Terrible acting. “Films” like this destroy the local industry.

The fact that you call this film a "standard crappy slasher fare" speaks volumes. The horror genre is not limited to slasher film, and this certainly wasn't one. Perhaps your problem was with that expectation. Some horror films depend upon more than gore. (Frankly, the one weak point of the film for me is when they depended upon graphic depictions of the inside of the truck instead of greater subtlety. The whole Cerberus imagery went a bit overboard too. Otherwise beautifully filmed, and your contention otherwise makes me question the objectivity of your critiques).

I think your statements regarding the plot are inaccurate. The film doesn't reveal all of its mysteries immediately like you so disingenuously suggest. Unlike a slasher film where, yeah, there's some guy killing people, you are forced to watch things slowly develop, which is why so many people with zero imagination or attention span wouldn't like it. Instead, with this film, you don't know what is going to happen. You don't know where the threat is coming from or what the motives are for much of the film, and your suggestion otherwise is patently false. At first you don't know that the truck is supernatural, you don't know why the driver is shooting at them (is he pissed about them passing as in Spielberg's Duel), and why did he shoot someone else (unseen) out in the desert? No, they've taken the truck. So is the rest of the film about them being hunted down by the driver? No, it is not. And on it goes. Your suggestion to the contrary betrays your lack of concern with being accurate or realistic in your critique. Of course you begin to catch on to the influence of the truck as the behaviour of the characters becomes more bizarre, but even then you don't know the full nature of the truck. Things are revealed gradually.

One of the ways in which things are slowly developed and the mystery is built is through things that aren't explicitly explained, like that unseen shooting. Who was shot and why? Considering the manner in which you summarily dismiss the film, I doubt you bothered to even think about that or connect it to the scene with the last two of the kids at the end of the film. Now if I have to spell out for you what those parallel scenes reveal about the unnamed shooter's motives, which only becomes clear towards the end (and it isn't merely because he was "enslaved by the truck", quite the opposite) there goes your own argument re "What required imagination from the viewer?", etc. It also takes a bit of thinking to realise why the blonde boy took over his role. Why was the boy about to shoot his friends but then decided to try shooting the truck instead? Why didn't he just talk them into the back of the truck like the other possessed boy? What is the parallel with the last scene of the film? Sorry if that's more complex then "wow, he was killing them because he saw people having sex when he was a kid", but that's the way some films work. Then there's the scene in the cabin where, long before the mystery of the truck is explained, you can see the schematics on the blackboard, a similar tube (but white instead of red) that the one girl trying to start the truck saw, and the boot with the foot in it. Again, I don't know if you bothered taking much note of that, but for some of us that built up the mystery, revealing some things, building up our suspicions, while raising new questions in a deliberate and calculated manner. Slasher films in contrast depend on red herrings and misdirection (and, quite often, plot holes). Road Train was a well thought out mystery cleverly playing with the viewer's expectations all along and revealing information in a controlled manner.

Why is my subjective reaction different than yours? Sorry, but in requiring me to justify why I like the film more than you, you force me to speculate about that: Well, besides your apparent lack of comprehension of the film, and your obvious disappointment at the fact that it isn't a slasher film, I can only guess. For people used to films handing everything over on the plate, explaining them to death repeatedly, and for people who depend upon the depiction of gore and tits to get an emotional reaction, or want mundane plots that use red herrings as the sole means to create suspense, or where the entire point of the suspense is "who will be killed next?", you might have a problem with a film that takes a different approach. This film requires identification with the characters. Identification with characters doesn't mean having things in common with them or liking them, it means being able to place yourself in their situation. People who love slasher films do not have to identify with the characters, which may explain why they are usually shallow, unlikeable, one dimensional characters. They're just in it to add to the bodycount and the number of suspects. The characters in this film weren't particularly likeable either, but their roles fit them well into the building tension and conflict. The truck played upon their weaknesses. Here, you were supposed to imagine yourself in the characters' situation. Slasher films, in contrast, encourage a disconnect, often with audience members left wondering why a character did something stupid. In this film, even strange choices made by the characters were part of the plot instead of cheats. Why did the boy drive down the dirt road? That's explained. In contrast, a slasher film might expect you to take it for granted that victims will do dumb things like shower after they see a friend killed. Slasher films do not require attention spans. This film in contrast slowly builds up the tension between the characters and slowly reveals the nature of their dilemma. So I can't say I'm surprised by the film's lack of popularity, even if that is at the risk of sounding snobbish. From my perspective, the film was wonderfully surreal, built a sense of dread and suspense, fit the pieces together cleverly, etc. For you, you refused to put any work into it, you wanted to sit back and have everything explained, and with that shallow, surface appreciation of the film failed to connect to it while falsely claiming it lived up to those expectations. Sure, in the end some things are left unexplained (like the gun with endless bullets) but what supernatural film doesn't require suspension of disbelief? What matters is how it is handled. In the end, this film is about the emotional experience, and like Mulholland Drive, Antichristo, etc, (and this film makes more sense than those two) it doesn't need to fit strict Aristotelian yes/no logic to be effective. Lots of films sound stupid when encapsulated, even great ones, because film is a visual, auditory, emotional and intellecutal experience played out over a certain running time. Your little summation of the film is simply inane.

And now to your primary argument: You try to make your subjective reaction seem an objective critique of the film by noting the ratings of the film. Why isn't Road Train more popular? Why aren't supermarkets stocked up with Road Train breakfast cereal? Why doesn't McDonalds have Road Train Happy meals? Yes, the film's not for everyone, and I'm big enough to admit that, and I'm not so egocentric as to believe that my not liking a film automatically means it was badly acted or shot, or vice verse. I'd say in explanation to the ratings that the film has just found the wrong audience thus far. Like it or not, horror films are in a ghetto. Larger audiences are off watching competent but overrated fare like Black Swan because they probably unfairly equate horror with slasher films, or maybe they're just snobs. Hey, I like arthouse, but give me a good slasher film or a bad Ed Wood film too! The reason I came across Road Train is because I haunt the horror racks at video stores. The average person coming across Road Train at a video store would also be a horror fan, but likely one after a different experience than Road Train provides. While I don't think the average horror fan is stupid, many, even smart ones, have shallow tastes and just want gore and spectacle (which they will then analyse to death online). In summary, it's hardly as if this film is some widely-publicised blockbuster with a fair sampling of ratings from a wide population with widely varying tastes. I very much doubt the average movie-goer thinks to themselves: "Hey, I'm going to go to the IMDB and rate Road Train even though I've never heard of it". I never bother rating films on this website myself, even including ones the general public have heard of and actually watched. And as for critics: Pretty well every horror film made gets lots of bad reviews from "respected" critics if they bother watching it at all. Some critics are mainstream. Some have their own little niches. It's the niche ones who would review Road Train for the most part. And there's usually a reason why horror reviewers aren't mainstream reviewers. I've watched a lot of boring crap that was recommended by Ain't It Cool, Empire, etc., including pretentious slashers like Reeker.

Lastly, I'm sure there's lots of chick flicks with IMDB ratings of 7 and up. You might want to try those if you're so concerned about popularity. I personally don't consider popularity an accurate reflection of a film's intrinsic value. But, hey, if you want to fit in by following trends, more power to you. Maybe you listen to Justin Beiber too. I hear he's quite popular with the young ones since he's soooo dreamy.