MovieChat Forums > Wolf Creek 2 (2014) Discussion > How can mick be that smart??

How can mick be that smart??


Mick killed so many people in wolf creek 1 and 2 and there was a survivor in the end of wolf creek 2 and still police are unable to get mick, i guess that everyone knows the killer is in wolf creek by now so.....why don't the police go to wolf creek in big numbers and just search the whole wolf creek inch by inch til they find him??? they can use dogs and police helicopters and so on and get him, how can mick be so smart that he killed so many people and still not caught???

reply

It's called bad writing.

More specifically, this particular trope is known as the creator's pet. Greg Mclean wants Mick to be brilliant and invincible and so he is. He never bothers to make any of it believable, perhaps because the audience that these films cater to doesn't care and heaps praise on his poorly written dreck regardless.

reply

Bad writing? So, you consider every movie that employs genre tropes to be poorly written? Why is it every movie has to be gritty and realistic all of the sudden? It's complete nonsense to set such a standard.

"Nothing says "OBEY ME" like a severed head on a fence post."

reply

Way to sound condescending. Maybe the ever so lowly "audience that these films cater to" actually have the ability to suspend their disbelief while watching a movie?

reply

He's too busy giving Iron Man 3 a nine star rating to deal with us mere horror movie peasants. Forgive him.

reply

What the hell do you know about writing? Do you have any films in distribution?
I thought so!

reply

Lovely system for criticism you have going... I suppose you've never bitched about a government (unless you have worked as a government official of equal or greater importance), you can't complain about a grossly negligent surgeon (sure, he was drunk and left a knife in your chest cavity; however, how many surgeries have you preformed), etc...

I guess you can't even say this is a good movie. I mean, after all, how many movies have you produced?

reply

That is the best response to that retarded line of reasoning I've ever seen.

reply

Indeed, nobody cares. That doesn't mean you're smarter for caring. It just means you're too stupid to understand the point of a movie like this. If I want to watch police investigations, I'll watch the Wire or something.

reply

You gave Thor a 9

__________________________________________
You're not my compadre, amigo!

reply

Giving Thor a 9 does say it all, tbh.

My strength is greater than my weakness

reply

Totally agree.

reply

Totally agree with Ace.

reply

Ah ... no! Mick Taylor remaining free is not bad writing and he is certainly never portrayed as being either smart or invincible; quite the opposite in fact. He's actually shown to be a bit dense, to make mistakes, and in every portrayal so far there's at least one point when he's down for the count. No ... the problem here is you and your comprehension level; clearly you're ignorant about Australia...

Go and have a read about Malcolm Naden; an example of a real life fugitive who is merely one of the many that exist. Unlike Mick Taylor - who the cops aren't sure even actually exists - Naden was a known fugitive who was wanted for murder and other serious crimes. He managed to stay on the run for almost 7 years in the Australian outback; despite a huge, ongoing police manhunt. At one point the cops got within, they estimate, about 20 metres of him but he managed to shoot one of the officers and escape.

Ivan Milat, the Backpacker Murderer, killed at least 7 people (police believe there were more), 5 of which were backpackers. At one stage he tried to tie up British backpacker Paul Onions - who had been picked up by Milat while hitchhiking - and even shot a gun at him as he escaped. Onions reported the incident to the police but they did nothing until after some bodies were found in the Belanglo State Forest. The point being that if Ivan Milat had disposed of the bodies, or at least kept them hidden - the way Mick Taylor does - then the police would not have looked for him, even after he attempted to catch someone and shot a gun at them. Furthermore, after the bodies were found in the Belanglo State Forest it was believed then, and is still believed by many now, that there was more than one person involved in committing the murders. So ... presenting the idea that there is an unknown serial killer in the Australian outback - one who isn't being looked for by police, even after someone has reported him - is not bad writing, it's something that actually happened in real life and could even be happening right now; if Milat had accomplices then they are still free and no one is looking for them...

Those two examples - and there are many more - coupled with the fact that there are more than 100 ghost towns in outback Australia, means that it is easily believable that Mick Taylor is able to remain free and isn't even being looked for. We know he travels widely - from the Northern Territory, to South Australia, to Western Australia, and possibly the Eastern States - and all he has to do is avoid going to Wolf Creek for a while. Given that the cops don't have any direct evidence that he actually exists, they aren't going to leave someone stationed at Wolf Creek permanently; especially at night.

Unless you go there, and actually travel around in the outback, it's very difficult to imagine how gigantic and empty Australia actually is, or the ease with which someone can remain hidden out there. Not to mention the fact that, as we are told in the movie, every year a number of people go missing in Australia; never to be seen again...

We're from the planet Duplon. We are here to destroy you.

reply

Ah ... no! Mick Taylor remaining free is not bad writing and he is certainly never portrayed as being either smart or invincible; quite the opposite in fact. He's actually shown to be a bit dense, to make mistakes, and in every portrayal so far there's at least one point when he's down for the count. No ... the problem here is you and your comprehension level; clearly you're ignorant about Australia...

Go and have a read about Malcolm Naden; an example of a real life fugitive who is merely one of the many that exist. Unlike Mick Taylor - who the cops aren't sure even actually exists - Naden was a known fugitive who was wanted for murder and other serious crimes. He managed to stay on the run for almost 7 years in the Australian outback; despite a huge, ongoing police manhunt. At one point the cops got within, they estimate, about 20 metres of him but he managed to shoot one of the officers and escape.

