The Wicker Man (2006) Poster

User Reviews

Review this title
830 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
3/10
Oh dear
andrestownsend21 May 2012
What was I expecting? It was a pointless remake of a classic British film starring Nicholas Cage and re set in the States.

The first question I find myself asking is why did I watch this? Curiosity I think.

It really is quite simply terrible. Nicholas Cage when given free reign is a destructive influence to a film. Here he out loons even himself in one of the strangest performances I have ever seen.

Even writing about this film hurts. It's so utterly bad, I started doing the ironing to distract me. On a Sunday night.

The Original film is slowburn with a quirky offbeat kinda feel.

With a remake, all of the unknown plot points and twists from the first film would be apparent to the audience, so surely the impact would need to be replaced and the tension built through another means?

Wells sadly in this film having Nic Cage run around punching women in the face whilst dressed as a bear is about as tense as it gets.

Yes, that's right - he punches women whilst dressed as a bear.

Dear me.

Avoid.
29 out of 33 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Five reasons to watch The Wicker Man
Derek2379 July 2007
Warning: Spoilers
The Wicker Man, starring Nicolas Cage, is by no means a good movie, but I can't really say it's one I regret watching. I could go on and on about the negative aspects of the movie, like the terrible acting and the lengthy scenes where Cage is looking for the girl, has a hallucination, followed by another hallucination, followed by a dream sequence- with a hallucination, etc., but it's just not worth dwelling on when it comes to a movie like this. Instead, here's five reasons why you SHOULD watch The Wicker Man, even though it's bad:

5. It's hard to deny that it has some genuinely creepy ideas to it, the only problem is in its cheesy, unintentionally funny execution. If nothing else, this is a movie that may inspire you to see the original 1973 film, or even read the short story on which it is based.

4. For a cheesy horror/thriller, it is really aesthetically pleasing. It's pretty obvious that it was filmed on location instead of using green screen or elaborate sets, so we get to see some very great scenery. There are also many nicely composed shots. It is a very good looking movie.

3. Nicolas Cage is not so much an actor as he is a force of nature. Whether you're a fan of his or not, it seems as if it's impossible for Cage to play a "normal guy". There is always some kind of eccentricity or nerdiness he brings to the characters he plays, and personally, I am always fascinated by watching him in any movie he does. Whether Nicolas Cage is great or terrible, he always brings his unique energy into play, and he is never boring to watch. He is terrible in The Wicker Man, but in the most wonderful kind of way.

2. A student could probably write a hell of a paper on this movie, as it seems to be the strongest anti-feminist movie ever made. "See?" you could write, "this is what happens when women are allowed to run a society!" Also, the similarities between this "Summersisle" society and a bee colony are pretty interesting and worth noting.

1. If you're reading this, there's probably a good chance you may have seen a YouTube video that has become very popular: a collection of "highlights" from the movie, including Cage running around in a bear suit, and of course, the infamous "AAGHH!! THE BEES!! MY EYES!!!" line. These scenes are hilarious out of context, and they are still fairly funny while watching them in the film's entirety.

I bought the used DVD at Blockbuster for about 5 dollars...when you work that out, it's about a dollar per reason. It's a pretty good deal.

NOTE: The Unrated version of the movie is the best to watch, and it's better to watch the Theatrical version just for its little added on epilogue, which features a cameo from James Franco.
45 out of 54 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
They shouldn't have sacrificed the script.
AdventurePenguin9 September 2006
Warning: Spoilers
The Wicker Man is a horror movie by virtue of the fact that it occasionally jumps out at you, is dark, and wants to disturb you with its strange imagery. Horror movies are not always scary, but mostly because audiences have become desensitized to the tricks and traps of filmmakers over the years trying to give us the willies. That said, The Wicker Man is one of the most unintentionally hilarious movies of the year and well worth your time, if only to be mocked.

Officer Edward Malus (Nicolas Cage) finds himself in the middle of a drug-addled bender after failing to save an atypically creepy horror movie child from an exploding car. He grieves and pops pills, probably because he wasn't harmed in the blast, despite having his head in the car window. Then, he receives a letter from his ex-girlfriend, Willow (Kate Beahan). It seems Willow is living on a private island now and her child is missing, possibly secreted away by the very people she is living with! As an audience, we already know that the daughter belongs to Cage, since such a thing would be far more dramatic and give him ample reason to turn Summerisle upside down. But Edward Malus does not realize this. Perhaps he is too busy being distracted by the Neo-Pagan Amish community that lives on the island, where men are kept submissive by the powerful female Sisters that run the place. Or it could be he is preoccupied by all of the bee hives around the island, since the Sisters of Summerisle deem it to be their most important crop. Are we surprised that Malus has an allergy to bees? It never really is explained how the people of Summerisle sustain themselves on just honey.

