Loading ...
Rating: 
Greg Mclean must hate tourists…or at the very least enjoys watching them suffer. While he already got his kicks with human-on-tourist violence with Wolf Creek, he’s now decided to go the animal-on-tourist route with his latest film Rogue, which centers on an angry, hungry croc. I was interested in seeing his take on the killer croc genre, as let’s be honest here; these films are generally cheesy as hell and not very good. While this is certainly better than most killer croc flicks, some shenanigans in the final act costs the film from being the Jaws of its ilk.
An American journalist is sent to Australia to write an article about the sights and sounds of said country. While there he takes a wildlife boat ride along with other tourists to see the native crocodiles. On their way back to dock, they spot a flair up river and decide to see if they can help. When they arrive, they see an overturned boat, and soon their boat joins rank as it’s rammed from underneath and begins to sink. They all manage to make it to a small muddy island, but soon realize they’re on a tide river, and in a few hours, the small island they’re on will be under water. They have to find a way across the river to an adjacent island without becoming food for the lurking monster croc.
So let’s go over what works here. Pretty much everything before the final act is great. My whole line in the opening about this being the “Jaws of the killer croc films” is exactly what I was planning to label this as for the first hour of the film. It’s very suspenseful, well acted, and has a great air of hopelessness. The crocodile itself really isn’t of the mutant variety; it’s just a really big one that’s pissed off. It’s a “rogue” croc in that it’s acting different from the rest, and is actively attacking anything that comes into its territory. This all works really well, and the film does a great job of making the threat believable. It’s also reminiscent of Jaws in the way that for most of the film, you really don’t see the croc at all. You get some quick glimpses here and there, and the few times the croc does strike in this section of the film, it’s extremely effective. There’s one scene in particular that’s really unexpected and serves up a nice punch. Add in that the script is pretty well done, with the characters acting rather rationally and not doing dumb shit, and you have a film that was on its way to being really good.
Unfortunately, things sour in the final act of the film. For some reason, Greg Mclean, maybe to appease idiot movie-goers that feel films need to have happy endings, tosses all logic out the window concerning a previous plot device. What it nullifies is one of the most effective scenes in the film, and it just screams “Hollywood”. I felt absolutely ripped off by this, to the point that I was genuinely annoyed due to everything working so well up to this point. Mclean tortured and killed people without looking back in Wolf Creek, why change now, especially since this film was on pace to be better in all respects? The final act also suffers from the characters finally starting to make dumb decisions (yeah, go in that hole that you’re pretty sure is the crocs den…), and from far too much onscreen time for the croc, thus nullifying the unseen danger the rest of the film had. The croc FX don’t look half-bad, at times looking quite real, but then there’s those times where it just looks “off”, and thus becomes less effective. On the plus side, while I don’t know if it was logistically plausible, the end to the final face-off with the croc is pretty damn sweet.
What we ultimately have here is an above average killer crocodile film, but one that I’m less enthusiastic about than similarly rated films, for the sheer fact that this could have been so much more if not for some lapses in good judgment in the final act of the film. It’s better than recent fare like Lake Placid and Primeval, but that’s not something that’s exactly hard to achieve. This could have been the standard-bearer for all future killer croc flicks, but apparently the croc was so hungry he ate the last part of the script. I still recommend it though, as maybe knowing the final act isn’t going to live up to what came before, you’ll enjoy it more. The first hour is so damn good though, that you might still be just as pissed as I was when the stupidity starts to hit you in the face.
Nice review, stop making me want to watch things, you know damn well I... - 
I’m really hyped for this. Transporter is one of... - 
If Cage isn’t in a bear costume or he... -
12 responses so far ↓
1
Mikey B
Jun 10, 2008 at 1:04 pm -We’ll see about that Jaws of the croc films. Because, as far as I’m concerned that’s Alligator and I’m going to see the old school film Crocodile tonight. Reviews up soon. :p You’re on!
2
Morbid
Jun 10, 2008 at 3:17 pm -Alligator is STILL my favorite of all the Alligator\Croc films and has yet to be beat. I have seen them all and will be checking this one out as well. Nice write-up, KamuiX.
