Wolf Creek 2 (2013) User Reviews (139)

Not as terrifying as its predecessor, but still a fun, gruesome ride.

[lnvicta · 7/10 · 21 May 2015]

I'm a huge fan of the original Wolf Creek. Mick Taylor cemented himself as one of the best horror villains of all time. Yeah I said it. He doesn't wear a mask, he's not invincible, he doesn't have any superpowers; he doesn't need any of that. No, this guy is a hunter. A straight up Australian outback sharpshooter with weapons up the wazoo. Thing is, he hunts tourists. Any poor bastard wandering around the wide open plains of Australia better not cross paths with the guy because he'll kill them in the slowest, most degrading way possible. He thrives on fear and wants to squeeze as much life out of each one of his victims before letting them die. His smirk is chilling, his laugh is sinister. He's a sick sadistic psychopath, and he's absolutely captivating to watch.

The thing about Wolf Creek is that it focused on these three backpackers who were going to the Wolf Creek Crater or whatever but their car broke down, so some guy in a truck comes by and offers them a lift. Turns out this guy is Mick Taylor, and after a brilliantly tense campfire scene where they're all having a drink and a good laugh, he poisons them and proceeds to do vile things. What made it so terrifying is that we knew these characters. They had chemistry, you believed they were friends, you were on this adventure with them, so when the sh*t starts happening, it gets downright disturbing because you feel for these people.

In Wolf Creek 2, the focus is almost entirely on Mick Taylor. It's literally just a day in the life of Mick Taylor, which I don't have a problem with at all. But there really isn't a clear protagonist we can root for during a large portion of this movie. At first you think it's a German couple since we follow them around for the first act, until they set up a fire that catches Mick's attention. Then, the guy gets killed. And the girl runs and runs until she reaches the road, and this is where we're introduced to our "real" protagonist: Paul. He almost runs her over but quickly stops, lets the girl in his car and hauls ass out of there. But of course Mick catches up, things happen, and it ends up becoming a cat-and-mouse game between Mick and Paul.

Paul really is a good protagonist though. He's a British tourist who was just driving through the Australian wilderness until he finds the girl in the street, then things start heading south for the guy. Paul is a sympathetic character because he was genuinely just in the wrong place at the wrong time. Even Mick reminds him that he wasn't his primary target, but Paul interfered with his hunting so now he's in the crosshairs. The psychological warfare between Paul and Mick near the end was riveting, and the actor who played Paul did a phenomenal job despite having such little character development to work with.

It's definitely a fun ride. There are some cheesy moments like Mick riding a horse with the sun going down behind him, but overall it has the same thick, brooding atmosphere as the original Wolf Creek. It's just told from a different perspective. It's the same type of extreme over-the-top sadistic horror as the original so if you don't like that stuff then steer clear. But if you did like the first one and want to see more of Mick Taylor, Wolf Creek 2 will give you exactly that.

Entertaining grisly drive-in style horror from the land of Oz

[adamscastlevania2 · 7/10 · 15 November 2014]

(62%)Claims made by certain folk that this is an unnecessary sequel appear to be forgetting the fact that by and large all sequels, especially horror sequels, are unnecessary cash-ins on a successful production, and this is no different. The original was a slow burn grisly low budget shocker with a great panic stricken sense of hopelessness from a serial-killer who always appeared to be one step ahead of his prey whilst they trespass on his turf. While the sequel is a bit more of the same only with a swifter pace, and a slightly lighter tone. There's also quite a bit more car chasers, and a degree more humour from the great John Jarratt's character who turns somewhat similar to Freddy Krueger with his perverted view of the world and intense wickedness making this more of a exploitation drive-in movie than the original's softly approach into terror. The movie does twist and turn as it goes along, although most will have some sort of idea what's coming next, but this is still a very entertaining watch with some great gore effects and a good number of dark comedic one-liners. Even if this is a slightly different beast to the original, it's still as welcome addition, and a good slice of bloody outback horror in its own right.

Don't be a tourist in Aussieland.

[westsideschl · 7/10 · 4 July 2014]

You have to have a brain that releases the reward hormones, etc. that are excited by horror and gore to sit through this Aussie rendition of a "not-so-nice-person" gleefully and with good Aussie nationalism dismember visiting hiking tourists or any others of similar persuasion who upset him or for that matter simply anyone who upsets him.

