| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Carl |
Posted - 06/05/2006 : 17:23:22
http://www.apple.com/trailers/wb/thewickerman/
Quite possibly a load of crap. I'm not a big Nicolas Cage fan for a start, and it kinda looks like a typical Hollywood remake. Edward Woodward was offered a cameo, which he turned down.
 |
| 18 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Homers_pet_monkey |
Posted - 09/04/2006 : 04:28:47
quote:
Originally posted by Suicide_Samurai
I guess it's better to remake shitty films than classic films, which they always seem to do (classic films, I mean.) At least no one will get their feelings hurt that way. The sole aim when making a remake is to make a lot of money without having to think too hard, so there's no danger of a remake of Problem Child 1, 2 or 3 anytime in the foreseeable future, I'm afraid. Shame.
That's a good point. I mean, as an idea, the Problem Child series is excellent. They just didn't quite pull it off.
 I'd walk her everyday, into a shady place
|
| mr.biscuitdoughhead |
Posted - 09/03/2006 : 10:30:48
Also, they couldn't make another without John Ritter.
 Vote Biscuitdoughhead For Mayor!!!!! |
| Suicide_Samurai |
Posted - 09/03/2006 : 10:21:21
I guess it's better to remake shitty films than classic films, which they always seem to do (classic films, I mean.) At least no one will get their feelings hurt that way. The sole aim when making a remake is to make a lot of money without having to think too hard, so there's no danger of a remake of Problem Child 1, 2 or 3 anytime in the foreseeable future, I'm afraid. Shame. |
| mr.biscuitdoughhead |
Posted - 09/03/2006 : 10:01:35
quote:
Originally posted by Homers_pet_monkey
It's a never ending conveyor belt isn't it?
What next I wonder? Perhaps we should have a movie remake predictions league.
I'd walk her everyday, into a shady place
Please, no Problem Child 3!
Vote Biscuitdoughhead For Mayor!!!!! |
| Carl |
Posted - 09/01/2006 : 09:52:45
*SPOILER ALERT!* More reviews:
http://www.aintitcool.com/display.cgi?id=24364
More thoughts on the WICKER MAN remake, both pro and con!!!
Ahoy, squirts! Quint here with a few more reviews following-up the one I posted last night. The first one up is a flat out rebuttal to that negative first review, the second is in total agreement and the third is a mix between the two. Beware of spoilers below, especially the second review. Enjoy!
Hi Quint,
Spoilers Below.
I've never written to the site before, but Gandhiboy's review of Wicker Man needs a rebuttal; I'm not sure he understood what he was watching. I saw the film last night. (I'm a projectionist at a movie theater.) First, I should say that I have not seen the original film, nor have I read the novel upon which it was based. So I'm judging this solely on its own merits.
The Wicker Man is a brilliant (intellectually), complicated film. I say it's brilliant on an intellectual level, and it is. Think of Planet of the Apes, the original Charlton Heston version... On the surface, that seemed like a straight-forward cautionary sci-fi film, but underneath the surface, there were some incredibly intelligent subtexts about man's failure to communicate with man and racial prejudice. The Wicker Man is operating on the same level; it seems on the surface like it's a fairly straight-forward horror film, but if you look at it a little more deeply, you come to understand that it is actually about something. Gender roles, sure; the way men and women manipulate each other, of course; our relationships with religion, bingo. And I can't help but wonder if some of this is really about Neil Labute exploring his own history with the LDS Church. Anybody familiar with the LDS church will probably watch this movie, with its repeated Beehive/Bee imagery, the social structures of the strange society being depicted, its references to the pioneers, and feel a little uncomfortable with what they're seeing.
(Just watch the final scene and see where Nicolas Cage ends up.)
At first, it feels a little uneven, like it's not sure what kind of movie it wants to be. The scenes portraying Nicolas Cage as a depressed highway patrolman -- Edward -- living in a small California town are almost boring. Primarily because you don't get a very strong sense of who he is or what he wants. He's emotionally crippled, he can't function. The acting in these scenes is (purposefully) quite awkward and obvious, like a 1980's television show.
