[neverending]

To be honest I never categorized these films as a "type" of movie. I didn't have any of these negative reactions some seems to have with certain films. In Wolf Creek we're presented with some people who are put through terrible ordeals- and one makes it out.

It seems to be the same situation as hundreds of other films to me. Some of them are well done, and some are not. I don't really need to be taught a moral lesson in a film to enjoy it. I don't mind there being moral lessons, but I don't need them. In fact, bleak, brutal movies seem pretty damn accurate in terms of the real world to me. And no- I'm not watching movies to escape from reality. Perhaps I'm different from many in that regard. There's a lot of sick, twisted crap in the world and movies that reflect this or reflect on this interest me.

I'm not arguing for gore or violence for the sake of gore or violence itself. Fronteir(s) had an intriquing story, set admidst a political and cultural framework that was unique. Fascinating movie on so many levels. To slap a label on it and dismiss it is shortsided IMO.

Wolf Creek, slightly suggested by real events in rural Australia, had a moral ambiguity that strikes me as very realistic and fascinating.

These "type" of films, if indeed they are a "type" bother me far less than the plethora of crappy awful "bad" and "campy" horror movies so many seem to have such an affection for- for exactly the same reason being debated here- they don't even have the guts or conviction to take themselves seriously. With so many filmmakers that seem to lack any faith that they have enough talent or artistry to make an original movie, they take the lazy way out and make something "just meant to be fun." That offends me more than a filmmaker who tries something different and fails.