Whatever the reason, Malus bumbles around the island, growing increasingly more and more horrified by the events transpiring around him. A feminist bitch teaching an English class about the atrocities of men? Clearly this island is the bastion of Satan himself. Ah, but we find a clue here. Despite the fact that all of the residents of the island insist that there is no girl, there is a single unoccupied desk in the middle of class. Cage then opens the desk, only to be startled by a crow and screams "What?!" At that point, we are thinking along the same lines.

But hold on: these are the best parts of the film. Up until now, the plot hasn't started to collapse in on itself, though we can see the stress fractures running along the edges. Malus spots a girl in the distance after popping some more pills in the middle of the night and gives chase into a nearby barn, where he barely escapes death and completely fails to thrill us. Undaunted, he continues to be lied to by everyone on the island, including his ex-girlfriend, who seems to watch everything transpire like a deer in the headlights. We know she is up to no good, though she could at least pretend to care.

Finally, we have some revelations. It seems young, misplaced Rowan was born during a harvest year when the crops failed. Dear god, they are going to sacrifice her to save their honey! Based on this hunch, Malus then punches out an Innkeeper, karate chops Leelee Sobieski into submission, ducks into a bear costume, and sneaks into the ceremony to save the little girl that may or may not be the subject of a sacrifice. But then, we stopped taking The Wicker Man seriously a long time ago. Perhaps it would be easier to take the movie as seriously as it does if Nicolas Cage wasn't flailing around like a drunk in half of his scenes. Or maybe the movie is just bad by default.

I wouldn't dream of giving the ending away, but it is far less effective than that of the original movie, which I decided to watch after seeing this. It almost feels as though this version of The Wicker Man was pulled together through vague recollections of the original after a long night of alcohol abuse. It's not necessarily a bad thing to try out new stuff with old material, but the minute your hero comes to the rescue dressed as a bear, you should know something has gone horribly awry.
20 out of 23 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
The True Nature of Sacrifice
Ali_John_Catterall1 September 2006
Warning: Spoilers
Prior to this release, Neil LaBute had this to say about the 1973 original: "It's surprising how many people say it's their favorite soundtrack. I'm like, come on! You may not like the new one, but if that's your favorite soundtrack, I don't know if I *want* you to like my film."

Neil, a word. You might want to sit down for this too; as Lord Summerisle says, shocks are so much better absorbed with the knees bent. See, Neil, the thing about the original, is that Paul Giovanni's soundtrack is one of the most celebrated things about it. The filmmakers themselves consider it a virtual musical. Along with Richard and Danny Thompson, and Bert Jansch, it practically kick-started the 1970s Folk New Wave. To undermine it is akin to imagining Jaws without John Williams. Or The Buddy Holly Story without Buddy Holly. The result's one of the most breathtakingly arrogant, pointless remake of a British cult classic since Sly Stallone's Get Carter.

The original had apparently left Nicolas Cage "disturbed for about two weeks." So disturbed, during that fortnight's window, that he pitched the idea of re-imagining one of the most nuanced films about inter-faith struggle ever devised to a writer-director previously known for his wholly unsubtle depictions of male chauvinism. It's like some parlor game: what would you get if Sam Peckinpah took on Bambi? Or Gaspar "Irreversible" Noe remade Love, Actually?(Actually, I'd quite like to see that). Unfortunately, someone took this parlor game seriously: All LaBute's succeeded in doing is ripping out the original's guts while saddling it with his own gormless Sex War preoccupations.

After failing to rescue a little girl and her mum from a fatal car crash, Cage's highway patrolman spirals into a medicated torpor. Then he receives a letter from ex-fiancée Willow Woodward (this one trades on name-homages for kudos), now living on the private island community of Summersisle – that extra 's' stands for 'superfluous' – and wants Edward to help locate missing daughter Rowan.

Summersisle, it transpires, is a female-dominated joint, conceived as a haven for oppressed womenfolk and refugees from the Salem witch trials. Here, the matriarchs observe the Olde ways, and the few males are near-mute breed-mules. It's like Lilith Fair on a grand scale. Summersisle's main export is honey – a symbolic and literal headache for Edward, as he's allergic to bees. "Beekeepers!" cries Edward. "They seem to be everywhere on this island!" Well, that's probably because Summersisle's main export is honey.

