Up Wolf Creek Without a Barf Bag

Roger Ebert thinks that I'm going to hell. Well, I'm paraphrasing, but that's pretty much the thrust of it.

I had my Christmas with my family yesterday morning and afternoon, and had a very nice time with them all. And then in the evening, I got together with my "horror movie lovin' friends," because we found it simply way too novel that a horror movie was opening on Christmas Day. We knew we simply had to go see Wolf Creek.

First of all, let me say that I've never seen the movie theater so crowded. We tend to go to this "undiscovered treasure" of a theater in the Denver area (the Belmar, should you ever find yourself in Denver). Nice seats, nice screens, and strangely, no one ever goes there. It's just not very popular. It does cost more than any other theater in Denver, but I'm willing to pay it to just be able to walk up any time and get into any movie I want. The "talking and cell phone" factor there seems lower too. Anyway, this horror movie on Christmas night nearly sold out at this theater that's typically a ghost town. The theater was hopping. The parking lot was packed. I've never seen it so busy at this place as it was last night.

But I digress...

Wolf Creek. This is an imported movie from Australia that claims to be based on a true story. "Loosely inspired by one or more true stories" would be closer to the truth, as I learned upon doing some net research. (I looked at more places than Wikipedia -- but that was one of the more succinct.)

The movie took its sweet time getting to where it was going. I was honestly just a little bit past the point of boredom when things finally started to kick in, about 50 minutes into a 1 hour, 35 minute movie. But once it got there -- DAMN! This movie was everything High Tension should have been, had that movie not taken its bizarre and implausible turn near the end. It was really damn creepy. It managed to move along with a minimum of "why are you doing that, stupid woman?!" moments. (There was one BIG one, I'll not deny, involving an ill-conceived plan to avoid the baddie, but that was about it.) It was unsettling. It was creepy. And it had a creepy and unsettling ending. It managed to redeem my boredom from the first half nicely enough for me to give it a B.

Now, I understand that my review of this film is totally irrelevant to you. This is the sort of movie where you're either a fan of the genre and would have gone no matter what I said, or you would never have gone no matter what I said. But it's not so much my review of the film that's the thrust of this post. Instead, let's get back to Roger Ebert.

In his review, Roger Ebert basically says the movie is so horridly despicable in its misogyny and violence, that any kudos it might earn for its incredibly evocative direction and solid acting are irrelevant. The movie makes him "want to vomit and cry at the same time," and that if anyone tells you that this is the movie they want to see out of all the movies at the box office right now, "my advice is: Don't know that person no more." And he gives it zero stars.

Hey, if you want to follow his advice and navigate your browser elsewhere now, I guess I understand.

Certainly, his opinion was echoed by part of the audience last night. I can't recall the last time I saw so many people get up and walk out of a theater. I was a little perplexed as to why they came in the first place -- did Narnia sell out that night and they just decided to see whatever other movie started next?

But I find Ebert's review to be bad. If he wants to not like it, if he wants to proclaim it misogynistic (and he's not without a case there), if he wants to tell people "don't see it," that's fine. But I don't see how he can give it zero stars. I know I'm making quite a leap to call a slasher movie art, but hey, Ebert himself would no doubt be at the forefront of the "film is art" camp. And the best art provokes an emotional response in people. Joy, sorrow, rage, take your pick. I say that if a movie makes you want to "vomit and cry at the same time", then it must have some serious artistic merit. By all means, hate the film. By all means, discourage people from going. And by all means, listen to him if you think this is the sort of thing that will disgust or offend you. But if the movie made you feel something so strongly, it can't be worth "zero stars," I say. It can't be more devoid of merit than Rob Schneider's latest crap, or some noisy summer sugar like Stealth.

I mean, A History of Violence was pretty damn violent too, but Ebert gave that three-and-a-half stars. Granted, that movie didn't portray much violence against women, as Wolf Creek does. Wolf Creek doesn't try to make any intellectual point about the price of having a violent past. But seriously, I for one had my emotions provoked far more strongly by Wolf Creek than A History of Violence. And it sounds like Roger Ebert did too. So what gives?

Again, to be clear -- this is not me saying "go see the movie Roger Ebert doesn't want you to see!!!!" This is me saying, "if you like thriller/horror/slasher movies, then you owe it to yourself to see this one, because it is incredibly impactful."

And don't try to claim that art isn't art because you don't like the way it makes you feel.