The Wicker Man

[venusdiva429]

I saw that movie once, and I've never been able to watch it again. It's permanently engraved on my mind. What a horrific ending (shudder)!

[highondegrassi2]

I was really looking forward to seeing this one, but the reviews for it are pretty bad. I didn't know there was an original. I'm just going to rent that instead.

[glitterbug]

Yes, with Christopher Lee playing the role of his life! It's really creepy throughout, and the ending just defies belief. Even my hubby liked it and he's not overly keen on "old films".

[bitsygirl]

I heard they were planning to change the ending, but I'm not sure how that would work. It's the ending (and Britt Ekland dancing naked of course) that pretty much make this film so memorable.

[trifle]

Save your money. I saw it, and it was terrible.

Let me just say that I walked into it with no expectations. I saw it over Labor Day weekend; I had not read a single review. I have seen the original, but I'm not a huge fan of it. As remakes usually suck, I thought it was a bad idea, but I thought maybe Neil LaBute might bring something interesting to it.

The first warning sign came when I bought the ticket and noticed that the movie was rated PG-13. A Wicker Man stripped of the perverse sexuality that pervaded the first film promised to be both boring and intriguing. Well, really just boring. LaBute has done something weird with the screenplay, updating it, but injecting major interpolations from the original. Which just doesn't work. Nicolas Cage will be doing a scene, reeling off the dialogue in that snarky way that he does, then suddenly he's channeling Edward Woodward, then back to Cage....it just does not work! Especially since his character has very different motivations from the Woodward character.

I was hoping that this had the makings of at least a good bad movie, but it's just dull.
I actually dozed off in the middle of this thing, woke up, and thought to myself, "Gee, the cinematography in this thing is beautiful."

The most shocking thing about the film is that it's essentially the same movie, with a different prologue and an epilogue. But instead of a pagan island, it's an island where women are dominant and men are mute, passive creatures used for breeding purposes. The Nicolas Cage character has been lured there by his ex to find a little girl who turns out to be his daughter. Substitute scenes of Britt dancing for women in Grecian goddess gowns or Little House on the Prairie-wear adressing each other as "Sister" and standing around looking simultaneously guilty and triumphant at the same time. (Picture lots of saucy wenches slyly giggling behind Cage's back.) The film plays out roughly the same way as the original. Surprisingly, the ending is the same, except the villagers don't get a nifty song to sing while Nicolas Cage is burning up. I have to admit, I was waiting for him to kickbox his way out of the burning wicker man. But it didn't happen, thank goodness. This being a Neil "Misogyny is my middle name" LaBute film, though, Cage's character does get to punch lots of these castrating bitches in the face before being dragged off to his fiery death.

And yet it still managed to be boring as hell!

[Deleted]

FEH! These remaking dolts won't get a penny out of my pagan pocket, period. [Alliteration completely unintended.] They will also not get a moment of my time. This is a travesty, however matriarchal my personal beliefs. It's like someone trying to improve on a timeless work of art. See anyone "remaking" the Mona Lisa lately?? The original has had a huge influence on me personally, but it can be defended on several levels, not the least of which is its wonderful authenticity (as a musician who has studied and played early music, I can attest to that portion of it myself.) The characters, setting, costumes, customs... damn near perfect. Oh, and no woman punching either.
Idjits.