While making his investigations, Edward overhears of an oncoming Mayday ritual called "the time of death and rebirth". He discovers the previous year's crop failed; nearly dies from bee stings; and eventually comes to the conclusion (a conclusion which admittedly couldn't be more obvious if the locals had tattooed a timetable of events on the back of his hands) that Rowan will be burnt alive in a pagan rite to ensure a bountiful harvest. He also meets the Queen Bee of the hive, Sister Summersisle (Burstyn), who has her own plans for him involving the eponymous Wicker Man: "The drone must die."

First, the good news: any concerns Cage would be airlifted from the Wicker Man's flaming jaws at the last minute by a fleet of black CIA helicopters can be laid to rest: he toast. That's about it for the good news. "This is a story whose chapters were carefully written" intones Burstyn with sublime irony. Though retaining the basic cat-and-mouse premise (and credits typography), what's left subjects the original to a scorched-earth policy.

Crucial to Shaffer's original screenplay was that his Christian copper, in accordance with ritual, came to the island of his own free will – and most importantly, was a virgin; the perfect sacrifice. In reducing matters to a sexual, as opposed to a religious power-struggle, LaBute presents the flimsiest of qualifiers for a harvest sacrifice. By the time Cage has worked out he was the bait, you honestly couldn't care less.

And Cage is one of the very worst things in this; a lumbering, drawling donkey – an arsewit whose tongue seems just slightly too big for his mouth. "Goddamit" he moans after he hallucinates a drowned Rowan, with all the mental torment of a man who's set his morning alarm clock half-an-hour too early. One hopes it's his character's frequent reliance on pills that has reduced him to this state – alternately fatigued, then full of preppy, overbearing vim. If so, it's a fine portrayal of an undistinguished IQ addled with anti-depressants. If not…it doesn't bear thinking about. As Willow, the saucer-eyed Beahan is similarly dreadful, presenting her lines as if in competition with Cage for the…most…half-hearted…delivery. While Burstyn entirely lacks the mercurial menace to convince. Who's afraid of Naomi Wolf?

Every element that made the original great – the lovingly detailed depictions of folk customs, the ingenious score, the dialogue (Lord Summerisle's majestic "You did it beautifully!" has been replaced with the rather less attractive "You did it excellently!" Whoah, dude!) – have been substituted for a meandering battle-of-the-sexes thriller with occasional crash-bang wallop. Namely, walloping women; this is a LaBute flick, after all. Cage's Sister Beech bashing is just one of the more embarrassing episodes; impotent little men will be hooting with glee at how them uppity hippie chicks finally got what was comin' to 'em, hyuk hyuk.

The closing coda sees the whole rotten mess collapsing under the weight of genre cliché: in a bar, two guys run into a couple of Summersisle maidens on shore leave, flirty-fishing for fresh martyrs. At the moment of their successful pick-up, you half expect the women to turn round and give an exaggerated wink and a thumbs up to the camera.

One more thing: keen credit watchers may have noticed that films sporting an unusually high producer count (anything up to 10) tend to be Not Much Cop. The Wicker Man has 18 producers in total.
480 out of 562 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Haha
Clive_W17 June 2019
This film is so bad, I had to question why the wicker man was re-made, and Nic your better than this.... still if you want some cheesy film then enjoy, I've watched it a couple times when I want something terrible to watch, it is a Guilty pleasure haha. Also just FYI, check out Chris hilarious reviews on YouTube, that guy summed up my feeling on this film. But if you did enjoy this film on a serious note and not like me that enjoyed it for the joke factor then I take my hat off to you.
69 out of 79 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Hilariously Awful
Snopjo2 September 2006
Warning: Spoilers
A phenomenal achievement in awfulness. It's actually hilariously awful.

First off...Nicholas Cage must now have made it to the finals in the Over-Emoting Category in his acting class. Wearing new hair plugs and with a face that has been lifted so many times his pinned back ears seem to be straining to touch in the back he oozes not only a sick smarmiess but creates a "hero" character that you have no vested interest in.

I don't know what it is with Neil Labute and female characters. He makes females out to be totally deviant and evil...and pays them back by having Cage punch several of them directly in the face and call them all "b****es" a few times too. I've enjoyed LaBute's early films and a few of his plays...but it's a strange fascination he has.

I'd give this film a 2 out of 10 solely based on Ellen Burstyn's performance. By the time she finally makes her appearance (bravely soldiering through her scenes with her wig line clearly visible on her forehead) it seems like all hope may be lost. She deserves an Oscar right here and now for saying her lines with a straight face and when she appears wearing a white mumu and blue, white, and gold face paint booming about The Wicker Man you know that working with Scorcese and Friedkin really prepped her for this role dang well.

This movie is so wrong-headed and cuckoo that is has to be seen to be believed.

Highlights include: Nicholas Cage running away from a swarm of bees and then falling down a hill.