Well acted. The usual pursuit of the prey scenes, but what makes this a seven vs. eight or nine stars are the stupid decisions of our prey. A common problem in this genre and it's not clear if it's written into the script on purpose to annoy viewers or the writers simply need to prolong the agony to fill 90 minutes or they just don't have a good understanding of thinking under pressure.

Good - nothing more, nothing less

[mitchw-61-305942 · 6/10 · 22 February 2014]

I thoroughly enjoyed Wolf Creek. All elements of film making seemed to work, for me. I like realism in films and the sense of isolation in the Australian outback was palpable. After viewing the trailer for Wolf Creek 2 I thought that the film might fall into the Hollywood category. What I was hoping for was another gem.

John Jarratt returns as serial killer Mick Taylor. He delivers another strong performance. His laugh and hoarse, Aussie voice never falter. He gets totally into character and runs the show. He has too much screen time, however, to make him as scary as he should be. The viewer is given too much knowledge of his whereabouts, I felt.

The actors who play the tourists are good, notably Ryan Corr, playing well-educated British traveler, Paul. The film doesn't provide much insight into his character which might be the reason why I had little empathy for him, or any of Mick's victims in this film. Towards the end I was routing for the tourists solely because as the viewer we have witnessed the hell their put through. For whatever reason, I really liked the characters in the first film and it was hard to watch them meet their fate.

The sense of isolation is there but doesn't have the same effect as it did in the first film, probably because there are a few more characters in this film, and other devices used to create action, which made the film appear less chilling and more thrilling.

I liked that McLean used subtitles for the German couple because I wasn't expecting it. Of course English isn't always going to be a tourists first language and they're not going to speak it for our benefit. Fret not, once the screaming begins you don't have to do a lot of reading.

Some parts of the film felt a little odd to me at first, and there are a couple of comical sequences. I took it in the movie's stride. Perhaps that was writer number 2, Aaron Sterns, input. I didn't mind. There was enough Mick Taylor sadism to pull me back to the horror film I went in to watch. The setting at the end was a little disappointing because it felt too orchestrated and unlike Mick Taylor. It felt more like a scene from 'Hostel'.

The first film is a rare beauty, and Wolf Creek 2 is a good sequel - nothing more, nothing less IMO.

Though some of the grittiness is gone, 'Wolf Creek 2' still packs a punch

[ZChrisJ1995 · 6/10 · 7 March 2014]

'Wolf Creek 2' suffers some of the similar problems seen in other horror movie franchises. Like in the later 'Nightmare on Elm Street' films, too much focus is placed on the antagonist, causing the film to lose quite a bit of suspense and tension. In the first 'Wolf Creek', released nearly a decade ago, John Jarratt's Mick Taylor was an enigma to the audience. He didn't make an appearance until nearly halfway through the film, and even then we had no idea what his deal was until he started torturing and murdering the main characters. In the sequel, Mick has been turned into much more of a comedic antihero, with there being a large emphasis on Mick and his pun-laden one-liners, which kills off a bit of the mystery and edginess that defined the first film.

Likewise, this leads to Mick's victims being that little less relatable and sympathetic, as we are much more familiar with Mick than we are with them.

Like the original, 'Wolf Creek 2' is obviously not for the faint of heart, with the gore and sadistic violence being ramped up. The film's car chases and fright scenes are all the more elaborate and effective due to an obvious budget increase. This much more polished look obviously removes a bit of the grindhouse aesthetic present in the preceding film, however makes up for it in terms of sheer scale.

On the whole, 'Wolf Creek 2' is still quite an intense thrill-ride, and one worth checking out, especially if you enjoyed the first. Unfortunately, the creative team's decision to spend more time with Mick and less with the unfortunate tourists who encounter him deprives the film of what could have made it a superior sequel.

Not bad (for a sequel)

[bowmanblue · 7/10 · 19 September 2014]

It's fair to say that most people believe (quite rightly) that sequels are normally pretty inferior to the original and, in horror terms, it's hard to ever find a sequel that even comes close to its predecessor. I'm not going to say that Wolf Creek 2 surpasses the original, but at least it's watchable (which puts it head and shoulders over 99% of other horror sequels).

