Launched less than a year ago, Jake Film Finance has put money into two Australian features and has signed letters of intent with a number of producers. The Perth-based film is cash flowing the producer offset and pre-sales, drawing on funds from high-net worth individuals.

Its first investment was in Kriv Stenders’ crime thriller Kill Me Three Times. The second is Sucker, writer-director Ben Chessell’s saga of a 17-year-old Chinese-Australian boy who embarks on a road trip with the Professor, a colourful, aging conman, and his daughter.

Jake Film Finance founders and directors are Jarod Stone and Michael O’Donnell.

They hired entertainment lawyer Joan Peters as executive producer. “I am the interface between producers and the money, ” said Peters, who is also a member of Screen Australia’s board. “The fund is gearing up and we’re open to new projects. We would like to grow to the point where can provide funds of up to $60 million.”

She said Jake Film Finance‘s primary business is to cash flow the offset but it is willing to provide a small amount of gap financing, as it did with Kill Me Three Times, secured against a sale to France. Due to start shooting next week, Sucker is backed by Screen Australia and produced by Robyn Kershaw and Jason Byrne.

Chessell co-wrote the script with Lawrence Leung, based on the latter’s play. According to its website, the fund aims to provide wholesale investors with a strong yield from an alternative fixed interest product. The fund will consider taking positions in film, television and documentary productions but the initial focus is on feature films where substantial Government equity is already committed. All monies returned by the producer offset are assigned to the fund and are secured by a suite of production funding and security documents.

More Here: http://if.com.au

Don Groves. 20/3/14

The silent spaces and spooky folk crafts of backwoods Louisiana get as much screen time as Woody Harrelson and Matthew McConaughey in director Cary Fukunaga’s murder mystery.

If you were looking to name the most talked-about programme on TV right now, you wouldn’t have to be an obsessive policeman with a deductive intuition to alight on True Detective. Praise has been lavished on Woody Harrelson and Matthew McConaughey in their roles as Louisiana state detectives Marty Hart and Rust Cohle.

The mystery, in which the pair investigate a ritual murder in the bleak wilds of the bayou, has prompted much speculation and theorising. Some of us have even admired the folk crafts (wherever the detectives go they stumble over piles of spooky wooden icons). What binds the serial together, though, and elevates True Detective into truly compelling television is its eerie tone and complex structure. And that achievement is the work of 36-year-old director Cary Fukunaga.

“One of the images I first saw in my head when I read the screenplay was a plain landscape towards dusk,” says Fukunaga over the phone from his home in New York.

“There was a still, Magritte-like light hanging in the sky and these two cold, hard characters at the front, staring at a burned-out church. I loved the starkness of that, the openness of everything being exposed to the air. There’s a lot of two-hander dialogue in True Detective, and I needed to place those guys in locations where there were other levels of visual storytelling. It didn’t necessarily have to move the plot forward, but it had to add tone or add to the overall feeling.”

Woody Harrelson (left) and Matthew McConaughey on set That feeling is where much of the tension of the drama is derived; the broad, silent spaces of rural Louisiana are both beautiful and somehow menacing, as if the land itself is holding secrets. Fukunaga’s keen attention to his craft is reflective of a career that has begun at lightning pace. As with the stars of his drama, Fukunaga comes from a feature-film background. Born in Oakland, California, to Swedish and Japanese parents, he studied film at New York University. His debut, migrant drama Sin Nombre, won both best cinematography and direction at theSundance festival in 2009. To research that project, Fukunaga joined real migrants as they travelled across Mexico on the roofs of trains, exposed both to the elements and criminal activity (“We were attacked by gangsters within three hours on my first night,” he has said). Two years later, Fukunaga delivered something very different: an adaptation of Jane Eyre with A-list Hollywood leads in Mia Wasikowska and Michael Fassbender.

While big-name actors appearing on the small screen have become a familiar sight in recent years, it’s less common for a director to make the switch. The demands of the role are very different.

“If you’re directing,” says Fukunaga, “it doesn’t really matter any more if it’s going straight to TV – what matters is whether you have the resources to make a story that moves you. The latter comes first. Increasingly, there’s much better material on television, but there’s not always the time and money to make it, so you’ve got to make sure you make it in the right place. It also depends on time commitment; a lot of directors will make a pilot but a series is just a whole other level of involvement.