Nicholas Cage stealing a bicycle and looking like Ms. Gulch from The Wizard of Oz riding around on it.

Nicholas Cage running around the island kicking down doors looking for the missing girl.

Leelee Sobieski PLUMMETING from a once-promising acting career in a "brawl" with Cage.

Ellen Burstyn dancing around in a said while mumu.

Nicholas Cage screaming "Who burned it? Who burned it? Who burned it?Who burned it?Who burned it?Who burned it?" for no reason.

Nicholas Cage in a bear costume (I'm not kidding) running through the woods, taking off the costume (but leaving the bear feet on) and then doing some karate moves to some villains.

And you haven't lived until you have seen the final 15 minutes of the movie and its dreadful epilogue that looked like it was shot yesterday in your cousin's basement.

Needless to say, if you can make it through this film without laughing out loud then you deserve a medal. There was actually a point in the movie where I stopped snickering to wonder if maybe this wasn't an elaborate send-up of "hysteria" films...only to be reminded when Cage would scream/shout/whisper his dialogue that he really was taking himself quite seriously.

I think this one is destined to be a cult film all over again...just because it's so dreadful.
101 out of 122 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
A "Classic" for the wrong reasons!
AdrenalinDragon6 May 2010
As a horror movie, its a 1 out of 10, but as a Comedy, its at least an 8 out of 10. Nicolas Cage's character had me in stitches in so many places, because his acting in this movie is SO bad its hilarious! The last 30 minutes of the movie is pure gold! He punches women constantly, can't figure out people are lying to him, threatens kids, attacks in a bear suit, and has so many unintentionally funny one-liner quotes its just ridiculous, such as "HOWDIDITGETBURNED", "NO! NOT THE BEES!", and "Killing me won't bring back your goddamn honey!". Hell, even the ending of the movie was funny somehow! I saw this at the cinema too, and the audience were laughing as well! It's totally worth buying on DVD as its dirt cheap now.

Ironically though, the "Director's Cut" is supposed to make it more horror-like, but it actually makes the movie even funnier! In conclusion, its a 'classic' for the wrong reasons!
41 out of 48 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
The Worst Movie I've EVER Seen
bshopdan1 September 2006
This movie is the biggest waste of nine dollars that I've spent in a very, very long time. If you knew how often I went to the movies you'd probably say, that's hard to imagine, but never-the-less, it's true! After seeing the trailer for this movie, I knew that I had to see it! If you're a fan of horror, mystery, and suspense, why wouldn't you? The trailer is nothing less than intriguing and exciting; unfortunately, the movie is none of these.

From the cinematography, to the script, to the acting, this movie is a complete flop. If you're reading this, planning to go to the movie expecting some thrills, mystery, action, horror, or anything other than a waste of an hour and forty-five minutes I'm afraid you are in for disappointment.

"Why is it so bad," you might be asking yourself. Let me tell you. The movie was neither mysterious nor suspenseful. Nothing about the movie made me the least bit "on edge," frightened, or curious. The script was at best laughable. There were numerous times throughout the film where the dialogue was just so ridiculous I began to write it off as comic relief only to find out a few seconds later that it wasn't. The acting was absolutely dreadful. I like Nicholas Cage but this was a miss. Without exception, every performance in this movie was incredibly below average. The cinematography was awful with not one moment of suspense or mystique. Finally, the story is completely transparent. You can see the end of this movie coming a mile away.

I am not usually a very harsh critic. Frankly, when I go to see a comedy I want to laugh and when I go to see a mystery/suspense/horror, I just want to be surprised. This movie was boring, poorly acted, poorly written, and an overwhelming disappointment. Do yourself a favor and go see something else.
510 out of 691 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Insultingly rubbish
sebpopcorn19 September 2008
A bad movie is a bad movie but a bad remake is something else entirely. This film doesn't just do a bad job of retelling the original story it takes everything that was good about it and replaces it with a witless and disjointed story.

Nicolas Cage is well cast as a man addicted to some kind of over the counter drugs. I was sick to death of his muttering and dopey face within about five minutes, you might find his routine wearing thin a little faster or slower depending on your tolerance. I think he might have done a little too much preparation for his role. Watching Nicolas Cage mumble his way through the script is quite painful at times, like seeing an elderly dog trying to chase a postman on arthritic legs and not understanding why he can't quite do it anymore.

