September 10, 2005
Richard reviews Wolf Creek
Here's another movie that carries a tagline of
Based on true events
, and this concerns me, and it's been concerning me for a long time in movies. I think it's that word based, and then seeing how much of the movie is actually real, and the thing that makes the movie better in your mind is more the fact that you're considering what you are seeing is really what happened, when it is often not.
The interesting thing about Wolf Creek is that it really pushes that statement to the outer limits of reasonable interpretation, and relies heavily on the effect the audience's mind will have on them while watching the movie and associating everything with real life. What's even more interesting is that it really does work.
The movie really has a few sections, there's the introduction to the characters and their lives, then there's the suspenseful thriller, followed by the Texas Chainsaw Massacre (original) moments, and finally the "based on a true story" wrap up, and actually it combines these really well into an escalation of terror.
The opening section where we're introduced to the three travellers and have time to understand who they are, their relationships with each other, their friends and lifestyles and where they're going in the movie, seems somewhat elongated. Watching it I definitely got the feeling that it was taking too long, that the introductions were complete, however what was happening was we were building an affinity with the characters and making a bond. This worked much better than other movies I've seen of late like Open Water where the introductions to the characters are scant and give you the bear facts without any real connections, so that during the movie when the scares should be kicking into gear you're shaking your head at their annoyance and idiocy.
This doesn't happen so much here because you are actually with the characters, and the exposure to their normal life and conversations helps you to feel something toward them, helps you view them as real people and make a personal connection, if you've ever been travelling of course. That leads me to the dialogue and the style, both of which are pretty realistic. It switches from a documentary to a drama really well, and it's this early documentary feel that helps bring that believability to it, over the "true story" statement.
Now, although for the most part the dialogue is pretty real and natural, there are some moments where you're left hanging wondering why no one is saying anything, it's more like an improvisation that's run out of ideas rather than a natural break in conversation. There's also a few moments of clunky dialogue that trip over themselves and it slaps you in the face to remind you that you're out of the movie. For the most part though the script brings another aspect to the realism that compounds that feeling of it all being a true story.
Slowly, as the travellers reach their destination, the mood of the movie changes a little bit at a time, and the tension and suspense begins to build. This is done really effectively in a series of scenes, and at the point where the scary part of the movie takes over I was surprised at how much I was on edge.
There are two really effective scenes that manage to pull your suspense levels back and forth. The first was the appearance of the man with the truck, again the feeling in these scenes is overly stretched out and this is done to superb effect. He arrives and you know this is bad character, but then he's nice if a bit odd, and repeatedly nice. He's nice after the point that you even think this is a deliberate distraction from the standard Hollywood script device of misdirection. He's actually a nice guy. This just totally messes with you and actually didn't ease the pressure of suspense at all with me, it just raised it, as you knew you were waiting for something bad to happen.
Another superb scene is just after this where the characters are sitting around a camp fire waiting for the car to get fixed. Ben, played well by Nathan Phillips, makes a slight joke against Mick, superbly played by John Jarret, the local who's helping them out. Mick doesn't seem to appreciate it and gives him this long stare, again overly long and it's an extremely uncomfortable and chilling moment.
It's Mick who provides the most natural and truly terrifying performance, and when he really takes to the screen it's from here on that we move into the horror\terror area of the movie. This is where it totally delivers, the suspense is kept going on an even level, but we're treated to some utterly scary moments. Being locked up in the middle of nowhere by a psychopath is probably as scary as it gets, but the real horror is yet to come and we are shown it in a truly uncompromising and frightening way.
Mick continues to be the totally unemotional character looking on the tourists as nothing more than vermin to be played with, and this playing seems to include torture, rape, mutilation and killing. The two female leads Liz and Kirsty, played by Cassandra Magrath and Kestie Morassi, manage to portray their horror and confusion throughout. It's when they are being chased down that they really deliver performances that convince you they are out of their minds with panic.