“I remember one of my tutors at NYU telling me that making a feature film is not like making six short films but a whole different endeavour. The same applies to making eight hours of TV. It wasn’t going to be like making four features, it was going to be a whole different way of looking at narrative art.”

This applied not only to the structure of the drama – which jumps between the years 1995 and 2012 – but in its actual filming. The final four episodes had to be planned at the same time as the first four were shot. The crew ended up working “six or seven days a week for six months”.

Into this mix came the star duo of Harrelson and McConaughey, the latter fresh from his soon-to-be Oscar-winning performance in Dallas Buyers Club. “The first conversation I had with Matthew on the phone, I could tell he was a smart guy. The first time we met he brought some music that he thought would work for the show.

Initially we had differences in how we envisioned Cohle, but in terms of where he came from, we 100% agreed on that. It was up to Matthew to put the flesh on that, be it in his voice or the way he moves. I wasn’t quite sure what he was going to do but I was very pleased with the results.

“I remember on the first day of shooting being struck by the way he smoked a cigarette,” Fukunaga continues. “We weren’t sure how much he was going to smoke yet, but I had made some comment early on – because he doesn’t smoke and is very healthy – where I said, ‘Just make sure you don’t smoke it like a high-school girl.’ He must have taken that as a challenge because by the first day of filming he was smoking a cigarette like it was a joint.”

After saying this, Fukunaga takes a moment to correct himself; he didn’t mean “high-school girl”, more like “don’t look like you’re faking it”. This revision seems a little self-conscious and perhaps belies an awareness of the other discussion that has centred around True Detective: its shortage of well-drawn female characters. New Yorker critic Emily Nussbaum wrote of the show, “It was about the evil of men who treat women as lurid props, but the show treated women as lurid props.”

“Look, the story is what the story is,” says Fukunaga when I ask him about the criticism. “It’s about two men who work in a very macho industry, in terms of the area they’re working in and the crimes they’re dealing with. But it’s about two men’s dysfunction as much as anything. The show is not going to pass the Bechdel test. I considerably doubt that. So is it sexist? I don’t know. I always focus more on the main characters and what they’re doing, and I didn’t write it, so… My job is to make the best version of that story possible.”

Next up for Fukunaga is a return to the big screen, a “small, simple” film about a child soldier in west Africa, with Idris Elba playing the leader of a rebel battalion. Are his friends at all envious of his prodigious career? “My friends just make fun of me in some shape or form. I got lucky.”

Paul MacInnes – The Guardian, Saturday 22 March 2014

Rare first-dollar gross, thanks to the actress’ post-“Blind Side” leverage, turns the space epic into an out-of-this-world payday for the Oscar nominee.

Space travel has been very good for Sandra Bullock. The 49-year-old actress looks set to earn her biggest paycheck to date for Gravity, with studio sources saying she will make at least $70 million when all revenue streams are factored in.

According to multiple sources, Bullock’s deal with Warner Bros. for the Alfonso Cuaron-directed space epic calls for her to earn $20 million upfront against 15 percent of first-dollar gross. That means once her advance is covered, she will collect 15 percent of the studio’s slice of the box-office pie, known as “film rentals.”

Each studio negotiates individual deals with theater owners to determine what those rentals are, but a rule of thumb is that the studio will collect roughly 40 to 50 percent of the box office (it gets somewhat less in foreign markets than domestically).

Gravity has earned more than $700 million at the worldwide box office and is expected to cross the $750 million mark. Assuming Warners gets 45 percent of that, Bullock’s take would be more than $50 million, including her upfront payment. But theatrical revenue is just one part of what she’ll make, as she also gets a percentage from home video, TV and ancillary revenue.

“The theatrical window is going to generate a third of the total revenue a movie will earn; it will get another third on DVD; and then the final third comes from pay and free TV,” says one veteran finance lawyer. Gravity might earn proportionately more at the box office, says this lawyer, because “pay and free-TV numbers cap out at a certain point.”

Even with a conservative estimate, Bullock will make at least $20 million from those other sources, and she might make considerably more. It is unclear who the other Gravity gross participants are; sources say they at one point included co-star George Clooney, Cuaron and producer David Heyman, though the latter two might have renegotiated their deals when the movie’s price tag shot up during its challenging shoot.

