So, when someone tells me Wolf Creek is a great genre bending horror triumph, I have to check it out! My feelings towards it, ultimately, can be summed up in one word: overrated.

This is a movie that hinges on several conflicting elements. First of all, it tries to be realistic. It has a killer who is believably skilled and evil, in an area of Australia that actually exists (re: Wolf Creek), where real murders have occurred. There's no silly masks or anything on the killer that makes him less believable of a crazy person. In fact, the director tries hard to make the film seem realistic by adding in video journals of the main characters, filmed on a Handi-Cam, in a style pulled right out of Blair Witch, or any other number of 'first person' films. The opening, interspersed with these gritty shots, and choppy, swaying shots of beach parties and driving, emulating the 'in the action' Bourne style of editing, about made me vomit my Mr. Goodbar Bites back out into the theatre aisle.

Second element is the MacGuffin (that item or event that draws the characters together and sets the whole thing in motion…like the Arc to Indiana Jones). While seemingly a throwaway piece of Wolf Creek's puzzle, so much of the opening and plotting, a tedious 20 minutes of hedonistic triviality, revolves around it that it can't be ignored. In this case, the group is heading out to Wolf Creek, a canyon where a meteor has crashed sometime in the past. In a mysterious twist of UFO BS, the groups car stops working, and their watches stop ticking, halted by some alien influence. This strands our trio, and turns them from adventurers to prey.

How aliens figure into the 'realistic' element is far beyond me. Director Greg Mclean claims that the event, and the characters' conversation about it is a tribute to the film Picnic at Hanging Rock, a similar (and much better) Australian horror film. Great job, Mclean, hang your entire narrative on a tribute to a little known movie with an entirely different focus and tone. Why not pack an invisible, flesh eating id-beast into there too, as a celebration of Forbidden Planet?

Finally, after seemingly hours of film confirming the kids as inept morons and John Jarrett's tow truck driver as a goofy, but torture-crazed villain (and everything with torture is scary, right? Right? Meh.) we're treated to a pretty solid chase across the desert, focused entirely on the two female party members, Nathan Phillips, the dude, is practically written out. Too little, too late? I would argue yes, though in the film's defense, I will say that the moments of Jarrett tracking Girl #1 across the plains of the outback are well set up, and show a deftness not typically shown in horror villains.

Of course, this deftness is lost entirely when, not five minutes later, Phillips breaks free from his bindings, and simply walks home. Jarrett never even comes for him. He's just been crucified and pulled himself off the cross, escapes a vicious guard dog, has no food or water and he just…walks…home.

Ah, but here's the third major part of the picture. You see this movie is 'based on a true story'. It seems that Phillips was arrested when he walked home for the murder of the two girls. This movie was supposed to represent his testimony, which would excuse the more fantastic elements. He was tried because, much like Leatherface, when the authorities got to the area, there was no sign of the tracker or the girls. Of course, there are problems with this set up.

First off, the movie is based on a couple of true stories, one being Bradley John Murdoch, who killed a British tourist and tried to kidnap a second. (of course, there was no body and no weapon, which in my opinion means no proof that a murder ever occurred, in fact, the second tourist never even saw the body! But I'm not an Australian jury member…) Also incorporated is the Ivan Milat, convicted killer of seven backpackers across the outback. But in both of these stories, the man put on trial was the Bushman, not the tourist. So, really, these 'true events' or at least their framing premise, never happened. This bugs the shit out of me. Don't claim that a movie is 'based on true events' if its not… in fact, I'd bet the true events would probably have made a better movie.

Secondly, and this is the English Major in me coming out, but if Phillips is telling the story, then none of the stuff with the girls should be included, because he never saw any of it take place. He just ran…er, walked, away. If anything, the frame narrative comes from the female victims. This whole idea worked so much better in High Tension.

So, we have a horror movie that reuses elements from Blair Witch, Texas Chainsaw Massacre, Last House on the Left (etc), High Tension, and… Invaders from Mars, with an unbearably long opening, insipid characters, a goofy villain, a poor premise, and a lie for a tag line. Quentin Tarantino called it 'The scariest movie he'd ever seen… performances that will go down in history." Big Q, if it weren't for Kill Bill, I swear to God…

WOLF CREEK IS a genre-bending horror triumph. I liken it to THE DESCENT, you just don't expect it, It feels different. What you refer to as "seemingly hours of film" is the director merely setting a mood, a pace. You don't see this anymore, especially in horror. For it to work you need to see the victims living their lives, having fun. You need to get to know them so when the tragic events take place it makes it all the more horrific. They go from lively, happy individuals to hopeless victims. The watches not working, the shot of the car as they walk away from it, it's all happening to create a mood. It is telling you that something very bad is about to happen. I know that is the "MacGuffin" in which you speak of but I took it all in a different way.

