Wolf Creek (2005) REVIEW

It has taken me over 10 years to watch this film, I am not sure if it has been worth it or not! Allegedly 'based on true events' Wolf Creek is set deep in the Australian outback, 3 very happy go lucky back packers -Ben, Liz and Kristy - become stranded and accept the help of a local man Mick, who offers his assistance. What they do not realise is that this man has a thirst for blood, and a strong hatred for tourists. Liz soon wakes up in a dark room tied up, hearing the screams of her friend nearby as their nightmare begins...
After reading a lot about this film and through word of mouth, this film was far, far less extreme than I was expecting. There is around 50 minutes of exposition before the real action begins. Some would call this a slow burn but I have to say I found myself feeling bored.
However, once the second act of the film began the tension was risen and it definitely felt increasingly sinister. This film will make you never want to travel to the Outback! The young actors try their best but they were pretty throw away as they felt generic, and their actions followed the usual horror low IQ approach. The Australian actor, John Jarratt, as the psycho Mick was as over the top as you can be, but he did have true menace. No wonder they bought him back for Wolf Creek 2. 

The most gripping scene is when one of his victims seemingly escapes, only to be followed down the highway. It felt like Steven Speilberg's Duel! The film didn't really give each character a conclusion, plots are seemingly dropped and then picked up again with no real clear outcome or purpose. I was actually expecting a lot more gore than was shown, however you could argue that what you do not see if always more unnerving. 

Overall, this film will eventually get under your skin, but it takes such a long build up to the finale that it leave you wanting much more 5.5/10