Wolf Creek (Unrated Widescreen Edition) (2005) Review

Average Reviews:

(More customer reviews)As per usual, there have been a great many moronic things said about this movie. Some critics have been offended by it, but don't let that make you think this is some sorta gorefest. The violence is intense and reasonably graphic, but it's certainly not gory in the conventional sense. I find it amusing that those who were offended by the film have more or less said that it was too horrifying, cause ya know, god forbid that someone actually be horrified by a horror movie. They've also said it is misogynistic, just like they've said about every other slasher movie ever. (Slasher movie isn't entirely appropriate for describing this, but it's as good as we'll get.) This is a particularly irritating complaint, first because they always say this, second because it's a bullcrap non-argument evasion intended to avoid any real analysis, and finally because it isn't true. In fact, it's even less true here than it usually is, cause the film doesn't make the killer into the hero. Yes, bad things happen to the women in this film, but we AREN'T supposed to be happy about it. And, of course, very bad things happen to men in the film as well, but who the hell cares about them anyway? Everyone knows that women are much, much more important than men. I also think it's interesting that the killer is a fat, greasy dude from out in the country, as they so often are in this sorta movie, yet it has not been accused of being bigoted against rural people, nor has any horror movie I've ever heard of. What a bizarre coincidence. Wonder why critics don't seem to care about those sorts of people. Maybe they really think that they all are killers. I dunno.
But, critical idiocy aside, this is a very nicely done horror film. The plot is simplicity itself- 3 youths are captured and tormented by a backwoods psychopath while vacationing near Wolf Creek in Australia. Subplots are rarely of interest in slasher films, and 'Wolf Creek' fortunately has none of them. Still, with the very small cast we get to know these characters quite a bit better than we usually would in a slasher film, and they are certainly far more likable than the hot young teens of the American slasher revival. (Of course that doesn't mean much, as said hot young teens are usually loathsome.)
'Wolf Creek' was really made on the cheap, only about 1 million bucks, I hear, and it's certainly got a rough, gritty look. Some people claim that grainy, DV films with handheld cameras are more realistic, which makes precisely no sense as life is not especially grainy, and I tend to hold my head fairly still. However, this technique can allow for a greater sorta intensity and physicality, which works well here. Despite the generally rough visuals, it's still got some rather beautiful cinematography at times, and the great Australian deserts are a fine backdrop for such events.
Yeah, the film does take a while to get going, certainly longer than is necessary, but seriously, are you guys all 3 years old or what? Go out in the lobby and drink your juice and then go potty, and then it'll almost be time for the killing to start. The acting is extremely good for a film with this kinda budget. The 3 leads all do a fine job, with some fairly authentic, if not exactly fascinating, casual banter in the first half of the film. Still, the second half is much more important, and they play it a bit different from most horror films, which is largely why this bothers so many critics. In most horror movies, none of the characters are ever authentically terrified. They're pretty nervous and jumpy and may let out a scream before they die, but they're pretty much in control. Not so here, as Magrath and Morassi spend much of the latter part of the movie in near hysterics, and are utterly convincing, with two of the finest performances of this sort since Marilyn Burns' classic turn in the original 'Texas Chainsaw Massacre'. John Jarrat is also excellent as the killer. They use a trick which is fairly common, in that we are introduced to him as if he were a normal character, who seems amiable enough, if a bit odd, and we then slowly see his violent side revealed. It's an old trick, but a good one, and it works especially well here, aided by his Australian accent, which are always inherently non-threatening to me, for some reason. He does get to be a bit wisecracking at times, but never to the point which he becomes the hero of the film.
Many will say this has an anticlimactic ending, and while I can't help but agree with this to some degree, it's also kind of interesting in that it is so different from what you'd usually see in this sorta film. The small cast also makes it quite a bit less predictable, as most slasher movies have the few central characters who will obviously survive, along with plenty of cannon fodder. With only 3 main characters there just aren't enough people to allow any meaningless little kills stuffed in at the beginning, and it's tougher to predict the order in which they will be offed.
Though I'm sure many of you are sick of hearing this, `Wolf Creek' really is a throwback to the more intense horror films of the 70's like `The Texas Chainsaw Massacre' and `The Hills Have Eyes'. It's got an intensity and seriousness that is almost inevitably lacking from later slasher movies, and the old rough and violent feeling. As such, it certainly isn't for everyone, as many people seem to only like gentle, feel-good horror or conventional gorefests. But, it you've got a taste for something darker and more intense, `Wolf Creek' is definitely worth a look.
Grade: A- (This is after watching it again on DVD, and determining that it was even better than I'd thought initially. I'd change the rating to a 5, if I could.)

