 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

User Reviews

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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
  4. 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.
  5. MattD
    Feb 28, 2006
    6
    Not as good as I was expecting from Sundance buzz, but still a merciless thriller.
  6. 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
  7. 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.
  8. 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.
  9. 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
  10. 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
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. 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.