Not that Warners is doing badly. While expenditures increased when elements of the 3D movie had to be reshot, pushing Warners’ budget north of $110 million — and even though it spent at least $100 million more on an extensive and successful marketing push — the studio benefits from having funded the film almost on its own.

The only other entity with a financial stake in Gravity is Brett Ratner and James Packer’s RatPac-Dune Entertainment, which has a small percentage. RatPac must wait until the movie’s production and marketing costs are covered, and until Warners takes its distribution fee, before seeing a slice of profits.

Bullock’s first-dollar-gross deal is highly unusual in today’s marketplace, where studios insist on recouping costs before sharing profits with talent. Indeed, several industry lawyers contacted by THR to analyze the terms expressed surprise that she was able to score such a lucrative deal. (Robert Downey Jr. has a similar one on Iron Man films.) But her reps at CAA and the Ziffren Brittenham law firm closed the pact in late 2010 before the belt-tightening now taking place. Bullock also signed on at an opportune moment: Angelina Jolie had dropped out of the film and the studio knew it needed a megastar to carry the drama about a woman stranded in space who spends most of the movie alone.

At the same time, the actress was riding high from an Oscar win for 2009’s The Blind Side, which made $309 million globally. Guaranteeing her $20 million against first dollar seemed appropriate, given that there only was one other castmember (Clooney, who replaced Downey).

Gravity is on track to be the most profitable among this year’s best picture Oscar nominees; in fact, its profits will be more than those of all the other nominated movies combined. While The Wolf of Wall Street has performed well ($338 million globally), Paramount did not finance the $100 million-plus film and therefore will not see a huge upside; as for the $41 million American Hustle (which has made $217 million globally), Sony will have to split profits with co-financier Megan Ellison.

Bullock’s rep did not respond to calls and emails. A Warners spokesman declined comment.

26/2/2014 by Stephen Galloway – THR

The six major film studios combined to generate more than $4.3 billion in operating profit in 2013, up 23 percent from $3.5 billion in 2012, as digital streaming offset declining DVD sales and franchise films remained strong. But the riches were not spread equally.

21st Century Fox: ‘American Horror Story’

$1.18 billion to $1.12 billion; Change: -5.1%

The Wolverine, A Good Day to Die Hard and The Croods did well but fell short of 2012 hits such as Ice Age: Continental Drift, Life of Pi and Taken 2 . Melissa McCarthy and Sandra Bullock delivered a surprise with The Heat, but The Internship and Runner Runner were domestic flops. Fox’s TV Studio remained consistent with Modern Family, Glee, American Horror Story and The Simpsons.

Sony: ‘Breaking Bad’

$434 million to $295 million; Change: -32%

The studio gained $106 million on the sale of a music publishing catalog, but that was no match for the $278 million boost in 2012 from a sale of Spider-Man merchandising rights. Year-end hits Captain Phillips and American Hustle helped take the sting out of summer flops After Earth and White House Down as pressure from investor Daniel Loeb has the studio cutting costs and focusing on TV.

NBCUniversal: ‘Despicable Me 2’

$79 million to $483 million; Change: +511%

Revenue was up only 6 percent at its filmed entertainment unit, but profit soared as marketing expenses shrank. The samurai pic 47 Ronin was a misfire, but Fast & Furious 6 and Les Miserables were huge in theaters — and Despicable Me 2, says NBCUniversal CEO Steve Burke, “is going to end up being the single most profitable film in the 100-year history of Universal Studios.”

Disney: ‘Frozen’

$543 million to $836 million; Change: +54%

Marvel (Iron Man 3, Thor: The Dark World), Pixar (Monsters University) and a resurgence at Disney Animation (Frozen) had the studio roaring back from a 2012 marred by John Carter. While July’s The Lone Ranger will lead to a huge write-down, Disney CEO Robert Iger pledges allegiance to big films with franchise potential, “particularly those with action or family appeal.”

Time Warner: ‘Gravity’

$1.24 billion to $1.33 billion; Change: +7.3%

A post-Harry Potter malaise lasted only 12 months as 2013 was Warner Bros.’ most profitable year ever thanks to Man of Steel and The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug. Disappointments like Pacific Rim were countered by surprises such as Gravity and We’re the Millers, and WBTV, which boasts 60 shows on air, played a key role with such hits as The Big Bang Theory and The Mentalist.