It's about mass murdering psychopath Mick Taylor (once again played brilliantly by John Jarrett) who lives deep in the Australian Outback and has a tendency to slaughter any hapless backpacker who passes through his town of Wolf Creek. And, when I say the film is ABOUT Mick Taylor, I really mean it. The film doesn't ever really focus on his victims. He is definitely the star. Granted, he deserves it – he truly plays the 'nutter' well. However, this does leave us not that bothered about whether his victims live or die, as we never really get to know them half as well as we do him.

Therefore, we're left learning more about the 'monster' than the 'heroes.' So, if you're not looking for a film where you're going to feel that sympathetic towards the victims, then you'll find what you're looking for right here.

It's not so 'condensed' as the first Wolf Creek. The original was mainly set in one location (when the murdering finally got going), whereas much of this movie is a cat and mouse style chase across the desert.

Don't expect much in the way of a story (well, about as much as the next slasher film), but if you're looking to see a really good/creepy performance from a mass-murdering villain then you'll find it here. My only real gripe was the ending, but you'll have to watch the last thirty seconds to see if you agree with me.

Yet again, no one acts like a real person!

[rawiri42 · 5/10 · 23 June 2014]

Wolf Creek 2 is not a bad horror story in itself but, as with many other movies of the genre, hardly anyone acts like a real person would which means that, rather than being horrified, the viewer is frustrated.

For starters, a cop is brutally murdered by the antagonist, Mick Taylor (John Jarrett) - pity they used the same name as Mick 'Crocodile' Dundee, especially when the two characters are so similar yet so different - and the 'evidence' - that is, the cop car with two bodies, one with his head half blown off, burned. In the 21st century, forensic experts would have easily identified what had actually happened and the outback would be teeming with detectives searching for the perpetrator within days. Then, as successive foreign tourist backpackers went mysteriously missing, connections would be made and, ultimately, suspects singled out. The damage to Taylor's vehicle would be analysed and his weapons matched with bullets etc.

In the movie, we aren't told exactly who Mick Taylor is other than that he's a 'pig hunter' but, in outback Australia, someone like him would be a well-known local character and, logic says, probably one with not too many friends. Nevertheless, he would have had to buy fuel and spares for his vehicles, ammunition for his weapons and other basic supplies somewhere. In fact, in that environment, the two cops in the opening scenes would more than likely have known him if not personally, by reputation. There aren't any true recluses in the outback! Everyone deals with someone sometime!

Then there are the various victims of Mick Taylor. I didn't bother to count, but there were at least ten dead or near-dead bodies in his "dungeon" and they had to have come from somewhere and been missed by someone. As was demonstrated in the real-life Lindy Chamberlain case, Aussie outback police aren't the sharpest knives in the box but they're not THAT dim!

The most realistic part of the whole story is during the 'game' Mick has with him where Paul (Ryan Corr), asks Mick to cut off the second finger from his other hand so that he could get that arm freed and thus be able to reach the hammer. But then, having pulled the ruse off (albeit at the expense of another finger) and belted Mick round the head, instead of finishing him off with as many more well-placed blows, he just stands there (with me screaming, "Hit him again!") until - as always happens in horror movies - Mick suddenly springs back to full action and takes control!

Then, at the end, we see Paul just floundering around in a street (God knows where!) with two fingers ground off and, as you'd kinda expect, somewhat delirious, being picked up by a couple of cops. Why did Mick leave him to be found at all? He didn't do it with any of his other victims so why this one? We don't get to see any of the police procedure after that but are told in the closing caption, that Paul was deported back to England as (basically) a raving lunatic. I'm sure he would have told the police everything that had happened before being referred to psychiatric people to repeat his story again so why didn't they follow it up? The stories would have matched and Paul even knew Mick Taylor's full name(because he told it to him) and, as I say, Taylor must have been known to them in the remote community where the story was set.

There were numerous other scenes throughout the film where the characters simply didn't do what real people in the same situations would have done but this review isn't a synopsis so I won't go into lengthy, boring detail. Suffice to say that, for much of the movie, I was muttering to myself (and wanting to scream out even more than I did), some instruction or 'prompt' to characters which, of course, they didn't do.

So when is someone going to make a movie like Wolf Creek where the characters behave remotely believably? As demonstrated in Silence of the Lambs, It is possible. Please, writers and directors, stop insulting our intelligence and give us better than this.

