Is "Wolf Creek 2" (2013) a well made film? Yes. It's exceptionally well made. Would I recommend it? I'm not sure.I'd rate it a perfect 10. Its technical expertise in undeniable. The cast is roundly excellent. John Jarratt is absolutely perfect in the role he seems born for. He's so effectively menacing as this film's serial killer that I think I'd find it unnerving even meeting the actor in real life. The only other actor I think I can say that about is Ted Levine, who so indelibly portrayed Buffalo Bill in "Silence of the Lambs" (1991).Ryan Corr is damn perfect, as are the actors in smaller roles. I think Shannon Ashlyn portrays terror better than any other actress I've seen. She isn't just a horror movie "scream queen;" her performance was so skilled that she rises above such a trite label. (And I've seen a lot of horror movies, people.)It's extremely well directed. The conclusion of an action sequence involving a truck must have looked downright stupid on the page, but damn if Greg McLean doesn't make it plausible and shocking.The entire movie is gorgeously shot. It was enough to make me want to visit Australia … if the story didn't make want to stay the hell away from Australia.I just get the impression that some movie studio planned to produce a generic, derivative slasher movie … but just inexplicably employed the best creative talent available for all aspects of its creation.Now, about my reluctance to recommend this … Please understand that this film is incredibly dark, even by horror movie standards. At times it was just too much for me. I actually stopped playing this on Netflix several times to "take a break with something lighter" by watching "The Walking Dead." Yes, you read that right.The story depicted is just brutal. There are very few movies that are too dark for me … I think I could count them on one hand. (And one was 2005's original "Wolf Creek.") And this film is just so masterfully made that its victims seem like real people suffering — something at which the "Saw" films and various other slasher movies rarely succeeded.I honestly think it might have been so "good" that it went past the point of entertaining me. Can I honestly recommend a movie that I felt the need to switch off?You make your own call. Again — this is exceedingly dark material, even by horror movie standards. But if you think you're up to it, watch it.

Wolf Creek 2 is the sequel (duh) to 2005's Wolf Creek, and writer/director Greg McLean is once again at the helm.Let me start by saying that I think the first one (WC1) was not an out-of-this-world kind of picture...it wasn't even "scary" to be honest. But it had 1 "redeeming factor" going for it: it was entertaining as hell! And sometimes that's the only thing that matters. Even if a movie isn't "Grade A" material, if it accomplishes the not-so-easy task of "giving you a good time" while watching it...it deserves to be recommended.Also the fact that a movie may not be "mainstream Hollywood" doesn't make it "an instantly bad movie".I just want to establish those grounds so that people can understand that I'm not basing this review on one of those dumb reasons.OK, I'll be brief: Wolf Creek 2 is a REALLY BAD movie. Don't watch it.Well...that's it. Thank you for reading my review. Bye bye!I'm just kidding!"Why is it so bad", you ask? Here's why: while the first movie had some kinda ridiculous moments here and there...it also had some eerie sense of "realism" that pulled you into the action, mainly because you were seeing things, thinking "this definitely could happen...for real!". And that's one of the most powerful things a movie can do, especially a horror one. If the acting and the story has "some" ground where you can latch onto, things can go from "this is cool" to "OMG, this feels so real! I can't watch it anymore! It's disturbing!". And let me tell you: that's a GOOD thing for a horror movie. ;)The acting is not atrocious...but it's not as good as WC1's cast. The only redeeming factor, of course, is John Jarratt, repeating as Mick Taylor, the star of the whole show. The rest of the cast goes from "acceptable" to "mediocre".But the main problem with this movie is the fact that everything is just a huge mess. Aside from 1 or 2 things...nothing has any sort of "plausibility" whatsoever. Almost all the things that happen in this movie are complete and utter NONSENSE.I know, I know...Suspension of disbelief, right? Yeah...no. When you're seeing sequences and behavior that have zero chances of happening in real life it's almost impossible to "suspend" anything.Remember what I said about the first movie earlier? Well this one does almost the opposite of all that.Every couple of minutes you just watch the action unfold while thinking "seriously? You gotta be freakin' kidding me!".And the reason for that is a poorly written script. McLean takes not only the premise of the first movie...but basically everything else too! There's not a single "new" element on this thing. It's like if he simply changed some names here & there, added a lot of nonsense...and said "done". And I'll give you a good example: remember watching the Droopy the dog cartoons while growing up? Remember how he had the "ability" to appear anywhere in a blink? No matter what? Well now apply that cartoonish approach to a human being and tell me: is it still funny?And you know why they did that on the cartoon? Because that was an easy way to simply not care about any situation: if the dog can appear anywhere no matter what, you can write any nonsense and everything will be fine at the end. And that's exactly what McLean did on his script. Some truly lazy way of not having to care about what happens on screen...because the main character can do basically impossible things, allowing him to get away with anything.Bottom line: if you're able to completely shutdown your brain while watching a movie maybe this one will be "almost bad" for you. Otherwise there's no way a smart person will be able to withstand so many ridiculous plot holes and nonsensical "twists" without trying to crush the TV in the process.This is an obvious attempt to cash in on the success of Wolf Creek while not caring about trying to develop new things and/or telling a coherent story. This is as bad as sequels can go.Save yourself of wasting almost 2 hours on this one...and just watch the first movie.

Not a bad horror movie but there didn't seem to be a point to it. The whole thing was just a cat chasing mouse situation and there was no actual climax. I spent the entire movie waiting for it to start. There were a few scary gross moments but the tension and suspense were missing. It is nothing like the original.I was also disappointed with John Jarrett. He just wasn't as creepy. He was your run of the mill psychopath...nothing special this time around. It was still entertaining but you could certainly give it a miss.WARNING: This movie has way too much animal cruelty. It was lucky that the special effects were super fake but it still made me want to be sick.

The first Wolf Creek was brutal and unforgiving. Nothing out-of-the ordinary in story terms except that (spoiler alert) it had some decent performances and an unhappy ending. Wolf Creek 2 (spoilers ahead) doesn't have enough ideas to create one coherent story, so it combines three and allows some segments to become long and drawn-out. With obvious nods to Alien and Duel in places, performances are again decent but the lack of variety in the final act becomes boring. The film regularly pushes you over the limit of horror into abandon — too much violence and gore becomes tasteless and somehow turns you off to the peril. If this dude is gonna get away with it all the time; if the victims are all gonna make such dumb mistakes, why should I care?The opening scene is interesting — giving you a touch of empathy for the bad guy — but the rest doesn't live up to it. There's a modicum of hope that good will triumph, but not much. It could've been something different and memorable, but it's just a slasher film in the outback, despite its increased budget. Obviously, the producers want to keep this franchise going rather than just make a good two-film saga.Oh, and the Fargo-style, "this is based on a true story," lie has been done-to-death. You can stop that now.