There are some amazing scenes in this section of the movie that I'm really not going to talk about, other than to say that they are very well written, visualised and portrayed, and they provide for more terror and realistic horror than I have seen for a very long time. It's these moments where my hands were on my face and I was considering that my hungover stomach was definitely not happy.
Mixed in here though are some of those traditional teen horror decisions, a few that you can put down to confused terror, and one or two that stuck out for me. However the suspense and terror just sweeps that aside onto the next scene that you have to deal with. This movie has stayed with me for two days now, I watched it Friday morning and writing about it on Saturday evening I'm still feeling uncomfortable and uneasy from it.
Yet it's not all great, and here I return to the reliance of that big flag I raised at the beginning, "true story". You see at the end of the movie we're given the traditional "true story" summary of closing events to the present day, just to let you understand the true horror of the events and again to tell us just how real it has all been. Yet in this case, what we realise is how much has been created, and how little of the story is in fact a creative tale.
That doesn't affect how good the horror and terror story is, but it raises so many more questions and you find yourself wondering a lot more about how and why and the huge missing storyline of one of the characters, rather than concentrating on the feelings of horror and terror that you've experienced and carried away.
For me this distracted somewhat from what the tale was about, and missing a huge chunk of a major characters story shouted at me that there was either a very heavy cut, or a big mistake was made in the screenplay. I can't say too much more about it, other than to watch it and see if you agree.
It's a superb horror movie with lessons in abject terror and suspense, but it's a poor representation of what is reported to be a true story. There is an excellent performance here from the psychopath, and a big note for the male lead who is obviously going to get noticed from this film and move onto better things, not just Snakes on a Plane!
IMDB UK movie details
My voting history on UK IMDB
Posted by at September 10, 2005 02:25 PM
Comments
Posted by: R. Jackson at September 10, 2005 07:26 PM
Rubbish. If I wrote a story about your family and the opening 5 minutes and closing summary text was real, it would make a lot of difference.
It makes a lot of difference in the movies because they affect peoples opinion of events. It's been shown that a poll of younger school children asked about various events in history got them wrong after basing them on inaccurate movies such as U-751, Pearl Harbour, Saving Private Ryan. It was a healthy percentage too.
I'll try and find that article, I think it might have been New Scientist.
However, the words are good in a movie because it hightens your emotional state regarding it. If it's real, and in this case a horror, then it becomes scarier becuase you feel people went through it and there's more connection to them and events rather than characters in a movie. This happened, it could happen to you, kind of thoughts.
Posted by: Richard Brunton at September 11, 2005 06:14 AM
What was the inaccuracy in Saving Private Ryan? I've read from so many sources, that it was the best film that ever tackled D-Day. Care to share Rich?
Posted by: Simone at September 11, 2005 11:29 AM
It was the most realistic landing scene and battle sequences ever, but the inaccuracies in the story and particularly the continuing portrayal of an American only war.
The best D-Day film by far is The Longest Day.
Posted by: Richard Brunton at September 11, 2005 01:41 PM
It's more like, "If I wrote a story using the names of your family members and set it in the town where your family lived..." And all that would do is piss me off. ;-)
I agree that films "based on a true story" engage a lot of viewers on some level because they more readily accept the plausibility of the premise, but what I'm saying is that "based on a true story" doesn't mean much of anything contained in the film is actually "true." Plan 9 From Outer Space could be based on the true story of people claiming to have seen flying saucers. That doesn't make it a documentary. ;-)
Posted by: R. Jackson at September 11, 2005 05:48 PM
Nobody said it was a documentary, although that's an interesting point, with the movie telling you it's based on a true story and the production company name at the start "True Crimes Channel", it's a fair pointer to the audience.
Yes, you are partially right, it may not mean anything to the viewer who looks at the story and works out how much they really know. However, to the mass audience they do take what they see all too often as fact. See my comment earlier regarding the school kids and movie versions of war events.