The original story was quite chilling but here it's all kind of a joke. There's something really repulsive about a director remaking a film when they clearly haven't taken the time to understand the original. The plot is weaker than you would believe without seeing it and the whole war of the sexes thing is just not interesting. The director of this film should be forcibly prevented from remaking any more films, this film is a big fat insult to a classic movie and a sign of how cynical and artless Hollywood has become. Sad times.
21 out of 24 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
I don't get the hate
Horst_In_Translation28 February 2016
Warning: Spoilers
Obviously, the 10-year-old "The Wicker Man" starring Oscar winner Nicholas Cage is not a perfect film by any means, but it looks a lot to me that this one has been voted down by pretentious retro intellectuals who think only because an original film was good, it must mean automatically that a modern remake is bad. This one here is not. It was written and directed by Neil LaBute and runs for 100 minutes. The core story is a cop who arrives at a mysterious island obviously controlled by a community of cult-like women. He is in charge of finding out what happens to a missing girl and gets involved deeper and deeper in the mystery of the island.

There were a couple parts that did not work entirely for me, for example the part about him being the father to the girl and the masks in the end also looked a bit ridiculous, but we have to keep in mind that the women on the island were all complete lunatics and did not see how ridiculous their actions were as if they were on some drug or something. Anyway, the setting makes this one a fairly atmospheric watch and I thought most of the performances were pretty good. Cage always delivers basically, especially when he plays cop characters. And I also liked the ending somehow. It goes against the traditional idea of how films have to end happily or on a positive note at least and this one here is the exact opposite. The epilogue with James Franco was not really necessary, but oh well, it's not bad enough to destroy the film either.

As a whole, do not be fooled by the rating here on IMDb or the film's reception by critics. This is far from a failure and has some really good moments occasionally, even if there is a bad one here and there too. But all in all, the good outweighs the bad and it is a decent watch if you are interested in mystery with a touch of supernatural and horror phenomenons. Or if you simply love Nicholas Cage. Thumbs up.
32 out of 46 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Appalling
sjc19521 September 2006
Warning: Spoilers
How this film could miss so many of the fascinating, complex and mysterious aspects of the original story or the original movie is truly remarkable. An unbelievably thin and unengaging plot, ankle-deep characterisation/motivation and a really awful soundtrack (replacing tension with vast swathes of noise, replacing the arcane musical references of the original for digitised crashes and roars. Then there are the specific references to the original which are merely "plastered on" over the cracks... Dreadful. In a world where gormless, brain-dead Amerikan remakes of The Italian Job (a tear appears), Get Carter (sobs uncontrollably) and Alfie have desecrated our screens recently, this one takes the proverbial biscuit. Execrable nonsense. How Ellen Burstyn ever got involved is a wonder... Rubbish.
218 out of 290 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Everybody deserves to watch this movie for one reason.
swattie12324 November 2012
Warning: Spoilers
The Wicker Man drinking game. Drink if:

0. Nic Cage in a bear suit punches a woman in the face – chug fill chug. 1. Nic Cage pops pills. 2. Nic Cage hits anything trying to hurt it (including/especially people). 3. Willow fails to complete a sentence. 4. Anything gets hit by a truck. 5. Nic Cage raises his voice/shouts. 6. Nic Cage makes an unreasonable demand. 7. Nic Cage points with his entire arm. 8. Any time you suspect Nic Cage has been allowed to supply his own wardrobe. 9. Someone is intimidated by bees. 10. Nic Cage threatens or accuses someone or something. 11. Nic Cage looks perplexed/stares blankly. 12. If Nic Cage drinks, you drink. 13. Drink for the entire time Nic Cage is on a bike.

One of the most entertaining movies I've ever seen.
13 out of 19 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
worth taking a look
jawbreaker1818 August 2006
I managed to get into a screening of the remake of the wicker man the other day, and have to say that i was pretty entertained by it. Being a life time horror movie fan, and having (obviously) seen the original, I was interested to see what this new school would bring to the story. From what I can see on the message boards, it looks like not many of the die-hard wicker fans are too enthused by the idea of a remake, but for the most part their fears can be put to rest (if they will allow). The remake DEFINITELY retains AND even ADDS to the the atmospheric slowly boiling sense of dread and and wonder (I.E. WHAT THE F**K!?!?), leading up to the inevitable ending which left me with a much more haunted feeling that even seeing the original for the first time.

I do have to warn you that if you are not a Nicholas Cage fan, this will not be a role to win you over- there are parts where it is painful to watch him. Everything else is relatively flawless though- if you let yourself get into the movie, you honestly feel as if you are on an isolated island where the "old ways" are still very relevant to society, something that even the original couldn't seem to do if you looked closely enough. The story is definitely fleshed out a bit, and if you're open to a new take on the story I think you'll have a great movie-going experience. I think that the important thing to remember here is that it's a movie- a brief distraction from real life whose purpose is to entertain- NOT a commentary on paganism.