But then the story really comes to life when Edward receives a creepy letter from his former fiance, emploring him to come to Summer's Isle and help her find her missing daughter. It turns out she is actually from an Ahmish-esque backwater society in the middle of nowhere, and suspects the other residents there of foul play.
Edward's arrival on the Isle plays out with a nastily creepy scene, in which the locals are carrying what appears to be a struggling human-sized thing inside a bag. He is trying to get directions, but at the same time, his attention keeps being drawn to the bag. "Your bag is dripping," he says. The locals invite him to look inside, but as he goes to do so; the bag thrashes startlingly, the locals (they display odd and cruel behavior throughout the film) laugh like maniacs, and Edward, freaked out, never does look inside the bag. He just hurries on his way. (And who wouldn't?)
This sets the stage for the extreme creepiness which follows. This is not a film trying to deliver any big scares. Rather, it follows fairly exactly the classic horror structure laid down by H.P. Lovecraft; we are presented with something foreign and alien-seeming to our normal way of life, and a series of events build a slow sense of inevitable dread, finally culminating in an ending so perfect and horrifying it's like a mathematical equation.
Once situated on the Isle, Edward proceeds to threaten and bluster his way through a poorly-conceived investigation for the missing girl, failing to impress the extremely strange women of the isle with his police "authority". When he learns that he is the girl's father, his investigation takes on a desperate sheen. As his efforts increase, so does his frustration. Nicolas Cage plays all of this really, really well.
I agree with Gandhiboy that the weakest part of the movie was the flashbacks Edward kept having. After a while, it became: Okay, okay, we get it. Edward is motivated by the girl he couldn't save at the beginning of the movie, and views saving this new girl as his redemption for that failure. It's important to him. We get it.
But it doesn't take up a quarter of the movie. It probably takes up 4 or 5 minutes of total screen time.
I won't ruin the movie for anyone, but I will say that once it gets going, The Wicker Man is full of absolutely classic horror-movie imagery. Particularly towards the ending, when we find the women of the isle beginning to dress in animal costumes. There are a lot of fantastic Kubrick-esque moments. For me, my single most frightening moment was when Nicolas Cage is trying to get the men of the Isle to help him, and one of them makes a barking noise, and we realize -- holy shit. They can't talk. And then you look back at the clues; how none of the men ever talk, how they're separated from the females even in childhood... And you put it together, and you realize they really are treated as drones. They aren't even given the language.
Angelo Badalamenti deserves special mention for creating an INCREDIBLE score that, at times, sounds very Hitchcock, very Bernard Herrmann, and really creates the perfect atmosphere for this movie.
Earlier I talked a little bit about the experience of watching this movie as an intellectual exercise. But it is also a great experience just watching it as a movie -- as entertainment. I don't know how it might hold up against comparisons against the original, having not seen it -- but if you haven't seen it, (like me) I think you will have a terrific Goddamn time watching it. I know I did. Maybe if I had seen the original I wouldn't have enjoyed this. I have no idea. But as it is I sort of love it, and when I tell people about it, I'll be using the Planet of the Apes comparison. Because I really think that is, structurally, the closest cousin this movie has.
Quint, if you use this, call me Mr. Sleep. Love the site.
Review #2, with tons of spoilerage. Beware!!!
Hey Quint,
I just got back from a preview screening of The Wicker Man here in the UK, I see someone pipped me to the post and there's already a review up. I didn't read it yet as I want to get these thoughts down before I forget them. Feel free to use this.
I love the original film and didn't want to be prejudiced towards this remake, even though I attended a Q&A with Christopher Lee and Robin Hardy a few weeks ago where they expressed extreme skepticism about the whole project. So, I went in with an open mind.
It closed quickly.
There are only a couple of legitimate reasons to remake a film - the first is to improve on the original, the second to re-explore the theme and subject matter, the third is financial. This film certainly avoids the first, is far too mediocre to really qualify as the second and I don't think the title is commercial enough to pull a big enough crowd to satisfy the third.
Lets start with what this film gets right.
That was quick.
OK, it's a mess. From the bottom to the top. The writing is HORRIBLE, endless scenes of dull exposition, momentum is not built up until really 20 minutes before the end. The rest is just dull conversations. They seem to have peppered it with pointless dream sequences (which use so much repeat footage from earlier in the film, one wonders if they were added as a last minute editing ploy to add any kind of tension) to keep us from dozing off but really they just make you go 'wha?'.