Viacom: ‘World War Z’

$217 million to $299 million; Change: +38%

Costs fell as Paramount released 10 films in 2013, down from 15 a year earlier: Lower-budget hits such as Anchorman: The Legend Continues and the independently financed The Wolf of Wall Street supplemented moderate (but expensive) hit tent-poles World War Z, Star Trek Into Darkness and G.I. Joe: Retaliation. Disappointments included Michael Bay’s Pain & Gain.

21/2/2014 by Georg Szalai, Paul Bond – THR

The most noteworthy result of the night is the loss of “12 Years a Slave” newcomer
Lupita Nyong’o to “American Hustle” A-lister Jennifer Lawrence in the best supporting actress race.

The 67th BAFTA Awards, the last major awards ceremony before the Academy Awards, took place Sunday night in London — and the results were all over the place.

Among other things: 12 Years a Slave’s lead actor Chiwetel Ejiofor and Captain Phillips’ supporting actor Barkhad Abdi now have awards on their shelves, American Hustle’s supporting actress Jennifer Lawrence and original screenplay are back in the winners’ circle after recent cold streaks, and Blue Jasmine’s lead actress Cate Blanchett and Gravity’s director Alfonso Cuaron continue their unbeaten streaks — but 12 Years, after a poor showing for most of the night, finished things with a bang, winning best film.

But, in terms of anticipating what will happen at the Oscars, does any of this mean anything? Yes and no.

BAFTA, or the British Academy of Film and Television Arts, is composed of 6,500 people, including many of the roughly 250 Academy members who are based in the U.K. For many years, its awards ceremony was largely ignored by Oscar-watchers: From 1994-2000, it took place after the Academy had already dished out its little gold men, and besides, for many years, its picks deviated considerably from the Academy’s, since it invited all of its members to determine the nominees in every category but only members of its specific branches to pick the winners from those branches’ corresponding categories (except the four acting categories) — the exact opposite of how the Oscars are determined.

But, in the 21st century, BAFTA implemented changes that have made its ceremony a major stop on the awards circuit — and, quite possibly, an Oscars influencer: It moved its awards back before the Oscars in 2001 and adopted the same voting procedures as the Academy in 2012. Consequently, this year, BAFTA announced its winners roughly 48 hours after Oscar voting commenced, meaning that BAFTA members’ choices could, conceivably, sway the votes of some Academy members.

So what did — and didn’t — they choose and why?

This year, Gravity landed more BAFTA nominations than any other film, with 11, but 12 Years a Slave was only one behind, which pretty much confirmed those films’ status as the top two contenders. Both were nominated for best film. Strangely, though, 12 Years a Slave, a film with a British director and largely British cast, was not also nominated for best British film — the second top prize, in a sense — but Gravity, a film with virtually no Brits among its principal talent, but with a British producer, was. (Philomena was the only other film to score noms in both categories.) One might assume that this was a good thing forGravity, but, in fact, I would argue that it was not, because it presented voters with a chance to recognize Gravity in one category and 12 Years in the other. 12 Years may well have won best film anyway, but this didn’t help Gravity’s cause.

(Also worth noting: the BAFTA best film winner is not determined with a preferential ballot, while the best picture Oscar and the top PGA Award, which Gravity recently won, are.)

An even weirder BAFTA nominations anomaly was the group’s failure to even nominate the heretofore unbeaten frontrunners for the best actor and best supporting actor Oscars, Dallas Buyers Club’s Matthew McConaughey and Jared Leto, respectively. The indie AIDS drama wasn’t screened very much in London prior to the nominations — it has since opened and gone over pretty well there — which might somewhat explain its absence. But the bottom line is that BAFTA’s snubs of its stars created openings for others to step into the spotlight and perhaps pick up some momentum late in the season, which is very dangerous for a frontrunner, especially with many industry insiders and outsiders tiring of the same old storylines.

While I don’t think that Abdi, who ended up winning Leto’s category, poses much of a threat to him at the Oscars — in fact, I thought 12 Years’ Michael Fassbender was more likely to win the BAFTA prize — I can’t say the same about Ejiofor for McConaughey, who also has popular Leonardo DiCaprio (The Wolf of Wall Street) and sentimental choice Bruce Dern (Nebraska) hot on his heels. Both were nominated by BAFTA; a win for Leo wasn’t at all out of the question, as Wolf was sizzling hot at the British box office as BAFTA voting took place, and it must be said that its failure to happen is a bit of a blow to his hopes.

