Ebert on Wolf Creek
Submitted by jim on Tue, 12/27/2005 - 12:09
Tags:
I like horror films. Horror movies, even extreme ones, function primarily by scaring us or intriguing us. Consider "Three ... Extremes" recently. "Wolf Creek" is more like the guy at the carnival sideshow who bites off chicken heads. No fun for us, no fun for the guy, no fun for the chicken. In the case of this film, it's fun for the guy.
Huge disparity between Ebert's rating and the "user rating" on this one.
-A couple hours later-
I've seen it now and Ebert is a crazy man if he thinks this is zero star material. Imagine a mixture of Van Sant's Gerry and a slasher. It has its flaws. I would have preferred it ending a couple minutes before it actually did, but it's fairly fast paced once it gets going and it's quite the thriller.
I'm not sure what Ebert is getting so huffy about in terms of violence. It's no more violent than A History of Violence, which he loved. The only difference is that here it's within an insular (near-inescapable), horror context and just happens to be (mainly) against two nice girls.
Meanwhile, Cheaper by the Dozen 2 gets three stars!
I'm betting Ebert (whose writing I like but whose opinions I find incredibly hit-or-miss) is a bit like me on this front: I draw a line between horror and slasher. I like a good horror movie, but liken a slasher movie viewing to a trip to the slaugherhouse (both make me want to "vomit and cry at the same time").
I haven't seen Wolf Creek, but I imagine I know what Ebert is talking about, because I read another review which called the film "sadistic." I think there's a big difference between portraying sadistic violence in a film, and a film which turns the audience into sadists, which is what I imagine Wolf Creek to be.
An example of this, which I've seen, is Kill Bill, Vol 1. The camera takes the point of view of the audience, and lovingly meditates on each brutal injury, turning my normal compassionate response into an internal conflict. I cannot bear to watch extreme suffering, but the camera doesn't move. I am supposed to be enjoying this! In order to be entertained, I turn off my compassion, becoming desensitized. I dehumanize the characters. I derive pleasure from another's suffering. I am a sadist.
There's some of this sadistic quality in Wolf Creek. The killer obviously enjoys his work and it doesn't shy away from the presentation of this, but the sadism isn't as abundant as it is in something like the Saw movies (Ebert gave a couple stars to Saw and apparently hasn't seen the second one).
In his zero star review of the Texas Chainsaw Massacre, Ebert says he can deal with the violence if it's done with "grace and joy," as in Kill Bill, but not when it's done with "venom and cynicism," which is the case with Chainsaw Massacre and Wolf Creek.
Back to my first comment, he likes horror so long as it's fun and unthreatening. If it "crosses the line," as he says in his Wolf Creek review, disgusts him, and horrifies him with its vile, cynical nature, he doesn't like. Essentially, he doesn't like horror.
I don't think it's quite worth zero stars, but neither is "Wolf Creek" really all that interesting. Unlike ol' Rog, I didn't want to vomit and cry at the same time. I didn't have any response to the film other than a vague sense of boredom. It's a basic slasher film pared so far down to elemental status that it barely registers. It's all technique. Big whoop.
Just a couple follow-up links: 1, 2
As do "Four Brothers" and "The Exorcism of Emily Rose," two of the worst movies I saw in 2005.
It'll be interesting to see what he thinks of "Hostel," which I hear is just a lot less fun than a barrel of monkeys.
Ebert seems to be saying horror movies should be unthreatening and fun, which is rubbish. I would say a horror movie that makes someone want to 'vomit and cry at the same time' accomplished the horror aspect.
Now I'll have to go see it.