Wolf Creek remains to this day one of my favourite horror movies. I first saw it when I was around 16 years old and it has stayed with me ever since. When I saw Wolf Creek 2 I was dubious, because know from experience that sequels of this kind are usually dire, but this surprised me. Was it better than the first Wolf Creek? No. However, it wasn't THAT much worse. It has everything Wolf Creek has - violence, gore, torture, murder and a chilling villain in Mick Taylor. It does everything Wolf Creek does but with a few small changes here and there. The structure is very similar as is the tone, which does have it's cons in that there were no surprises or twists. Everything felt very predictable and at points it did feel I was watching Wolf Creek again. The strongest part of this movie was of course John Jarratt who plays Mick. He is INCREDIBLE and truly lives and breathes the character of Mick to the point that you can't separate the actor from the character. In fact, I read that when filming Wolf Creek 2, John remained in character in between takes and behind the scenes terrifying the rest of the crew, because he said it was so challenging to fully get into the mind-set of Mick that he had to dedicate himself to it 100%. John's dedication to Mick's character truly shows in this movie. He's a ruthless, manic, evil, cruel psychopath but yet there are moments where you're tricked into believing he is sympathetic towards his victims and may show mercy, only for it to be completely ripped away moments later. Unlike Wolf Creek, Wolf Creek 2 is much more focused on Mick than the victims. However, it doesn't really provide much more of an insight into Mick's past or how and why he came to be the monster he is. All it really does is follow the murders he commits throughout the movie from his POV rather than the victims. It also differs from the first in that it's not set in one specific location and is mostly set in the outback as Mick hunts down his victims. There's also slightly more gore, which at points does feel unnecessary. Yes, Mick is a hardened killer devoid of any human emotion, but was the the purpose or point of completely dissecting his victim? Scenes such as that did feel like they were added just to add to the gore factor but if they hadn't of been included it wouldn't have made a difference. Overall, Wolf Creek 2 is not a movie I will remember like I did with Wolf Creek for the simple reason that it didn't do anything much different than the first movie. However, it is worth a watch for horror fans, particularly those that enjoyed the first movie and are slasher fans.

I'm totally worried that wolf creek is about to become a sleazy parody of itself.people have already remarked on the cgi kangaroos in 2 . as an old time busker,woodsman,hitcher , busker myself - John Jarrat's characterful portrayal of Mike Taylor is a classic spin off if you like of the wild guy Crocodile Dundee who stormed our screens in the 80's - 'Thats not a knife - this is a knife!'.Mick is a really cool Ozzy name,and my dad and brother are both Micks.His sideburns,and his Unpredictive responses are what make the film entertaining - not the blasting of half a guys head off.Yeah - shocking but in doing that you are digressing from the ORIGINAL may i say that again 'original' concept.there are several elements in the very first film.1.The desert.2.John Jarrat who sounds just as friendly as Mick Dundee,but spoofs us all.3.the outcome - all the time,it seems so possible for someone to escape but they never do.you have to think about that one - its that essential ingredient that plays with the viewers mind.the first wolf creek,i thought,she's gotta get out alive.2nd wolf creek,English dude was being interviewed - surely he'd get out alive....those elements were the most effective in the film. indeed,i think by now we are all obsessed with why John Jarratt has such a chip on his shoulder.one thing i've never seen done in a film - apart from 'schindlers list' memorably is where a complete control freak of the whole film turns around and offers his victims a way out - a way to in actual fact become the new star of the film.Film makers have got quite boring with their 'bad turns good' story lines - there's more plot to a story than that!I'd like to see John Jarrrat minding his own business on his own land,taking good care of his crops,and nurturing the land before something - either his own past/something in nature changes him and he becomes not just a 'falling down' character but a personal serial killer in his own fantasy of fame.Why do people become total morons? - this is what fascinates people,not necessarily how they kill them - spend less time on effects and shocking death and make up for it in quality story telling - it wins every time.John Jarrat is not dead yet,cos my old man smoked Filterless cigarettes and drank 10 pints a night all his life - he never murdered anyone,but has got 4 Stents and still drinks me under the table.i think there is a possibility for humour in the film,but only if it starts taking the pistol out of itself because it realises its first film was a classic.be very careful - cgi almost had fans turning away in laughter,i think.The details in the first film about him being wood wise,mushrooms,Cappin g the spine like an animal etc were the most frightening aspects of the film - take mushrooms alone - instead of a quiz about Australia,making it all a bit political - why not just a simple unidentified mushroom eating contest - .deathcaps make you hallucinate,feel 100% hungry,totally sane,then you writhe on the floor and die.you could spend your cgi money on a 'bad mushroom event' - just an idea.just don't let the methods and shock value of the cruelty of Mick take over the film,its a great concept and you shouldn't forget the original inspiration.by the way in UK - every bloke thinks they are bear grills.personally - if i ever get as funny as this guy on you tube,then I'll be perfectly happy eating my own.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-SUhJT3g1chave been a massive fan of 'the year my voice broke' since i was 10 oh and that film where they meet up in the desert to shear sheepCheers

I know comparisons are always a bad thing, but being the follow-up to a movie, you cannot help but to compare Wolf Creek 2 with its predecessor. As a general note, I still remember how I enjoyed the first one. The fact they claimed it was based on true events created that extra bit of interest that got me hooked right away. Unfortunately, in this sequel, they re-use this claim, but it just doesn't work. The bad guy has now become even more evil, an out of this world good shot and a man with as many resources and tricks as Mcgyver. It makes it simply impossible to believe that anyone like this has ever existed. At least, from the protagonist point of view. As for the story, I found it a little boring that it turned out to be a chase between the bad guy and a young chap during the entire movie. I watched it all but I kinda of felt like stopping the movie several times. Honestly, if you do not see this movie, you will not miss much

Admittedly, I have not seen the first entry in the Wolf Creek series, but I had heard good things. Against my better judgment, I decided to watch the sequel first possibly swaying me to never even attempt the original. This is just trite and generic horror at its best. How many times has this tale been told? In the fright flick realm, there is originality that occurs once maybe ever five years at best, and then there is an ever amassing mountain of movies like this abomination. I could not tell if I were watching House of a Thousand Corpses, any iteration of a Texas Chainsaw Massacre flick, The Hills Have Eyes, etc. Generic psycho in the middle of nowhere that terrorizes youngsters will put one to sleep as long as you have a functioning brain that is. If you are one of those mindless zombies that enjoy anemic horror, then, you will squeal with delight as the antihero, Mick Taylor, hunts his victims with wild abandon and no motive well accept to "keep Australia beautiful". I will give it one thing, and that is the gore is fantastic, and that is the sole redeeming quality. Overall, it is an idea that is as boring and dusty as the Outback itself. Maybe someone should clear the cobwebs and blow the dust off the horror genre, but then the rabid fans whom support this drivel will never cease with their whining. I leave you with this bit of dialog that sums up how the movie made me feel. Paul: "So it's sort of like 'Who Wants To Be a Millionaire'?" Mick Taylor: "Yeah! Except you don't get to phone a friend if you get one wrong because you'll be too busy screaming in f-ing agony!" This movie left me wanting to phone a friend to relieve some of the sheer boredom and agony that watching this some old trope again left me feeling.