(The gist: The fact that what I thought was my first viewing of Wolf Creek was actually my second speaks to how much of an impression it failed to leave on me. There was nothing necessarily wrong with it as a horror movie; it just did not get under my skin.)
It was not until halfway through Wolf Creek that I realized I had already seen it before. I am not too surprised that it slipped my memory. Aside from the fact that I watch a large volume or horror and usually multitask while doing so, Wolf Creek is a very slow starter. It was not until the action started, the meat of the horror began to show, that I realized I had been in this particular nightmare before.
Once the memory was tapped, my experience of Wolf Creek was same the second time as the first. Wolf Creek kicks off relatively boring, following three tourists on a road trip through the Australian outback. When their car breaks down at Wolf Creek Crater, a bushman conveniently appears to offer aid.
Whatever could go wrong in a horror movie with a premise like that?
When the good Samaritan is revealed as a psychotic serial killer, the movie clicked familiar for me and also, for the second time, finally snatched my interest.
The situation plays on a couple of my favorite elements of horror. It is a very basic fear to not be able to trust our fellow man, to expose the savagery at the core of us all. Being stranded in the middle of nowhere makes one extremely vulnerable. Trusting a complete stranger to actually help you and not torture you into little pieces is a huge risk; it is scary. Almost as scary as said stranger being what you fear he/she could be.
The premise is scary. Mick is a rather terrifying psycho. It is all there, yet the movie was just eh for me. Both times. I enjoyed it enough, but I was not moved by it. I would not have voluntarily watched it again.
Worth watching but not necessary viewing.