Click Here to see more reviews about: Wolf Creek (Unrated Widescreen Edition) (2005)

Welcome to Wolf Creek, where the suspense of The Blair Witch Project meets the horror of The Texas Chainsaw Massacre. Inspired by Australia’s "Backpacker Killer" who murdered seven backpackers in the ‘90s, Wolf Creek won wide acclaim from critics, filmmakers and audience members alike at the Sundance Film Festival.Three unsuspecting hikers take off for a drive across Australia. When the trio returns from a four-hour hike to Wolf Creek National Park, they find their car is dead. Help comes in the form of big, back-slapping bushman Mick (John Jarratt).Since Mick appears to be more Crocodile Dundee than Freddy Krueger, the trio trusts him…which proves to be a grave mistake.Quentin Tarantino said, "Jarratt delivers a performance that’s destined to go down as one of the greatest film heavies of the last 25 years."Not since the original Texas Chainsaw Massacre has terror felt so real."Ken Fox, TVGuide

Get 60% OFF

Click here for more information about Wolf Creek (Unrated Widescreen Edition) (2005)

Standard Operating Procedure Review

Average Reviews:

(More customer reviews)Representatives for film director Errol Morris told me during pre-production that "Standard Operating Procedure" would be the very best documentary on the abuses of Iraqi detainees at Abu Ghraib - the one that would tell the whole truth.
I had pinned great hope on that. It didn't turn out that way.

My perspective on the Abu Ghraib scandal came from spending from September 2003 to February 2004 at the Iraq prison as a sergeant in Army Intelligence. Working the 8 p.m.-to- 8 a.m. night shift, it was impossible not to notice who was directing the operation. And I shared all this with Morris.

But now I've seen the film and I'm disappointed. Morris does little to get to the bottom of what happened. He muddies already opaque waters regarding who was actually responsible for the abuse of prisoners.

The film focuses on the awful photos, the people in them and those who took them. This perspective plays right into the hands of the cover-up artists. It perpetuates the myth that the abuses are rightfully laid at the feet of those impressionable, but very human, young soldiers.

Morris should have been looking up the chain of command; at the civilian and military officials actually responsible for ordering these Military Police Reservists to rough up prisoners.

A no-holds-barred documentary? Give me a break.

Finally, the Whole Truth!

I was first put into contact with the makers of "SOP" while I was still in the Army. From the beginning, I was told this was going to be a huge project with the production support of Sony Pictures Entertainment; and that Morris, who had won an Oscar with his documentary, "The Fog of War," would be at the helm.

This was to be the breakthrough investigation into what really happened at Abu Ghraib, who was responsible for the abuse and why it was ordered - the project that really got people's attention, going where previous investigators and media had feared to tread.

Call me gullible but, believing this was to be a groundbreaking work, I fully cooperated with Morris. I assisted him in his quest for documents, videos, photos, notes and helped him contact fellow soldiers who were at Abu Ghraib and knew what happened.

When I was discharged from the Army in October 2006, I went to Boston for a two-day interview.

Morris asked me to sign several contracts before and after the interviews, and I did as he asked without paying much attention to them. I do remember however, that in one contract Morris agreed to pay me one dollar.

In any event, I never got the dollar, but was reminded of this last week when I read in the New York Times that others got paychecks for their participation.

I have never asked for or taken money for media interviews. To me, that undermines the process and trivializes the importance of the issues of torture and prisoner mistreatment and their meaning for the moral atmosphere in our country as a whole.

When the film was finished, Morris told me he had intended to use some of the footage from my two days of interviews and the materials I provided, but decided in the end to "narrowly focus" on the Military Police. This, of course, is what so many others have done and is in the worst tradition of a Nixon-style "modified, limited hangout."

Chain of Command?

Here's the oddest thing: Even though Morris's lens is trained on the Military Police, he does find room for a civilian interrogator, Tim Dugan, who worked at Abu Ghraib for CACI, a contractor factory for civilian interrogators.

I witnessed for myself how civilian personnel, like Dugan, corrupted the military. Indeed, they were the genesis of the break from conventional interrogation techniques into what Vice President Dick Cheney hinted at when he spoke of the "dark side" of intelligence.

It was they who ordered the Military Police and some of my own unit's Military Intelligence soldiers to "soften" the detainees for interrogation, and encouraged the behavior depicted in the photographs. I know; I was there. And, of course, I told Errol Morris.

So I was surprised, to say the least, to see Morris giving Dugan a place to contend that, essentially, the abuses were all the military's fault.