Fun Fun Fun! (minor spoilers)

[horizon2008 · 10/10 · 11 June 2014]

Many people were hugely disappointed by the original Wolf Creek, largely because it sold itself as the most terrifying film ever made which turned out to be nonsense. I ordered the unrated version online here in the UK because I wanted to see it in full (I have an intense hatred for all things BBFC) but even that was limp and uneven. That said, the tourist hating killer within definitely had something going for him, and I wasn't totally adverse to watching him again on a second outing, so it was with some low expectations I approached WC2, and my was I pleasantly surprised. . . It looks as if they had a major rethink of the film this time, and while there was some humour in part one, this time it's amped up to ten. I laughed many many times at the (dark) comedy Wolf Creek has now become - but this may depend on what your sense of humour is like (mine's a little twisted) as the laughs always accompany some gory scenes. There are one liners while a penis is lopped off, where a field of kangaroos get wiped out, some Germans get offed, and as fingers are removed with a grinder, it's bloody fantastic. And the previous attempt at being all serious has been left behind with fun being the driving force now. Honestly this is the most fun flick I've seen this year, and after 3 viewings it didn't lose its charm. I know many horror fans will probably avoid this movie because of being let down by part one, but you'll be missing a true gem this time. Check it out, a new horror anti hero is born.

Edge of your seat thriller

[MITLRpro · 6/10 · 22 February 2014]

Doesn't match the quality of the first film, but overall still a highly enjoyable film.

I thoroughly enjoyed this sequel. Kept me on the edge of my seat right throughout the film. Having seen Ryan Corr in other things it was easy to have sympathy for him. I felt like I was apart of all the action. Some scenes were obviously added for the international market (flying kangaroo's) but that didn't phase me. Some aspects of the film were barely believable, but you have to remember this is a film, whatever happened to poetic license?

If you want to cringe, scream and get your adrenaline pumping this is a film for you!

Time better spent sleeping

[fossilmughal · 1/10 · 2 May 2014]

One of the all time bad horror movie sequels, Wolf Creek was a good film, so was Rogue. I am still stunned that this was written and directed by the same guy. It really had nothing good about it. Bad acting, no plot, no tension, bad script,no imagination. Truly awful. should have been called Wolf Creek 6 because that was the level it was on. A legacy sadly sullied. What could he have been thinking except how to squeeze out a money making sequel while asleep on a zero budget. This has set Australian film making back 120 years. THe original had a well worked build up of tension as the kids travelled to wolf creek and it was a good feature that the killing did not start instantly. This film had no story at all and was jusr one long chase sequence, and a bad one at that. The CGI kangaroos were a low point of a low film. Do not bother.

Disturbing but great

[mjanssens26 · 8/10 · 24 February 2020]

The lead actors in the film, both the villain and protagonist are great. Very scary movie. Some scenes are brutal and pretty hard to take. The supporting roles in the beginning are played by great actors too and the writing makes you care about the characters. Great little film and super fast-pacing make it a thrill ride from start to finish.

Enjoyable

[Matthew-WH · 7/10 · 23 February 2014]

I saw the first film during schoolies and it felt like it went for twenty minutes. I don't recall any of it apart from that wicked snicker Mick puts on. Going into the second movie was like going in blind. We all know what Wolf Creek is about but i didn't know what to expect, remembering the premise of the first one, no way could they be the same and they weren't. I was pleasantly surprised as i was hooked from the very start. John Jarret is truly superb in this role, he is menacing and pulls of crazy perfectly. Ryan Corr was another good choice, good actor and also very good looking, which always helps. It was definitely a film of cat and mouse, the cat being Mick Taylor.

The final thirty minutes was definitely a step away from the first film completely. It provides the viewer a more in depth look into the menace and serial killer antics of Mick and a chronicle of his 'hobby'. The ending was also brilliant, simple yet punches you right in the face. Their were parts during the film that were a bit comedic. I found this not to be a bad addition, to lighten up the heavy themes of the film, however it did throw off the pace and unsettling tone. Also the music choices were questionable. I found myself looking over to my friend a few times during these parts laughing awkwardly out of place and saying 'that was a bit weird' or 'interesting song choice, bit lame'.

My main criticism of the movie would probably be the hyper inflated racist Australian character of Mick Taylor. However in saying that, i guess that is why he is so crazy and so easy to hate. I'm glad i saw it, i was thoroughly entertained.

