Billed as "based on true events", Wolf Creek is the story of three people who get stranded while backpacking in Australia.  Upon visiting the crater at Wolfe Creek National Park, the group’s watches stop working, and then they realize that their car won’t start.  Soon after, they meet a friendly man named Mick (John Jarratt, a former Australian television star) who offers to fix their car that night.

Mick seems pretty normal at first, reminiscent of a stereotypical "Crocodile Dundee" type of person, but as the night progresses, he makes a few odd comments that lead to the group becoming increasingly nervous about his presence at their makeshift camp.

Finally, they fall asleep one by one.

They wake up bound and gagged and soon are forced to endure unimaginable psychological and physical torture, the likes of which haven’t been seen since The Texas Chain Saw Massacre.  In fact, Wolf Creek is very similar to the Texas Chain Saw franchise.  Almost too similar. Three college-aged people, one boy and two girls, go on a trip, get stranded, get attacked and tortured, all on grainy film (or digital in this case). Throughout its entirety, this movie seems way too familiar.

There are a few differences: the character development in Wolf Creek is lacking, all three of the victims are just plain boring.  We have Nathan Phillips as Ben, who picks up the two British girls, Liz and Kristy (Cassandra Magrath and Kestie Morassi, respectively) who are about to return home from their Australian trip.  There's some talking and flirting between the group but there is nothing of substance learned; viewers only get to the surface of the characters, leaving an ultimate feeling of shallowness.  There’s a somewhat interesting love story within the group but even that isn’t enough to keep the viewer's interest.  The gore and torture scenes in Wolf Creek are far more brutal, with the intense psychological and physical torment being used to its fullest extent given the R rating it had in theaters and the unrated version released to DVD (while TCM reportedly cut out all of its gore in order to receive a PG rating it didn’t achieve), but even that fell flat and seemed a bit overdone.

The brightest spot, if you can call it that, is John Jarratt's performance as Mick Taylor, the deranged torturer.  He does an amazing job playing an evil and sadistic killer.  He delivers chilling lines while gleefully mocking his victims and laughing at their predicaments.  He refers to them as "head on a stick"after paralyzing them, and taunts them mercilessly, and when some almost escape, he reels them back in just in time.  This guy is a completely remorseless killer and while humorous and charming, isn’t someone you could ultimately like.  This is a refreshing change from mainstream villains like Hannibal Lecter (a personal favorite) and Freddy Krueger that American audiences are used to seeing in horror films.  Mick is not redeemable in any way and that’s as it should be.  Having a well-liked villain would not have worked well for a fact-based movie, and the writer seemed to understand that.

It’s "based on true events", but director Greg McLean hesitates to call attention to any specific event.  Some people say, however, that it is similar to the backpacker murders of the mid ‘90s, and that Mick bears similarities to killer Ivan Milat (whose name can be seen spelled backwards on the sign for the mining company site, where Mick takes his victims.)

Also worth noting are the strange and often absurd reviews Wolf Creek received. Roger Ebert, specifically, said the movie "crossed a line".  He says, "There is a role for violence in film, but what the hell is the purpose of this sadistic celebration of pain and cruelty?"  I think this is a total misrepresentation of the film.  In no way does Wolf Creek celebrate pain and cruelty.  It doesn’t embrace sadism or condone the behavior of the killer.  Rather it rather coldly and factually shows what people are capable of. Maybe that’s what bothers so many people about this movie.  It’s just... there.  It doesn’t attempt to explain away anything.  There’s no motive.  It’s only a brutal depiction of a person’s darker side.

I hesitate to call this film enjoyable because of its perverse nature, but it has some genuinely chilling moments.  There are a few scenes you will be unable to forget for awhile, though its build up takes too long.

Overall, I will recommend this film because John Jarratt's amazing performance is able to carry it to disturbing heights.  Also, for a low budget film shot entirely on digital and transferred to film, Wolf Creek looks great and accomplishes quite a bit.

Roger Ebert's review that I referenced.