This "remake" actually manages to stand on it's own as a new entry into the horror archives. Does it have its problems? of course it does, what movie doesn't? remake or not. It reminded me of the differences between the original Ringu and the Naomi Watts/ Gore Verbinski version- i think both are outstanding entries into the horror world, both offering many different things. Of course there is always the one that came first, but sometimes the "original" can be re-tooled and have new life breathed into it.

As a side-note- even if you HATE what they've done with the story/actors they chose- the cinematography is absolutely otherworldly here, with very little emphasis on special effects, and much more creative uses of natural landscapes and tricks of light- i give THAT a 15!
236 out of 457 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Awful, barely coherent, vague rehash of an all-time classic
the_unutterable1 September 2006
Warning: Spoilers
This film was terrible. OK, my favourite film is 'The Wicker Man' (1973), so I was always bound to be a little biased.

The plot rambles along, throwing out enough of the key elements of the original to make the term 'remake' highly dubious. (He's not a virgin, but IS allergic to bees. WOW!) So many things happen that make no sense and are unexplained, which I'm afraid Mr LaBute does not a horror movie make. (How are two people we clearly saw blown up in a car at the start alive and well at the end of the film?) Cage looks haggard and bewildered throughout, and his character is prone to calling out "Rowan!?" at the slightest noise. The 'nods' to the original are irritating as they come off as tacky rather than as intelligent homage. For example, certain incidents mirror the original (The girl falling out of a cupboard pretending to be dead when Woodward/Cage is searching the island) and several lines of dialogue are plucked straight from Anthony Schaffers original screenplay and shoehorned in.

I'm sure others will provide a better and more detailed analysis than this, I really can't be bothered to write any more about this film. It lacks any kind of substance. Throw it on the scrap heap with all the other remakes that have sullied the good names of the films they were 'based' on (in this case very loosely).
130 out of 173 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Definitely pass on this movie
xiaoyuboo1 September 2006
I haven't seen the original, but just wanted to drop a quick note to anyone who happens to scroll down this far: Wicker Man is the worst movie I've seen this year. Maybe even in two years. I wish I could ask the theater for my money back or turn back time to warn myself not to see it.

I'll give it two positive nods: The sarcasm of Cage's character at least got some laughs from me and the scenery of the island was beautiful. Sorry, that's it. Here come the jeers. The movie's plot is only propelled forward because other characters won't give Cage any straight answers--and he puts up with this!!! How this could go on for over an hour of my time(much less days in the movie) is beyond me.

Not to mention that the plot is full of holes. You leave the theater with enough unanswered questions to fill a library. How anyone could read this script and think, "Yes, people should pay $11 to see this shady outline of what a film should look like" is beyond me.

Do not go see this flick. Or even rent it on DVD.
324 out of 448 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
The biggest waste of 2 hours of my life...
himebishojo1 September 2006
Warning: Spoilers
The Wicker Man. I am so angry that I cannot write a proper comment about this movie.

The plot was ridiculous, thinly tied together, and altogether-just lame. Nicolas Cage...shame on you! I assumed that since you were in it, that it would be at least decent. It was not.

I felt like huge parts of the movie had been left on the cutting room floor, and even if it's complete-the movie was just outlandish and silly.

At the end you're left mouth agape, mind befuddled and good taste offended. I have never heard so many people leave a theater on opening day with so much hatred. People were complaining about it in small groups in the mall, four floors down from the theater near the entrance. It's that bad.

I heard it compared to : Glitter, American Werewolf in Paris and Gigli. My boyfriend was so mad he wouldn't even talk about it.

Grrrr!
463 out of 653 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
UnBEARable
briancham199415 June 2020
This is one of the funniest films I have ever seen. Essentially, Nicolas Cage plays himself and invades an island to assault a bunch of cult members and then scream about bees.
16 out of 18 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Time that you will never get back.
mathesonmoore31 August 2006
Unfortunately, this movie does no credit whatsoever to the original. Nicholas Cage, fairly wooden as far as actors go, imbues the screen with a range of skill from, non-plussed to over the top. The supporting cast is no better.

The plot stays much the same as the original in terms of scene progression but is far worse. Not enough detail is given to allow the audience to by into what is being sold. It turns out it's just a bill of poor goods. Disbelief cannot be suspended, nor can a befit of a doubt be given. The only saving aspect of this film is that it is highly visual, as the medium requires, and whomever scouted the location should be commended.

There was much laughter in the audience and multiple boos, literally, at the end.