3
KamuiX
Jun 10, 2008 at 3:44 pm -Alligator is good fun, but it IS cheesy. Like I said, this was pretty damn serious, and that’s why I was ready to make the comparison until they mucked up in the final act.
I have Black Water on tap, and I’ll probably review that later this week. Looks like croc week has hit SD!
4
Mikey B
Jun 10, 2008 at 4:43 pm -I’ll have my review up for Crocodile tomorrow at some point and Alligator will go up by Friday
I think I have no expectations for Rogue because I HATED wolf creek.
5
Morbid
Jun 10, 2008 at 5:07 pm -I LOVED Wolf Creek. One of the better horror movies made in the last 10 years. But because of this, I think I may be a bit let down with Rogue. Gonna try and snag it before this weekend.
6
KamuiX
Jun 10, 2008 at 5:30 pm -I dug Wolf Creek as well…you’ll surely be annoyed with the problem I’m talking about. After the unforgivingness of Wolf Creek, you’d think Mclean would keep away from cop-out Hollywood plot devices like this one.
7
Mikey B
Jun 10, 2008 at 5:36 pm -Looks like I’m going to half to do a counter review for WC. I hated it. Everyone seems to be confused as to what character development/plot movement is compared to what the first hour of wolf creek was, which was three people being stupid and boring. There was no furthering of the plot except that their car broke down. The film could have been 35 minutes long and good. Just 5 minutes to set up and then the last 30 minutes.
8
Morbid
Jun 10, 2008 at 5:54 pm -Everyone seems to be confused as to what character development/plot movement is compared to what the first hour of wolf creek was, which was three people being stupid and boring. There was no furthering of the plot except that their car broke down.
The same could be said about the original TCM, but of course, they would be wrong on that point as well.
The point was to give you characters who were not just fodder. Wolf Creek was not a slasher film, so maybe I understand people being disappointed when they found that out. I thought Wolf Creek did a great job in trying to give you three living, breathing characters before killing them off. It was good film making and a technique that effectively contrasted the films two parts. The love story at the beginning and the horror movie at the end.
9
Mikey B
Jun 10, 2008 at 7:45 pm -Don’t get me wrong…I never thought TCM was a very well developed story either. I didn’t care about any of the characters. What that had going for it was a solid sense of tension from the gas station on. There was zero tension in Wolf Creek until after he joins them at the fire. It’s far too long for tension to be held off until that late in the film. The driving force of the film should be placed in the first 10-20 minutes…not 60 minutes in. I didn’t expect a slasher film, I just expected something a little more…solid.
10
Morbid
Jun 10, 2008 at 10:29 pm -See, that is where we differ. I thought the original TCM has excellent character and story development. In the short time we knew the characters we find out a LOT about their personalities as well as a bit about their history. That also includes the killers as well. With just simple, effective lines and scenes, you are able to piece together a lot about these people.
It was never a part of me who cared for any of the characters…I don’t even expect that. It was the fact that I believed the characters. All of them. I believed they could exist. That, to me, is what makes a great movie of any genre. I thought that Wolf Creek did a fine job of that as well.
11
Mikey B
Jun 11, 2008 at 11:53 am -Maybe I’m just a snot, but when I watch a film that’s supposed to have amazing character development I want over reaching arcs showing how they’ve grown and somehow changed. I found all three to be the same throughout. Yeah, they were all believable, but that doesn’t mean it’s worth watching in a movie. I want people to grow as the movie progresses. Same with TCM, I don’t watch it that much because, without the growth of the characters it just doesn’t hold much rewatchability for me. I still think it’s a great film, just can’t watch it more than once a year.
12
Morbid
Jun 12, 2008 at 9:55 am -I just watched this last night. Alligator still on top. My biggest gripe with this film is the final act, in which I agree with KamuiX 100 percent. But I would have given it one star less because overall, I just wasn’t too entertained by the first 2/3 of the film.
The film looked good, as once again, McLean shows off the Outback and it’s inhabitants. The croc was done really well when you get the first glimpses of him but was a CGI mess later on.
But beyond that, there just wasn’t much going on with the movie and the completely ridiculous and implausible ending just ruins what had started off as a decent man vs. animal pic. I expected more from McLean and was disappointed.
You must log in to post a comment.