Nic Cage is badly cast. He's too one-dimensional, too uninteresting and seems uncomfortable and unable to work up any real energy. The acting in general seems somewhat under-rehearsed, in fact. It often seems like the two main actors in any scene have been given conflicting direction so the tone is patchy and stilted but not in a good way. I guess Edward Woodward casts a long shadow, but it isn't just performance, it's character writing. Woodward's lead was self-righteous, indignant, moralistic and outraged. He almost deserved it, it was his arrogance and forthright judgements that allowed him to be played so easily. Cage lacks that motivation and is far from charismatic onscreen. That final scene in Woodward's hands is devestating to watch, as he prays and shouts and tries to speak to god. Finally, almost happy to be a Christian martyr. What do we get from Cage? some lame protestations and a looped line of exposition 'aw, you've broken my legs!'.
The music is a trainwreck, which is strange because Angelo Badalamenti is a great composer. Actually, I think it's not that the score is bad per se, more that it is used horribly. It's over dramatic and seems to have been used to fill in the atmosphere which hasn't been supplied by the acting, direction or photography.
Ellen Burstyn could have been interesting if given as much scope as Christopher Lee, but she is restricted to just a few scenes and plays quite a dull functional role.
The shift to the whole matriarchal private island is one of the big problems. In the original, Woodward travels to a normal seeming (if eccentric) Scottish island. A whole community with shops and lots of different people. The shock at the end is that the whole damn island was in on the scheme. It's less shocking to believe that a weirdo commune could plot such a thing.
SPOILER:
The ending. Yeah, they kill him. Thank god. But, oh, what's this? La Bute offers us AN EXTRA TWIST ENDING! What words on a title card instill more cringiness inan audience than 'SIX MONTHS LATER', always a sign of a cheesey add-on. In this one, we see one of the girls from the island walking into a California bar and choosing the next victim for the old bonfire treatment. Not only is it pointless and tacky, but the next victim is, unless I'm very much mistaken, played by James Franco - yep the film ends not with the falling of a wicker head to reveal a new dawn, but with a CELEBRITY CAMEO. The ending is going to help LaBute dispel his woman-hating image much, either.
So, it's awful. My suggestion if you're thinking about checking it out is just to rewatch the original and marvel at not only how great filmmaking can be, but how far the quality has dropped.
If you use this, please call me 'www.jerkbeast.co.uk' - Thanks, man.
This last review comes from Paul over The Hollywood News who wanted to share his thoughts with us. Thanks, man!
Hey Harry, Paul here from THN (The Hollywood News www.thehollywoodnews.com) in the UK. I've just got in from tonight's preview screening of The Wicker Man, a remake of possibly one of our best horror flicks of all time. If I hadn't have seen the original, I know I would have liked this movie (not loved, but liked). However, I have seen the original and.... well, here's our review.... (Minor Spoilers)
---
So, the day has arrived that Neil LaBute's remake of THE WICKER MAN hits cinemas across the globe. The film is based on the screenplay of the original flick that starred Edward Woodward and the legend that is Christopher Lee. The question on everyone's lips is 'is it any good,' and 'did we really need the movie to be remade?'
I'll answer that in just a little bit.
Minor spoilers ahead.
The story has be changed slightly, but the basis of the plot remains the same. Nicolas Cage's character, Edward Malus, travels to the remote island of Summersisle to help his former girlfriend, Willow (Kate Beahan), find her missing daughter. There, Edward is drawn into a web of ancient traditions and murderous deceit, and each step he takes closer to the lost child brings him one step closer to the unspeakable. Or that's how it's official worded.
I watched LaBute's 'Wicker Man' literally days after I saw the original for the first time in around fifteen or so years. I had long forgotten about the original flick, directed by Robin Hardy, but as the movie is about to get a re-release on DVD (out Monday in an all new director's cut) I was able to watch the film in its extended form (the way Hardy intended it before the original distributors got their mitts on it) on Sunday evening. The movie weirded me out (though in a good way), and I have been haunted by the experience all week. The film has this underlying disturbing factor about it, and builds and builds until the famous, and even more terrifying ending it unleashed upon the unsuspecting audience. But if you've seen it, you know all that. I pretty much watched that movie with fresh eyes this week, as I was way to young to take it in all those years ago, and memories of it were long gone. But I love it. One of the movies where you're still thinking about it days later. The best kind.