Butchered

[bennoinkohsamui · 1/10 · 20 February 2014]

What can I say? I would have given this film 2 stars if I didn't see the first one. First off, why did all of a sudden Mick Taylor turn into a racist lunatic butcher? His Aussie Dundee character was over the top and shown too much on screen that there wasn't much left to mystify the audience. Head exploding from a gunshot? Come on! Rutger, the German backpacker still able to fight back after being stabbed in the spine... and without blood. And that overstretched torture scene that went on forever and if you're not an Aussie or English, would have probably walked out of the cinema. And I'm not too sure how the Poms are going to like being the target of verbal (and more) racists attacks by the central character. It was cringe-worthy and embarrassing. And from just living in his gritty shack with a shed where he kept his victims – to now an elaborate underground maze with booby traps. Are we expecting Mick to have metal claws wearing a hockey mask on part three? This is a massive fail that I can guarantee is going to be last one. Such a shame and should have left us with a much memorable part one.

To be honest, I really enjoyed it!

[RatedVforVinny · 7/10 · 6 November 2018]

Nothing as good as the first but no 2, is a highly enjoyable, laugh riot, and which can give even 'Mad Max' a run for its money. More of the same please, as I love the dynamics of the main character.

Be careful who you run into at Wolf Creek.

[Sleepin_Dragon · 6/10 · 6 September 2020]

Wolf Creek once again proves to be a fatal spot for more unsuspecting youths.

I know I shouldn't really compare it to the original, but I need to. It always seemed like such an odd follow up, this came quite some years after the first. Number one is an iconic horror, packed with tension, an edge of the seat horror, I don't get that vibe here, yes it has its moments, but the humour at times really does outweigh the horror.

Mick Taylor is bizarrely now a character that could genuinely be on a pantomime stage, he's terrifying, but it's all tongue in cheek, he's gone from being a sinister, force of horror to an over the top horse riding comical figure. The acting performance is hard to fault, I'm just not sure on the direction of the character.

Nicely made, definitely has some thrills and scares, it's totally over the top, and simply doesn't have the scares or the terror of the first, but it's a fun ride. 6/10.

Greg McLean what on earth happened? From Hero to Zero, quick smart!

[SpannersGerm669 · 6/10 · 20 February 2014]

I am lost for words for what Greg McLean was thinking when coming into Wolf Creek 2. The first film set the benchmark for future Australian Horror films and really gave me renewed hope that my nation was making inroads into my favourite genre. I was so psyched to see the sequel. Knowing how nasty and memorable the first one was, while i didn't expect this one to surpass it, i still hoped it would have kept its gritty style and "true horror" feel. I was mortified to see that for some unknown reason, Greg has chosen to go down the "Horror comedy" path and completely butcher everything that made him a household name in the extreme horror genre. Wolf Creek 2 has completely eliminated the menace, the isolation, the gritty style of film work and the ultra realism. He has substituted it with over stylized crap that you come to expect from Mainstream Hollywood. Yes it was funny in parts and John Jarratt showcases his talents as a truly great actor, but this is not what Wolf Creek is about! Congratulations Mr McLean, you have officially sold out and lost a fan in the process. This is evidence of the power of money and how a potentially great film maker, can lose his identity when lured in by money.

Entertaining

[SpookyJackie · 5/10 · 1 June 2014]

This movie was not amazing but it certainly wasn't bad. It's pretty entertaining with some action, chases, and gore.

The only thing I have against this film was that the main character does really illogical things the majority of the time, which makes it a frustrating watch. I found myself getting upset over some things that seemed really common sense that the character would not catch on (and I usually don't get upset over these types of things). Because of his mistakes and lack of cleverness, the movie lasted as long as it did, or it would have ended within an hour into the movie.

Overall, it is a fairly decent thriller - especially if you're into some violence and gore.

The first Wolf Creek was better in my opinion.

Mick Taylor is right up there with Hannibal Lector.

[oldman007 · 10/10 · 30 June 2014]

While I loved the first film, I love this one even more. The thing is, you can't compare this one to the first one, due to the fact that they are both so different. The first one had a really slow pace they was leading up to something so great that the whole film worked. This one is action and gore packed from the very beginning. From the moment this one starts you now you are in for a huge roller coaster ride. And the movie does not disappoint in that sense.