But perhaps the most surprising result of the night came in the best supporting actress category, which has been won at every other major awards show by 12 Years’ acclaimed newcomer Lupita Nyong’o, save for the star-loving Golden Globes, which opted for A-lister Lawrence. With the more Oscar-predictive Critics’ Choice and SAG awards under her belt, Nyong’o was starting to look like a safe bet. But the fact that Lawrence — whom BAFTA did not honor last year when she was en route to winning the best actress Oscar, opting for Amour’s Emmanuelle Riva instead — pulled off a win Sunday is a statement that is pretty hard to ignore.

Few are the contenders who have won both Globe and BAFTA awards but not gone on to win the Oscar. Among the recent Oscar “upset” or “even-money” winners that it anticipated: best actress Marion Cotillard for La Vie En Rose (2007), best actor Jean Dujardin for The Artist (2011), best actress Meryl Streep for The Iron Lady (2011) and best supporting actor Christoph Waltz for Django Unchained (2012). Indeed, the only “misses” of that kind over the past decade were for best supporting actor hopeful Clive Owen for Closer (2004) and best actor hopeful Mickey Rourke for The Wrestler(2008).

BAFTA doesn’t always get it “right,” but they do generally read the tea leaves pretty well when it comes to close races — i.e. they were the only group to anticipate Alan Arkin’s best supporting actor Oscar win for Little Miss Sunshine (2006) and Tilda Swinton’s best supporting actress Oscar win for Michael Clayton (2007).

And when they miss, it is usually by playing favorites with a British contender or a star thereof — i.e. awarding Thandie Newton best supporting actress for Crash (2005) or Geoffrey Rush and Helena Bonham Carter best supporting actor and best supporting actress, respectively, for The King’s Speech (2010) or Riva last year.

Therefore, all-American girl J-Law has to feel as good as ever about her shot at being the one major winner for American Hustle — and the first person to ever bag two acting Oscars before the age of 24.

To add insult to injury, Nyong’o also lost BAFTA’s EE Rising Star Award — which is determined by the public — to Will Poulter, who is best known for We’re the Millers. Many thought she would be taking home two prizes Sunday. Instead she is taking home nothing except for perhaps a little anxiety about where her Oscar prospects now stand.

16/2/2014 by Scott Feinberg – THR

He may seem completely out there, but Wolf Creek’s villain is a lot more like you and I than we might care to admit, says writer-director Greg McLean.

John Jarratt with director Greg McLean on the set of Wolf Creek 2 John Jarratt stands in the doorway, a rifle slung over his shoulder, a slouch hat on his head, a flannelette shirt on his back. He is – unmistakably, iconically, and after a gap of more than eight years – once again Mick Taylor. Today, the sadistic serial killer at the heart of Wolf Creek is preparing to off an elderly couple in a derelict farm house about 90 minutes’ drive north of Adelaide (though it feels a lot more isolated than that). But first, his director has to frame the mayhem perfectly.

”Let’s just open the door again,” Greg McLean says from his seat at the far end of the hallway. Suddenly, the place is flooded with harsh light, as a wave of heat from the desert pours in.

McLean surveys the scene on his monitor, then glances at the screen of his laptop, on which the final scene of John Ford’s legendary 1956 western The Searchers is playing. If you’re going to quote from a classic, it pays to get it right.

In the set-up of his own shot, McLean is looking to echo the moment when John Wayne is framed in the doorway of a house into which he is not invited, with the desert at his back and, then, at his front. He’s aiming, for ”a direct inversion of that idea of the lone hero wandering out into the west”.

”This film is a western in lots of ways”.

In fact, the 43-year-old writer-director insists, Wolf Creek 2 is a whole bunch of things other than the horror film most people imagine it to be. ”It’s a comedy,” he tells me at one stage, before correcting himself. ”In my mind – and I could be delusional – it’s more of an action-suspense film with moments of horror.” Pause. ”Comedy is maybe going too far.”

Wolf Creek, released in 2005, cost $1.4 million and has made, McLean has said, somewhere north of $60 million globally. He could have made a sequel immediately afterwards but making the first was such a slog that going back-to-back would have been ”unthinkable”. Then again, he adds, ”If I knew then what I know now about how long it takes to get a sequel up I’d probably have said yes.”