However, with seeing that original flick, I think it effected the way I watched LaBute's version, and certainly affected my enjoyment of it. The 2006 WICKER MAN gives us a more in depth front and back end to the movie, and a lot more character development is put into Cage's character. Although the filmmaker has opted to do this, I thought that Cage's Edward Malus lacked a lot of depth, at least comparing it with Woodward's investigating virginal police sergeant in the original. In fact the whole story, I thought was dumbed down for the update. There were a lot of touches to the original film that remained absent from this version, and while I know LaBute had to make things different from the seventies version, I thought he disposed of a lot of the 'good stuff' that made Hardy's movie so darn enjoyable albeit disturbing.
Ellen Burnstyn's Sister Summersile is not a patch on campy Christopher Lee's Lord Summerile, the locals weren't 'local' enough for me (bad League of Gentlemen reference there), and there simply isn't enough building tension leading up to that 'shocking' finale. I also though that the religious aspect of this film, which plays a huge part in the final scenes, wasn't clearly explained. The film maybe could have benefited with an extras few scenes in the second act to develop that aspect of the screenplay thus given the shocking revelations at the end more impact. Another final downpoint is the last scene of the film which was, in my mind, completely pointless. I won't go into any details here, but it's just silly and silly with a cameo from a fairly famous young actor too.
I think that THE WICKER MAN 2006 will appeal to people that have either never seen the original, or saw it years ago and can't remember just how darn good it was. I watched the film with a like minded friend who had never seen Hardy's film, but had a great time with LaBute's movie. I don't think this is a bad movie, but if you're comparing it to what came before (which I know I shouldn't do), then it just doesn't cut the mustard. If I had seen this before last Sunday, then maybe the grade would have come out a little more favorable.
In answer to my previously raise questions. Is it any good? Well, yes in a way. But, did we really need to see it remade? Well no. I just hope that viewers of this movie will go back and take a look at the original, just to curiously make up their own minds.
GRADE: C
http://filmforce.ign.com/articles/729/729522p1.html
The Wicker Man
Review: A truly odd, yet unmistakably engaging, remake.
by Jeff Otto
August 31, 2006 - Director Neil LaBute's career doesn't fall into any predictable pathway. His first film, 1997's In the Company of Men, received acclaim along with a murmur of disapproval from feminists as a work of sheer misogyny. The criticism has followed the director through the body of his work, even as follow-ups The Shape of Things, Nurse Betty and Possession featured strong female characters.
Now, to really shake things up, Labute has returned to direct a remake of the 70's cult classic, The Wicker Man. The original film featured a cultish patriarchy, but Labute has continued his trend of placing females at the forefront of his works by changing it to a matriarchy.
Nicholas Cage portrays Edward Malus, a cop who is haunted by the visceral image of a car that exploded while he was attempting to rescue the mother and daughter within. He soon receives a mysterious letter from a past flame he has been unable to forget. In the letter, she asks for his help to find her missing daughter. Compelled by the letter, Malus travels to a mysterious private island where he discovers a cult community of women living within a pagan society 100's of years removed from modern times. After speaking with his former lover Willow (Kate Beahan), Malus sets out to turn the island over searching for her missing daughter. Ellen Burstyn portrays the island's overseer, Sister Summersisle. Leelee Sobieski, Molly Parker and Francis Conroy play supporting parts.
If there is one thing LaBute achieves in spades with Wicker Man is creating a consistent feel of tension and dread as he leads you through the twisted tale. Having not seen the original, I can't comment on the similarities or differences between the two films, except the above-mentioned patriarchy/ matriarchy flip. Wicker Man may not rank as a revelation of any sort, but it's an effective and entertaining enough thriller to suitably pass a late summer evening.
