Almost a decade ago, on Christmas Day, as many Americans celebrated or worshiped with their families and tore open presents, the few and the proud headed to their local multiplex to watch Wolf Creek, a controversial and ultra-brutal suspense film imported from Australia concerning a lone-wolf hunter whose well-honed Crocodile Dundee exterior, used to woo wayward travelers, disguises a brutal taste for rape, murder, and mayhem. I was among those who saw the film opening day. The late Roger Ebert gave it zero stars, saying it gave him the urge "to vomit and cry at the same time." I found it frightening on a genuine, almost profound level and therefore a rousing cinematic experience, however grim, however hard.

Now there is a second film, and it is available on demand in advance of a very limited theatrical release next month (an illumination of a major shift in the way most modest genre films are released in this day and age). In my opinion, it is almost on par with the first. It is a faster-paced film since there is no longer a great deal of mystery encircling the antagonist (once again played with foul, sunburned glee by John Jarratt): we know his masculine shrimp-on-the-barbie charm is bull, and we know his presence will always result in death and destruction. To be honest, this reduces the apocalyptic, to-the-bone impact which set the slowly burning, yet indelible part one apart, but this film compensates by functioning as a nonstop, gore-coated popcorn entertainment. Car chases, foot chases, eleventh-hour escapes, body-bruising fights. One gives way to the other and then again in this feature-length game of cat-and-mouse, and the noose of desperation tightens each time. Beneath the label of horror, this is as exciting as nearly any action film. And once again the entire enterprise is elevated by the locations: Australia's vast and unforgiving deserts are shot in such a way as to convey an enormous, organic hostility, as if this is a place several miles beyond conventional understandings of humanity and society. The sunsets are as beautiful as they are foreboding.

B+

Thanks to a really really strong final 30 minutes, it is on par with the first film.

Meh. The first is one of my favorite horror movies. It genuinely scared me the first time I saw it (though I'm sure me seeing it in theaters completely alone had something to do with that) and it has a lot of re-watch value. I also loved all of the characters and cared for them. Here, I didn't. They were all disposable to me and I didn't care if any of them lived or died. John Jarratt is great here again though. It was definitely watchable but it was missing something.

C+

Wolf Creek 2

Not scary at all (unlike the first, which was just horrific and caught me off guard), and they turned Mick Taylor into a bit of a parody with all of his catchphrases, but the sequel did a good job of continuing the legend of the Outback killer. It didn’t build on the legend, however. The whole dialogue was pretty good, with his quips about the Germans and mainly the British – with a large part dedicated to British/Aussie humour/quizzing – made for fun viewing. But the strangest thing in Taylor’s plan is that he let Paul Hammersmith go at the end. Why would he do that if indeed he wanted to rid his world of foreign vermin? Him being a man of his word cannot be the reason because Paul didn’t complete the 10 question quiz (and he only answered 4 out of 5 correctly).

Mick Taylor is such a nasty character, and in any other situation his one liners would be humorous, but not when he’s killing someone, which makes him one of the most malevolent characters ever. But the film was actually better than the horrible first. Kangaroos get knocked down in this, and those effects are pretty top-notch. While Wolf Creek 2 is basically just a remake of Wolf Creek, it was better. It seems odd to me that Australia would commission a film that is so anti-foreign. I understand it’s just a film, but it’s almost as if they are making Taylor into a hero of sorts. Think about it; he gets away scot-free, he kills the foreign vermin for the entire film, constantly remarks about it, and Paul is the one that is sectioned. I could imagine a lot of people not going to Australia (especially not backpacking) because of these films.

B

This was disappointing. The first is a great horror flick. I knew to expect this to be different and more over-the-top and less serious, but for the most part I wasn't terribly impressed. Started well enough but got worse as it went along. Wasn't impressed by the finale either.

C+