The acting was great (obviously the main star being John Jarratt) and we have the German Backpackers and British tourist Paul Hammersmith, played by Ryan Corr. The whole film gives you the feeling that you will never escape from Mick Taylor no matter how hard you try. And a reference to Steven Spielberg's "Duel" car chase that should go down as one of the best car chase scenes in history. Mick Taylor has many memorable and hilarious lines, and some very creepy and thrilling lines as well. The Citizen Test scene will have people thinking about it all night and maybe even all month! I loved it, a great ride from start to finish. 10/10

The Original "Hitcher" meets the original Wolf Creek, and nearly does them both justice.

[witster18 · 7/10 · 14 July 2014]

John Jarratt is AWESOME. Rare that these slashers can act, and that aspect just adds a ton to this now series. Ryan Corr does an admirable job as well.

This sequel lacks a bit of the style and realism of the first film - kind-of going the torture porn route with more blood and gore, but the overall production is well above the average for the genre, and while I'm a fan of the genre, I still think that in the whole scheme of things this is a pretty good movie. Quite literally mind-blowing, if not truly mind-blowing stuff.

The most important thing here is that it didn't disappoint the way that so many of these do, and Jarratt really deserves the credit for that.

The 'torture-porn' thing might initially be seen as a cop-out, but they did return the bar to it's 80's glory in that respect. The gore is done right with make-up, latex, etc, and a clear lack of cgi. Tom Savini would be proud.

Looking forward to a long, happy series of these with Jarratt in tow. As slightly above average as this is, it's still better than just about every slasher flick this side of the pond(s) over the last 3-4 years save maybe "Maniac".

The similarities to the original "The Hitcher" come because Jarratt(Mick) seems to be 'on the road' for most of the movie.

Overall, this definitely worked for me. Recommended for fans of the genre, but because of the torture-porn aspect, not recommended for anyone else.

Brutal. At times funny. Good production values. This might be the only decent horror selection in that red machine.. The aussies have turned into the new horror kings... lord knows we can't get it right anymore. If I made a list of my top 10 horror flicks of the last decade - they'd have at least half of them - Korea would have a couple - we'd have 2 or three.

Negatives.. In the first film one could argue that the set-up took too long. Here, it might not have taken long enough.

Also, there's a completely meaningless and unnecessary scene involving kangaroos that really just doesn't fit into the movie at all. Needed to be left on the editing floor.

69/100 You'll like this if you liked: Wolf Creek(a touch better), THe Hitcher(orig/better), The Collector(about even or just below), or The Hills Have Eyes(remake/even or just barely below).

Ambitious beginning, but the true "horror" is watching the rest...

[A_Different_Drummer · 2/10 · 21 April 2014]

There are some signature set pieces in this film and, to be fair, they are pretty much unforgettable. In the opening sequence (which is as good as the film ever gets, all downhill from there) a pair of bored cops decide to get tough on the driver of a truck that went through their speed trap, EVEN THOUGH the driver was not actually speeding. Turns out the driver is the baddie from Wolf1 -- sort of a mix between Freddie Kruger and Hannibal Lecter -- and taunting him is a REALLY bad idea. Later, when the impromptu male victim (more on him below) stumbles on one of the earlier, near-victims trying to escape, and rescues her in his car, only to have the baddie now chasing HIM, there comes a scene where the baddie pulls out a hi-power rifle and takes aim at the man, who promptly ducks, but neglects to do the "chivalrous" thing and warn the terrified woman in the seat next to him. So the bullet meant for HIM ends up blowing HER brains out. And, finally, the same young man, who has now become prey himself, loses a car chase and ends up at the bottom off a ravine, climbs out, and yells to the villain "YOU HAVE TO DO BETTER THAN THAT," and scant seconds later a tractor trailer comes hurtling over the cliff which almost makes him a smudge on the landscape.

Frankly, these are unforgettable scenes. And that is a very good thing because the rest of the film, the glue that holds these three scenes together, is not only forgettable but pretty much repulsive.

Essentially we have two movies here, cut at the half way point. The first is an interesting hodge-podge which riffs not only off Wolf1 but also pays "homage" to Spielberg's DUEL. And to a lesser extent, Texas CHAINSAW.

In fact, the action overall is so disjointed that it actually takes a while to determine who the "innocent" is – and in these films the success or failure of the production invariably depends on how well the audience "connects" with the innocent.