Disappointed! Wait for the original to come on television, pour a whiskey and enjoy.
366 out of 523 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Neil Labute should have his member slathered in honey and laced with bees (Spolier Alert)....
blakndn2 September 2006
Everyone else who has commented negatively about this film have done excellent analysis as to why this film is so bloody awful. I wasn't going to comment, but the film just bugs me so much, and the writer/director in particular. So I must toss in my hat to join the naysayers.

I saw the original "Wicker Man" and really loved the cornucopia of music, sensuality, paganism in a modern world, and the clash of theological beliefs. This said, I am not part of the crowd that thinks remakes of great movies shouldn't be done. For example, I liked the original 1950's "Invasion of the Body Snatchers", but equally enjoyed the 1978 remake. Both films can stand on their own. Another example is "The Thing". The original, as campy as it looks compared to today's standards, has a lot to be proud of in the 1982 remake with Kurt Russell (my all time favorite horror movie). So that small minority of people who like "The Wicker Man" re-make can not accuse me of dissing this piece of crap just because it's a re-make.

This film solidified for me Neil LaBute's sexism and misogynistic tendencies. It also made me wonder how executives, wanting to make a serious thriller, would green light a product that is so anti-female. There are too many scenes of Cage hitting women just because he's frustrated with them thwarting his investigation of a missing girl. would he react like this off the island in other cases where suspects aren't forthcoming? The original created a society in which men and women are equal participants in a Goddess based religion. The threat to the main character came from everyone, male and female. There was no sexual hierarchy.

The metaphor of bees, drones etc was a bit heavy handed and convenient ("The drone must die!"), especially when Cage's character has bee allergies. I kept wondering why the men on the island didn't fight back and use mere physicality to stop these women from treating them like grunts. These were not women with special supernatural powers, and half of them seemed to be pregnant, the other half old and fat, and the rest girls and thin blonde waifs, so if the men really wanted to escape they could do what most men do when they hate women. Physically dominate them. There didn't seem to be any guns or weapons beyond cutting tools to hold them if they were unhappy. But if they were content being drones, why make them unable to speak? They could be used as a threat to Cage because they will defend the community. They are drones because Neil LaBute seems to believe that a society ran by women would leave men castrated. (That movie was made already. "The Stepford Wives" anyone?) Classic symptoms from men who are afraid of what may happen if women got their sh*t together and were truly equal citizens.

The problem with the man-hating female society is that it makes uninteresting movie viewing and creates unintentional humor when Cage starts knocking women out. I belief LaBute should've left the society an egalitarian one, kept the sexuality and uninhibited lasciviousness, and pushed buttons of discomfort in regards to the children on that island. No one likes pedophiles or children to be sexually exploited. So how would a cop react if he saw lewd acts performed by adults with children around? There would be a logical mental leap that these children are abused, thus, an urgency created to save the missing child and get help for all the children. LaBute has said he created the fiancé and daughter story thread to give Cage's character an incentive to search. I don't think you need that. Any child abused will make an adult react to save them. The irony of course would be that the child Cage "saves" ultimately brings him death.

The dialogue was contrived and campy. The whole third act was hilarious. The audience I saw it with guffawed (and later booed at the end). I just thought the movie started off wrong when the letter arrived written in the fancy handwriting and all the flashbacks cutting into to show how wounded Cage is. We don't need that. Just show him arriving on the island for an investigation of a missing child. Most of us in America have seen "Law & Order" and other cop procedurals. We come into the movie as if we are Cage's partner solving a mystery.

So much potential...wasted. Neil LaBute, stick to talking head pictures for people who enjoy your male angst-ridden plays and flicks of that sort. Stay with your own company of men. Leave the thrillers for people who understand thrillers. Here is your jar of honey. I'll watch that.
118 out of 164 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
If you want to watch Nicholas Cage hit women, this is for you.
fedor829 December 2006
Warning: Spoilers
Yet ANOTHER horror-film remake. This one is really quite bad. It has taken over the nonsense from the 1973 original – minus the great music and the atmosphere. So what are we left with here? With dull, badly acted garbage, with silly dialogues and even some unintentionally unfunny moments! The premise could be labeled more-or-less original – if only this weren't just a remake – but it is also a silly premise. The story is full of gaping holes in logic, there are many inconsistencies, the characters are not believable, and the director has failed to create a mood – which is essential for this kind of story to work on the screen. Cage is dull and uninteresting, and his character's detective work shoddy and even laughable. The rest of the cast isn't much better, but then again, they didn't have much to work with here. Check out Ellen Burstyn: she is barely recognizable, what with a half-dozen face-lifts that have turned her into something quite weird. Strictly for die-hard Cage fans, and people who are shipwrecked on an island, with only one movie to watch.
16 out of 23 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
I don't get the pure hate!
rubin-lily25 July 2019
People who write this is the worst movie they have 'ever' seen, clearly haven't watched many movies in their lifetime! Come on people... I hadn't seen/heard of the original when I watched it. Was it Academy acting or writing? No but I enjoyed the film. I did watch the original film soon after, but it wasn't my cup of tea.
11 out of 16 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
One of the worst films I've ever seen
hrv8061 September 2006
This has got to be one of the worst fillums I've ever seen and I've seen a few. It is slow, boring, amateurish - not even consistent within its own simplistic reading of the plot. The actors do not act. I can't blame them - they have been given a script of such utter banality all they can do is trudge through it with a pain behind their eyes which has nothing to do with the evil goings on in SummersIsle.