Ivan Milat, the Backpacker Murderer, killed at least 7 people (police believe there were more), 5 of which were backpackers. At one stage he tried to tie up British backpacker Paul Onions - who had been picked up by Milat while hitchhiking - and even shot a gun at him as he escaped. Onions reported the incident to the police but they did nothing until after some bodies were found in the Belanglo State Forest. The point being that if Ivan Milat had disposed of the bodies, or at least kept them hidden - the way Mick Taylor does - then the police would not have looked for him, even after he attempted to catch someone and shot a gun at them. Furthermore, after the bodies were found in the Belanglo State Forest it was believed then, and is still believed by many now, that there was more than one person involved in committing the murders. So ... presenting the idea that there is an unknown serial killer in the Australian outback - one who isn't being looked for by police, even after someone has reported him - is not bad writing, it's something that actually happened in real life and could even be happening right now; if Milat had accomplices then they are still free and no one is looking for them...

Those two examples - and there are many more - coupled with the fact that there are more than 100 ghost towns in outback Australia, means that it is easily believable that Mick Taylor is able to remain free and isn't even being looked for. We know he travels widely - from the Northern Territory, to South Australia, to Western Australia, and possibly the Eastern States - and all he has to do is avoid going to Wolf Creek for a while. Given that the cops don't have any direct evidence that he actually exists, they aren't going to leave someone stationed at Wolf Creek permanently; especially at night.

Unless you go there, and actually travel around in the outback, it's very difficult to imagine how gigantic and empty Australia actually is, or the ease with which someone can remain hidden out there. Not to mention the fact that, as we are told in the movie, every year a number of people go missing in Australia; never to be seen again...

We're from the planet Duplon. We are here to destroy you.

reply

Maybe they're waiting for 3rd movie to catch him

reply

It's the kind of film where the antagonist is invincible and gets away with every thing and the protagonist is powerless to stop him/her/them regardless of what is done.

reply

[deleted]

spoilers below
I really tend to agree with you a lot here. I did enjoy the movie, however, it did focus too much on Mick, but I guess thats character development. The first movie, I didn't know the story going in, and had no idea and it was BRUTAL, I mean that scene in the first when the guy wakes up and hears the girl screaming while Mick is slowly raping her/torturing her in the shed was INTENSE. Whereas, this one is more slap bang.
For example, the first movie, Mick was the back packers friends, he snuck up and gained their confidence, nd drugged them and then BAMMO, before they knew what was happening he made meat puppets of them. But it wasnt like that in this one.
In this one though, Mick asks the german guy if he wants a lift and he says no and he gets right into the nastyness. It was much more foreboding and brutal the way the first movie was done.
I did enjoy his little mind games with the aussie humour, it was different, but it did take some of the fear factor away from him.

And whats with the knife twisting in the spine of german tourist and then ten seconds later he is walking behind Mick? How the hell does that not work for Mick? Thought the ending was silly as well, but maybe it opens it up for that guy to come back in a third instalment...

reply

actually there is a survivor in both films...

reply

The movie reason is because he is the horror villain and they want him to seem menacing, smart, and badass. A logical reason is that, from what I understand, the Australian outback is really, really, really big. Like way bigger than you would think. So it's probably hard to find one guy.

I think that's why Mick always acts so casual when going after his victims. He knows that even if they get away, they won't get far.

reply

The Great Sandy Desert (the Australian outback) takes up 3/4 of Australia, so yeah, very big and very harsh. A lot of people have gone missing and died there.

reply

why don't the police go to wolf creek in big numbers and just search the whole wolf creek inch by inch til they find him??? they can use dogs and police helicopters and so on and get him, how can mick be so smart that he killed so many people and still not caught???
The cops don't know anything about killings at Wolf Creek nor are there any bodies for them to find. Mick doesn't usually kill his victims there. He hangs out there looking for potential tourists to trap then tricks them into coming with him. We know he killed one German tourist there but that was unplanned and an exception to the rule as the tourist refused his offer. All the police know is that some tourists have disappeared without trace over time, which doesn't necessarily mean foul play. However with 2 of the victims having now escaped and in a bad physical state you'd expect the cops to investigate matters a lot more seriously.

reply

I'm waiting for someone to outsmart Mick. I am 90% sure that there will be a third one, but who knows for sure?

While I liked this movie, there was something I felt was lacking. I expected to see more of Mick Taylor's background history. We know he's a sadistic serial killer, but why? We know who he is, but we still don't know much about him. Like, what drove him to be the way he is? Seems like the writer and director just wanted to make a gore-porno flick instead of taking the story seriously. Hopefully if a third comes in the works, it will focus more on Taylor's history. You aren't a normal person one day and just wake up as a fÜcking sadistic maniac the next day and start butchering, torturing and raping people. Even Freddy, Jason, Michael and Jigsaw had back history...

"I'm here to kick ass and chew bubblegum!"

reply

There are a couple new Wolf Creek prequel novels written by Greg McLean that highlight Micks childhood/teens, his early shooting years and his time in Vietnam. Look up "Wolf Creek: Origin" and "Wolf Creek: Desolation Game". Pretty cool stuff.

reply

Yeh it is bad writing, but judging from how dumb everyone in this movie's universe is, he could have gotten away with it.

reply

I agree. It's no way that these peoples families wouldn't be pushing the Australian Government on were the heck did their family members disappeared to. It would be a international thing.

reply

I believe Mick Taylor is his alias name. Not his real name. So if any survivors said they've been kidnapped by Mick Taylor, cops will pull out records and finds out there's no person with that name,so the victim is labelled insane. Also, I believe Mick doesn't just chill in one spot. He finds tourists at Wolf Creek, sure. But, I bet he has MANY lairs and hideouts all over The Outback so it's tough to directly spot his current location.

"Hail to the King, Baby!"

reply