By the second act, we discover the innocent is the above-mentioned young male who was simply in the wrong place at the wrong time. Connection value? Zero. Which means entertainment value zero as well.

The entire second act is (not kidding, really) torture porn without any female actors on the set. An amazing feat. Should be be in Guiness. The only performance that survives this wretched undertaking is the part of the Australian scenery, well played by (err) the Australian scenery. The rest is a travesty.

A good Aussie horror flick.

[camh3192 · 8/10 · 24 February 2014]

The purpose of sequels is trying to capture the magic of the first film and the characters that we fell in love with, to tell a new chapter in their story. I saw the first one in 2005 and loved it. It's been eight and a half years since we last saw Mick Taylor grace his presence on the big screen. Some say it may be too late, I say it's about right. The film takes different turns from the beginning in that we see that Mick's up to his old tricks, which shows that a leopard never changes it spots. His character is expanded more as there is more screen time in the first half of the film of Mick hunting his prey. The second half is packed with more gore and a few twists here and here. The death scenes are bloodier than the first. The future DVD may have an unrated version (much like the old slasher films of the 80's and 90's that have "footage not seen in Australian cinemas". I feel the character of Mick has been developed more in this film (the first showed him to be friendly to begin with, then his true colours shined through). This one made him a little soft to begin in the opening scene, but then once the film gets going, it's on. He is depicted much heavily as having deep hatred to back packers in Australia than the first film. I wasn't a fan of the short time of the back packers on screen - I felt little sympathy towards them as I didn't have enough time to connect with them. Greg McLean has made some great films (Rogue was a very under-rated one). His ability to capture the Australian scenery is breath-taking. The over view of Wolf Creek is unique, the long shots of the deserted highways and camera angles capture the look of the film (alone, deserted, stranded, helpless and downright scared come to mind). Ryan Corr does a good job of an English tourist held at Mick's mercy. A couple of car chase scenes add some pace to the film. The first Wold Creek set the bar for Aussie slasher films, this one lifts the bar. A third one in 3D would raise the bar that much higher. If you saw the first one and loved it, see this one. It's a film you either love it or hate it. Wolf Creek film fans will have a ball. Maybe we have a cult film on our hands.

For a sequel it's good

[kosmasp · 6/10 · 5 August 2014]

And while over 7 years have passed since the first one was released (I'm assuming you know the first Wolf Creek or don't care that I refer to it, because this builds up on that), our main "character" is still the same. As you know (or are about to find out), he is the villain and the audience is expected to root for him somewhat this time around. The actor is really charismatic.

The first encounters seem random which might make a case for anyone to not like this movie that much. Also there is some "german" thrown in, with a heavy accent. Do not judge them if you understand what they are saying. We do get a player in the end who seems to be up to par with our villain and the movie seems undecided which one we should root for. Although it does tend to swing into the villains direction. Very gruesome and very violent this is not everyones taste ... but if you're hooked (no pun intended) on our main villain, you'll love it

This movie is rubbish

[jcmackay · 1/10 · 6 June 2014]

At first this movie has some promise, but it soon turned really bad. For one, it promotes the idea that women are ineffective in a bad situation and this is just not true.

Spoiler Alert:

There is a scene when Mick first attacks the foreign couple where the girl has an opportunity to take the knife in the ground and attack him while he is punching the boyfriend. She does not do this, instead she sits there horrified while he gets punched. I really wonder in that scenario how many people regardless of sex would just sit there in a life and death situation and just watch. This is movie bullshit at its highest and really that is where I turned off. Sorry, I don't want to kill my brain with this rubbish.

Just as good/awful as the first.

[Dodge-Zombie · 7/10 · 19 July 2022]

The only connection between these 2 movie is the main character and his truck. Everyone else (actors wise) is a new addition. However one of the things that keeps this going strong is the same director as the first movie.

This isn't quite the same story over again but it does have a lot of similarity. That being said it's all well done.

Again not for the faint hearted so watch with caution.

Recommended.

6.5/10

[evans-j34 · 7/10 · 28 August 2020]

Been putting off watching this for ages as. Even though as a kid I loved old 70s 80s90s horrors I'm not into torture or real life ones of today. Having said that. This is entertaining as a sequel I would say it surpasses its predecessor and is a perfect follow up. The first one we see a slow reveal of the killer where as it follows up full throttle beginning to end kill in the second