There's nothing that counters the inference "this is real" or puts it into perspective. I suggest you watch the film and understand what I mean, I don't want to spoil the story for anyone by pointing it out, because it actually is a good story.
Actually I think there's a good debate to be had here on the subject of "based on a true story"...Might be a good feature.
Posted by: Richard Brunton at September 12, 2005 03:30 AM
I'm not actually convinced that this is a "true story". I can't find any details anywhere on the web of the case which surely would have made news? Even if the names and locations have all been changed, I can't imagine that this is anywhere near a true story and probably it's all fiction. This makes me feel that it's actually a very clever way of engaging the audience in a very good horror movie and it leads to an excellent who dunnit type converstaion afterwards. Was Ben Mitchell making it all up?
If it is based on any sort of true story the resemblance to the film are miniscule, although one can;t think of the Peter Falconio case.
Posted by: Ben at September 25, 2005 08:00 AM
This is based on the Ivan Marlat (i can not remember his last name)back packer killings (Search for backpacking/backpacker killers in Australia on search engines). A serial backpacking killer in the late 1980s and 1990s in Australia. Everyone in Australia knows of him and his deeds, its famous and Australia's most famous serial killer.
He would pick back packering tourists up in the outback (But not that far West, he did his crimes in New South Wales, on the East coast of Australia) and take him to his home and kill them. I think he killed like a dozen people.
It is also based on the Peter Falconio case, and the movie has been banned from showing in a part of Australia where the Trial of the murderer is taking place.
So it is really a combination of two stories and moved to a different location. It is based on a true story, not a true story. But it is more truer then you think :-).... please still come to Australia, these guys are pretty rare!
Posted by: Smiti at October 28, 2005 10:35 AM
Yeah just saw it tonight, definately agree with the above, a combination of the Peter Falconio case (down to the truck and even comparative location) and the Ivan Marlat case. I could see how this would be banned from viewing in the area where the Falconio case is on trial, definately very full on. Enough to convince me that if I ever take a road trip out west I'm going armed to the teeth hehehehe
Anyways besides that, I found this site while doing research on the whole "true story" part of this movie and like a few people here, have come up with diddly squat.
I think if your dead keen on keeping the realism side of this movie in your head, combine what Mr Marlat and the Falconia case have to offer you and know that a good deal of what was happening to the girl that was tied to the pole while he tormented her was probably fact in the Marlat case, but the truth of this movie is, no one can put an ouce of credit behind whats being portrayed here as actual fact and no one was there to see what happened in any case seeing "Ben" was too busy playing jesus on his crusifix to write an acurate version of events in regards to the girls fate.
Nevertheless, a great parrallel to Texas Chainsaw Massacre (which I am certain this movie is trying to imitate) and without any question a far more believable and realistic version of it at that.
Posted by: Harley at November 24, 2005 07:46 AM
I can't wait to see this movie, I loved TX CH MASS and House of wax (was that "based on true events" too)? Anyway I don't even believe TX CH MASS was true, can't even find such a town or any good news stories back then anywhere on the web or in the library and we all know The Amytiville horror was a big made up story, they said based on true events with the remake of it and it was nothing like the original! WIERD but I will keep watching!!
Posted by: Mandy at December 12, 2005 01:37 AM
The original Amityville was taken from the book written by the family who stayed in the house and experienced the events. Although there have been many questions raised against them, it's still claimed to be true.
TCM is based on a few different stories of serial killers and urban myths. Most of the idea for the story and leatherface character is taken from Ed Gein.
House of Wax is just a remake of a very old movie...as far as I remember. There was an extremely informative Channel 4 show on a while ago about horrors and their background.
Posted by: Richard Brunton at December 12, 2005 07:19 AM
Most of the lies that have been told over the course of the history of civilization have been "based on a true story" or "inspired by actual events" or whatever euphemism you prefer to describe fiction that draws inspiration from existing situations. It doesn't really mean anything, IMO.