For instance, there is brief talk of meteors, UFO's and aliens but its incidental, and it doesn't play a major part in the film. If it is a tribute to PICNIC AT HANGING ROCK then, so be it. There is a difference between a tribute and a major plot point. I think when Ben mentions aliens he is perhaps trying to get a rise out of the girls or is just simply talking. The watches' stopping wasn't enough of an issue for me to prevent my enjoyment of the film. Also, the car not starting had nothing to do with "Alien BS", I believe the car did not start because Mick Taylor messed with it while they were on their walk, leaving them defenseless and in need of his help.

Not to turn it into a gender difference BUT the scenes with the stop by the site where the meteor dropped played differently for me than it did for you. You're a guy; you look for pesky things like whether things are feasible or make sense. I'm a girl; I tend to concentrate on character development and being affected by scenes like the first kiss between Liz and Ben, that fluttery energy of discovery when you realize you really like someone. As the viewer you know they won't be able to ever see where that goes. That affected me more than wondering if the outer space references were out of place or not. That isn't an insult to either sex, it is merely a reason why we may differ on some of these issues.

Now let's tackle the 'based on a true story' issue. In the very beginning of WOLF CREEK you will notice it reads "The following is based on actual events". Now to me that could mean a variety of things. It also states that 30,000 Australians go missing every year and that 90% of them are found, the rest are not. In addition you state that the movie is based on a couple of true cases. Now what 'based on actual events' means to me is a little is taken from here and a little is taken from there and then it is made into a movie. In the beginning if it had stated "This is the true story" then I would have expected it to stay on one path and represent the truth of exactly what happened. This, however, wasn't the case. It never claimed to be based on one story. It took factual elements from different places and added scenes for dramatic effect. In my opinion, since it stated it was 'based on actual events', the movie had every right to do that.

As for the character of Ben Mitchell breaking free of his bindings and escaping, I find this perfectly feasible. Sometimes people escape, they find a way out. Why not this character? People have gone days without food and water; he went one, maybe two. Perhaps his survival instinct kicked in, it wasn't like he was sprinting through the outback, he was in pain, shivering and barely alive. I don't think the character was forgotten about or written off, I think the focus was placed on the girls because that is whom Mick had the most pleasure messing with, Ben was an afterthought. When you see Ben again the reaction is, "Oh god, I wondered what happened to him." It works.

Also, he didn't walk home, he was picked up by German tourists and driven to safety. In addition I would like to add that the story wasn't told from his point of view or his first hand account. All 3-character stories can be told because it's a movie, the director is telling the story. Basically your "framing premise" is 3 people become stranded and find themselves at the mercy of an insane and sadistic individual.

Oh, and don't pull out Quentin Tarantino, I love that guy but he says that shit about every movie he sees. Also, you're an English major? When did this happen? I shall have you know that any degree you receive from the inside of a match book cover doesn't count as a real degree. Believe me, I know. My successful career as a gynecologist ended when it was found out I had received my "degree" from the back of a pack of matches from the Blue Bunny lounge. Well, that story isn't entirely true, I did pretend to be a gynecologist but that was in college and I was going through an "experimental phase". Also, I never claimed to have a degree.

But seriously this film really blew me away when I first saw it. We are getting caught up in the semantics of it when we should be discussing how disturbing and effective it is. When you see Liz going through the film of the camcorder footage they took and you see Mick's truck in the background, that is chilling. This was a detail not noticed while it was happening. At that moment of discovery it creeps you out, he had been following them around. It also makes one think about how LONG he had been following them around. Now, I know Mick Taylor comes off a bit goofy but I think it's more fun loving than anything, downright jovial actually. There are slight shades of someone who could turn on a dime but it's played off as a laugh. This was brilliant on the part of director Greg Mclean. It makes his sadistic side even more terrifying when it does come out.

The character of Mick Taylor can't be compared with anyone. Nothing against Freddy, Michael and Jason, they have their place but Taylor is just a guy, no snappy one liners, no hockey masks. He is just one person gleefully inflicting pain and suffering on others. Comparing it to the older classics is like comparing apples to oranges. Yes, most movies out there today can be compared to older counterparts but WOLF CREEK brought something new to the table. I can confidently say that I didn't think of any other film while watching it.