When Horror Films get it wrong, #341: Wolf Creek

In a previous Blog post, I mentioned how with my Film Script I'm going to try to avoid the clichés and frequent problems which often crop up in Horror Films.  Here's an example of a case in point:

I've just been reading about the currently-in-production sequel to 2005 Australian Horror Film, 'Wolf Creek'. The sequel is going to be called - brace yourself for shock at the originality and creativity on display - 'Wolf Creek 2'. Seeing as I recently wrote about some of my inspirations for my own Horror Movie Script, and also mentioned some of what I was trying to avoid, I thought I'd briefly discuss Wolf Creek as an example of what annoys me about some horror movies, and as an example of the kind of things I'm going to try my hardest to avoid with my script.

If you've not seen this film, I should give a big SPOILERS!!! warning right now, as I'll discuss a significant plot point. Basically, the premise of the film is three young backpackers holidaying in the Australian Outback, who encounter a psychopath who kidnaps, tortures, and picks them off one-by-one. All cheery stuff!

Wolf Creek's psycho, Mick Taylor: 'Crocodile Dundee' parody, or just a tw*t?  My money's on the latter...

My problem with the film is when one of the victims, having previously managed to escape from said psycho, ends up back at his base camp, knowing he is most likely trailing her.

Now, before I go further, I just want to do a little intelligence test with you, my dear readers:

If you were being pursued by a homicidal maniac, which of the two places would you choose to hide in:

a) somewhere full of weaponry, so you can arm yourself and blow the bastard's head off when he comes near you; or

b) somewhere where there are more places you could count where he could sneak up on you, so is 100% guaranteed to catch you and murder you in a significantly unpleasant way?

Now, I'm assuming any normal, sane person of average intelligence would answer a resounding 'A!'.

The problem is, the whoever wrote Wolf Creek seems to think people are in some way inherently stupid, as they had their characters do the second option. Having already established that the psycho has a shack which has more weaponry stored in it than your average American Survivalist gun-nut, in Wolf Creek the victim stated above chooses to hide in a different shack - one full of cars and other items, apparently belonging to the psychopaths previous victims.

There is absolutely no reason why a rational person would make the choice the writers of Wolf Creek had this victim make; I appreciate that when someone is frightened they will more than likely not be thinking entirely rationally, but in this case the only reason for this decision seems to me about simply making a plot point: 'Look! This nasty psychopath has been killing people for years because he's in the middle of nowhere - and he'll keep on doing it because no one can find him!!!1!one'

I'm sorry, but it is lazy, unimaginative story telling of the lowest order: having a character make an illogical decision for no other reason than the writers wanted to make a point about the movie's antagonist.

Now, I'm not saying that the writers SHOULDN'T have sought to make this point about the main antagonist - it clearly reinforces what an evil bastard he is. I really believe that they could have done so in a much better way, at a different point in the film.

I think this example underlines for me a problem horror movies often have - making people do dumb things just to keep the story going. These have been pointed out and parodied in the likes of 'Scream', but still horror movies keep making their protagonists do daft things. There's a difference between a person doing something dumb because they're scared and not thinking straight, and doing something just to keep a film going.

I'm sure anyone being pursued by a homicidal psychopath would choose to blow the fooker's head off if it meant being able to get away..! I know I would, in anycase. Or maybe that's just the way that I think... :-D