There is not one moment in this film that rings true - not an honest line nor a single instant where one is moved. The Nicholas Cage character is so badly drawn that one feels not a smidgeon of compassion for him through all his tribulations. I have no doubt that I was seeing a suffering man up there but it was Nicholas Cage fully aware of the fact that he was in the worst movie of his entire career.
268 out of 396 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
One of the best unintentionally funny movies in years...
meredsm23 July 2007
"The Wicker Man" is not a good movie. There, now that that's out of the way, I can tell you that this movie is certainly worth seeing. Not in the way you would think of it, however, because "The Wicker Man" is one of the funniest movies I have ever seen. I would rank it up there with "Airplane!" and "Monty Python and the Holy Grail." What's the best part about this? This film is supposed to be a horror movie. I wasn't scared at all. In fact, I couldn't be scared, or even shocked, because there were parts where I couldn't stop laughing.

The acting is terrible. Nicolas Cage is an incredibly wooden actor, delivering almost all of his lines in the same monotone voice, (although the more memorable parts of this movie are when he gets angry). The plot...? What plot, this movie makes no sense at all. And when the point of the movie is to scare the audience, this movie fails miserably. The music also sometime seems incredibly inappropriate, even laughable.

So if you can stand the bad parts of this movie, and enjoy it as it should be watched, you may find yourself a "Wicker Man" fan. I did.
24 out of 41 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
New version about one of the most unusual British films and with unsettling acting from Nicolas Cage
ma-cortes30 January 2008
This remake deals about a depressed patrolman(Nicolas Cage, role of Edward Woodward)affected by a car accident. He receives a letter from ex-girlfriend(Kate Beaham) asking help for her disappeared daughter. Then he goes to a lonely island, located in state of Washington. There lives a strange matriarchal community, an Amish-alike, whose denizens(Molly Parker,Leelee Sobiesky,Diane Delano, in former version were Diane Cilento,Britt Ekland,Christopher Lee,Lindsay Kemp among others) practice rare pagan rituals and pre-Celtics customs and ruled by a chief sister(Ellen Burstyn).

This new version from British classic by Robin Hardy contains suspense, mystery, occult terror without gratuitous gore and spectacular outdoors shot in Vancouver. Very persuasively script written by Neal LaBute, differs on the original -by playwright Anthony Shaffer, author of 'Sleuth' -in various issues, previous adaptation is set in a Scottish offshore island with a community practicing bizarre pagan sexual rites, here is in State of Washington with a matriarchal society and without sexual situations. Besides first version the community cultivated apples, while this one are bees with drones represented by men and a Bee Queen well incarnated by Ellen Burstyn. The film displays a very good cinematography by Paul Sarossy and unsettling musical score by Angelo Badalamenti, author of Twin Peaks soundtrack. The motion picture is professionally directed by Neal LaBute, though with no originally. The movie is dedicated to Johnny Ramone memory, recently deceased. Furthermore there is a final alternative, only available in DVD.
14 out of 24 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Anyone not aware of the 1973 original British Lion movie ' The Wicker Man' would have left the cinema ...
murraydeschot26 August 2006
Anyone not aware of the 1973 original British Lion movie ' The Wicker Man' would,no doubt, have left the cinema with the impression 'Poor' and 'Peurile'.

As a devotee of the original I left with the impression Purely Poor.

From the grim reality of haggle toothed inbreds drawing the force of law and order into a web of paganistic barbaric ritual on a remote Scottish island, named Summerisle(the original) to a near Amazon-ic colony off the Maine coast of the US, named Summersisle, the remake hardly hits the spot.

This is, quite sadly, a case of what 'could' have been a classic remake of a classic being tampered with to cater for a simple minded public. NOTHING MORE AND NOTHING LESS.

Gentlemen (or given the reworked context of the film) Ladies involved ... hang your heads in shame.
288 out of 430 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews


Recently Viewed