Reviews

Films like Saving Private Ryan make us feel like we're there in the midst of all of the horrifying events. Wolf Creek is not a thing like Saving Private Ryan in most respects, of course, but at times it did make me feel as though I was in the middle of an inescapable and horrific 'nowhere', in the unforgiving Australian outback. The back-packers did a great job. Mick was good, though I wasn't entirely convinced of sickoness.

Too many so-called horrors I've seen feel like they're trying to give a taste of horror without showing genuinely terrifying material. Wolf Creek is raw and harsh. I see that some reviewers feel it crosses some line. Well frankly, those reviewers should get into another line of work: such reviews are a thinly veiled attempt at censoring what they find distasteful.

--Spoilers ahead--

There were a few little things that limited the film for me. One was that the "this could be real" spin the makers tried to put on the film would have been fine if only a little less license were taken in the storyline. Saying something is based around true events promises to make a film seem more compelling. The makers seemed to want their cake and eat it to. The film suggests mass murders somewhere not too far (by Australian outback standards) from Wolf Creek. There was an eye-witness who could identify the wacko (Mick) and who would have been picked up fairly soon after escaping (he wouldn't have lasted long in that environment). How Mick was supposed to have disposed of relevant evidence in a day or two is beyond me. Another limitation was the watches stopping. What was that about? It had nothing to do with anything (and if it did, it would have detracted from the film anyhow).

On balance, it was one of the most enthralling horrors I've seen. Difficult to watch at times, but that, I think, is the whole point.

This does contain spoilers, so don't read it if you haven't War of the Worlds please. To talk about the biggest potential flaw means talking about the ending. So I'll get that out of the way, and then to the merits of the film. In fact, the potential flaw may just be a merit after all.

The potential flaw of greatest consequence, at least to my mind, is whether an advanced extraterrestrial species would invade the planet we are privileged enough to inhabit, without knowing whether it could survive micro-organisms and viruses existing on that planet. Well, I don't think the answer is quite so simple as it might seem. Presumably the invading species is desperate, otherwise why would its members bother to wage an attack on such an immense scale on a foreign planet, necessarily a vast distance from their own? Reference was made to this species having studied our planet carefully. It's not implausible that the species had advanced means at their disposal for combating viral and microbial threats presented by the "infinite" variety of life on earth, as it is said in the narrative. So, this extraterrestrial species may have known it was a gamble to invade, but may have been desperate enough to try anyway, hoping it could immunise and otherwise protect itself.

The thing is that if the story is looked at in this way, it contains a profound message indeed. We have indeed 'earned' our place among myriad life-forms on this planet. With all of our technology, with all of our weapons, we are still at the mercy of a rampant deadly virus, should one emerge. This powerful way of conveying such a message because it juxtaposes the utter powerlessness of human beings against in the face of invasion with the immense power behind billions of years of evolution.

Anything that rocks people out of their complacency, even if just for two hours, is worthwhile in my view. Indeed, if I recall correctly, complacency was a major theme of HG Wells' book, as well as human responses to catastrophic and inescapable terror. If we are prone to complacency, then it surely not unreasonable to think that a species technologically more advanced than our own should be also prone.

The film was characterised by several other implausibilities. Why did cameras still operate in a region where all other electronics had seemingly been wiped out by electromagnetic pulses? Perhaps because they were battery operated and not turned on at the time of the pulse so not wiped out by a surge? I don't know. Why did the invading species not obliterate everything, rather than "exterminating" on a relatively micro-scale? Perhaps because they needed life here for food. Again, I'm not sure how plausible this is. Why was part of Boston unaffected? Perhaps for the same reason, because the extraterrestrial species had to exterminate in a piecemeal fashion in the first place. Why and how did Ray's son survive? The comment by Harlan (Tim Robbins' character) about people who keep thinking when they're in a bad state was, I presume, supposed to imply that doing so dramatically raises a person's odds of survival. Well, true and Ray might have been thinking by evading at the point they parted company, Justin was scarcely doing so. The scene in which he says something to the effect of "I have to see this" was ordinary.

Still, I'm inclined to think that a lot of these details really don't matter a great deal, ultimately. They prevent it from being a great movie perhaps. Irrespective of whether a particular aspect is dubious, though, this film was thought-provoking, challenging, and gripping. I was genuinely convinced by the terror felt by the characters. Dakota's acting ability didn't hurt one bit, on this count.

I am certainly convinced that in such circumstances, mankind would turn on itself where and as necessary in order to survive. This response to the invasion is one of the central points of the film. Whether or not we like to face it, this is the way it is. And the perspective in the film is what made these aspects of the film really hit home. No switching between a collection of characters. We are brought into the world of a family, and we see events unfold from their eyes. Horrible events that bring out the worst, and occasionally the best, in people.

Viewing it affected me, undeniably. It was also deeply thought-provoking irrespective of potential flaws, for after all, it can scarcely be denied that microbes and viruses are among the greatest threats to any species.

For me, a very good film should, above and built upon all else, do two things. It should affect the viewer, and it should provoke contemplation. This film did both for me. I have only ever given three films 9 or more. This one comes close.

***Mild spoilers*** There are two things that stood out for me in this film. The central concept was very good. The killer contrived inventive ways in which to effect his kills. This plot device provided a basis for incorporating a purposive interaction between the killer and various characters in the film. The motivation for choosing victims is one that is often used, but to me that is Okay, because it is one that rings true. His actions were justified, in his mind, on what were essentially moral grounds. There's an interesting spin on this in the film though, with the emphasis placed on valuing just being alive. Ironic, sure, but this is common in life, with some of the most horrific crimes perpetrated by some of the most professedly religious or otherwise moralistic of people; that is, some of the most hypocritical people.

Some very interesting moral dilemmas unfolded in Saw, as is almost always the case in a good movie. The ending was also a good one. The pace was pretty good. At times a little slow, but generally a lot happened, and without any obvious holes. There were some questions I had about the plot, but that may be because I've only seen the film once. I am unsure about the specific motivation and rationale for the killer's choice of victims, or at least participants in the scenarios.

The only thing holding the film back for me was the budget. They made the most of what they had, don't get me wrong. Still, with better actors in a couple of key roles, this could have been a brilliant film. I didn't find Adam all that convincing, personally. In an ideal world, you wouldn't rate a film based on its budget, but I watched this on home theater, and really good effects can complete a film like this. Great films have compelling actors in all major roles. Having said that, they did a damned good job with what they had.

Better than Silence of the Lambs, which had to much psychobabble for my taste. Saw is smarter. On a par with Cell, though the effects in Cell were stunning, while the story is what makes Saw really strong. Thought long and hard about giving this one an 8. Maybe I will after seeing it again, depending on just how strong the story is. Definitely worth seeing, provided you have the stomach for this sort of thing.