This time he’s had a budget of about $7 million, which means he gets to stage car chases and to blow up a truck in quite spectacular fashion (and with a rather large nod to another cinematic reference point, Steven Spielberg’s 1971 film, Duel).

At one stage it was slated as a $13.2 million production, with Geoffrey Edelsten due to kick in $5 million, but in December 2011 the disgraced former medico pulled out on the eve of production.

”It was hugely embarrassing for us, that whole thing,” McLean says. ”But luckily he didn’t get involved; that’s how we view it.”

In returning to the scene of his first success, McLean feels he’s breaking new ground (”we don’t do horror sequels in this country”) even as he’s turning over old. He didn’t want to make a ”cheesy kind of sequel”; he’s not even terribly interested in ”gore and blood and stuff”, nor in making ”a stupid slasher horror film”.

”I’m more interested in why the character of Mick Taylor connected with Australian audiences,” he says. ”It’s not because it’s a horror film. It’s because Mick is about something else deeper and darker in the psyche of Australian people. People saw something truthful in the character.”

He’s not referring to the ”based on a true story” aspect of the films – a claim that, in all honesty, seems a little more tendentious in the sequel than it did in the first, with its unmissable nods to Bradley John Murdoch and Ivan Milat – so much as a psychological truth.

His villain is, he insists, ”the shadow part of the Australian psyche”, the bit of us we like to pretend doesn’t exist but, when we see it in fictional form, recognise all too well.

”The Australian culture is bright sunny beaches, Crocodile Dundee and all that kind of shit, and the shadow side of that is xenophobia, homophobia, sexism, racism, all that kind of stuff that we squash down but is alive and well,” he says.

In person, McLean is such a pleasant, affable guy it’s hard to imagine any of that kind of stuff in him, squashed down or otherwise. But whatever secrets he harbours in his dark places, he says he knows there are Mick Taylors out there for real.

”He’s based on a real guy,” he says, and I nearly fall off my seat and into the hard South Australian dirt at this news. ”Not the serial killing part, but every other element of him.”

McLean says he met the proto-Mick when he went to the Northern Territory to do some research for the script that eventually became Rogue (written before Wolf Creek, it became McLean’s vastly more expensive and less successful follow-up in 2007). He joined an outback safari tour, and in a group of Swedes, Canadians and Japanese, McLean and the tour guide were the only Australians. ”And this dude basically had this unbelievably un-PC way of talking to these people. He would literally pick out the nationality and a physical trait or something, and these people didn’t know how to take him. He would say the most incredibly sexist, racist things to these people, to their faces.”

It was, McLean says, ”funny, but tilted two degrees that way it was evil”. He says it reminded him of Ted Kotcheff’s 1971 film Wake in Fright, ”that aggressive friendship where you’re not quite sure if someone is going to punch you or hug you”.

”It’s part of our culture, but that guy did it in a way that was really shocking and hilarious and scary.”

Of course, the landscape factors heavily into this equation too: it’s beautiful but it’s alien – and vast. And in all that space, no one can hear you scream. Or tweet.

”In an age where we have Twitter, Facebook, the internet and everything, when people lose their technology it’s very scary,” McLean says. Naturally, that’s precisely what happens to his hapless travellers.

In the new movie, before things get ugly there’s a stunning aerial shot of Wolf Creek (which is actually Wolfe Creek, a giant meteorite crater – the second-largest on the planet – in Western Australia) in which its beauty almost palpably wrestles with its threat. It’s a far-from-uncommon duality in our relationship with the Australian landscape, one in which isolation, lack of water, venomous creatures and sunstroke are never far from the next Instagram moment.

And for Mick Taylor, a man who sees killing tourists as his patriotic duty as well as a bit of fun, that threat represents opportunity. ”You’re vermin,” he seethes to one of his victims in the sequel. ”It’s my job to eradicate you.”

With a message like that, McLean is growing used to people telling him that his films are terrible for tourism. But, he says, ”The fact is people are going to see this movie all over the world. People will see how beautiful this country is, but unfortunately they’ll also see that if you come here you will die.”

For Wolf Creek 3, he says, warming to the theme, ”I’ll have to get Tourism Australia involved. There’s got to be some way we can work in a campaign around that.”

How about ”People are dying to see this country”? You know what? It just might work.

Wolf Creek 2 opens on February 20.

Karl Quinn SMH – February 15, 2014