Odd indeed. Even Maj. Gen. George Fay, whose investigation of Abu Ghraib left much to be desired, reported the pernicious effect civilian interrogators had on the impressionable and inexperienced soldiers.

Fay reported, for example that Daniel Johnson, one of Dugan's CACI interrogator colleagues, whom I knew at Abu Ghraib, was using Spc. Charles Graner as "muscle" for his interrogations.

And yet, Morris describes Dugan as "remarkable." Remarkable, indeed, Errol.

Did no one tell you that CACI, Dugan and several of his fellow interrogators were sued by their victims in Abu Ghraib, seeking to hold them accountable for their behavior?

In the civil case brought by the Center for Constitutional Rights on behalf of Abu Ghraib prisoners, the lawsuit implicates Dugan in the abuse.

"CACI interrogator Timothy Dugan also tortured plaintiffs and other prisoners," the lawsuit alleges. "For example, he physically dragged handcuffed plaintiffs and other prisoners along the ground to inflict pain on them. He struck and beat plaintiffs and other prisoners. He bragged to a non-conspirator about scaring a prisoner with threats to such a degree that the prisoner vomited.

"When a young non-conspirator directed him to cease the torture and comply [with] Army Field Manual 34-52, Dugan scoffed at his youth and refused to follow the direction."

The lawsuit further alleges that Dugan took part in a CACI cover-up of when a detainee died by going through "the charade of interrogating a prisoner who was already dead as part of the conspiracy's efforts to conceal a murder." Dugan is accused, too, of threatening a fellow CACI employee who talked to investigators.

CACI has denounced the lawsuit as baseless, and the individual defendants were dismissed out on a technicality. However, on Nov. 6, 2007, U.S. District Court Judge James Robertson in Washington denied CACI's motion for summary judgment and ordered a jury trial against CACI.

A criminal investigation also is pending in the Eastern District of Virginia concerning some of the CACI employees.

In "SOP," Dugan presents himself as a whistleblower who tried to stop the abuses. He claims that he reported to his "section sergeant" that two Army female interrogators were stripping detainees naked as an interrogation technique, and how shocked he was to see this.

Dugan claims he got the brush-off; was told not to get involved. So who was this "section sergeant?" And is he/she above the law?

Why did Dugan not offer himself as a witness in any of the various investigations? Where has he been if he felt then the way he now says he did? Again, why sport the good-guy badge now?

I came away with the impression that Morris was unprepared for the interview and was being taken for a ride.

CACI's Defense

For obvious reasons, CACI has gone to extraordinary lengths to separate itself from the horrors of Abu Ghraib, arguing that the military alone was at fault.

CACI recently announced the release of a book, Our Good Name: A Company's Fight To Defend Its Honor And Get The Truth About Abu Ghraib.

CACI contends strongly that its interrogators adhered to the military chain of command, something it has been feverishly trying to establish in the lawsuits against it.

And so, the behavior captured in the photos? That was the military's responsibility, not CACI's.

That is not what I observed from my ringside seat.

I told Morris that the reality was that the civilian contractors paid little heed to the military chain of command, and that they were the ones actually running the show. That didn't make it into the final version of "SOP."

Even though it is now an established fact that between 70 to 90 percent of detainees at Abu Ghraib were completely innocent, something I learned directly on site, Dugan implies that the harsh interrogation practices applied there were legitimate - except of course for the failings of the military.

This myth-making is intended to hold CACI harmless and help it maintain its very lucrative government contracts. CACI International had $1.6 billion in revenues in 2005. Folks have always told me it all has to do with money; I suppose they're right.

But Congress should be asking some simple questions. It should start by asking why civilian contractors are being employed in connection with the interrogation of persons under detention in wartime, a function which previously has been entirely in the hands of the uniformed military?

This could yield some interesting answers. Indeed, evasion of military rules and discipline as well as avoidance of congressional oversight might be at the heart of the answers.

Morris takes pride in calling "SOP" a horror movie and - with the mood music and the needless slow-motion reenactments - he makes sure of that.

However, "SOP" does little more than humanize some of the "bad apples" (a good thing, I suppose), while gratuitously absolving the civilian interrogators actually responsible for fouling those apples.

But, wait. Abu Ghraib is not primarily about Military Police - or civilian interrogators. It is about the many thousands of wrongfully detained Iraqis - many of them abused, tortured and even killed. It is also about their...Read more›

Click Here to see more reviews about: Standard Operating Procedure

Errol Morris examines the incidents of abuse and torture of suspected terrorists at the hands of U.S. forces at the Abu Ghraib prison.

Get 65% OFF

Click here for more information about Standard Operating Procedure