Through the mere premise, LaBute would seem to have escaped the misogyny tag on this one - that is, until you get to the film's later sequences. As Malus hits his breaking point, he has truly had it with these women, launching into more than one male-female fist fight and kicking the living crap out of Leelee Sobieski. Yes, that's right, you heard me. But hey, these women deserve a good beating and props to LaBute for not shying away from it. Rave on Nic, rave on…
With trippy dream sequences and jarring smash cuts, LaBute keeps the tension tweaked high throughout the film. Nothing is ever as it seems and you're never quite aware where things stand or whether what you're seeing is real or just imagined.
Things only get weirder as the story moves along, including a final sequence that can only be described as some of the most bizarre moments of cinema I've witnessed in quite some time. Pity the poor theater worker who stumbles upon this sequence during his lunch break. This is a film that will lose you quickly if you haven't been following along the whole way.
Like always, Cage delves head first into the role of Edward Malus. It's great how he subtlety builds the tension of his performance, going from a nearly quaking shell in the beginning to a no-nonsense full-on detective by the film's end.
Ellen Burstyn is the standout performance otherwise, invoking such a strong presence simply by her entrance into the film. The word gravitas comes to mind. As the Queen Bee of Summersisle, Burstyn must portray an unwielding foe who is not easily intimidated. She treats Malus as a joke, gently toying with him before the true motives of the island are revealed.
Wicker Man is a competent thriller with some clever moments, a few nice scares and some inventive visuals. It's weird enough to engage those seeking something a little different, but not really daring enough to break ground. The cast aid the story with strong performances across the board, and LaBute's direction gives the film an edginess that drives Wicker's best moments.
Warner Brothers
http://movies.yahoo.com/mv/news/va/20060901/115716541000.html
"The Wicker Man" unintentionally funny
Friday September 1 7:50 PM ET
Far more ambitious and stylish than most of today's horror crop, Neil LaBute's remake of the 1973 U.K. cult classic "The Wicker Man" unfortunately still falls far short of its mark.
Unlikely to inspire a passionate following similar to the original, the film, which opened Friday without screened in advance for critics, ultimately induces more titters than dread.
LaBute has long explored the relationship between the sexes in his work, and he has infused this version of the story -- about a policeman in search of a missing little girl who travels to a remote island populated by a perverse pagan society -- with a feminist touch. Replacing the original's Christopher Lee as the leader of the clan is Ellen Burstyn, who presides over a female-dominated population in which the men are essentially the worker bees.
The film begins creepily enough with a strikingly staged pretitle sequence in which Edward Malus (Nicolas Cage), a California motorcycle cop, watches in horror as a mother and her little girl are incinerated in their car after a crash. The emotionally fragile cop is thus more vulnerable to an urgent message from Willow (Kate Beahan), the fiancée who dumped him years earlier. Writing from a remote island called Summersisle in the Pacific Northwest, she begs him to help her find her missing daughter.
Arriving on the island after great difficulty, he finds a strange agrarian society dependent on its harvesting of honey. The women, all addressed as "Sister," treat him with frostiness and suspicion, while the men are strangely silent. He encounters obstacle after obstacle while attempting to find the girl, nearly dying from drowning and bee stings in the process. Ultimately, he discovers that the reason for his presence on the island has more sinister ramifications than he possibly could have imagined.
Director-screenwriter LaBute is unable to invest this strange gothic material with the requisite degree of menace. A more accomplished stylist might have pulled it off, or possibly the film might have worked as a delirious black comedy. The filmmaker goes somewhat in the latter direction, abetted by Cage's expert slow-burn reactions to the bizarre situations he encounters. But the film, which eschews the eroticism and religious subtexts of the original, eventually lapses into unintentional humor, with such lines delivered by the actor as "Something bad is about to happen, I can feel it" (uttered after about 100 bad things already have happened) and his warning one woman to "Step away from the bike" inducing giggles. By the time of the intended horrific climactic scene, which includes Cage in a bear suit and Burstyn in face paint looking like Braveheart, things have gone irretrievably downhill.
It's too bad because for a good part of its running time, "Wicker Man" exerts a real fascination. It also boasts terrific production values, including beautiful widescreen cinematography, a suitably eerie score by Angelo Badalamenti and creepily effective performances from supporting players Frances Conroy, Molly Parker, Leelee Sobieski and Diane Delano.
End credits include a dedication to the late musician Johnny Ramone, who apparently sparked Cage's interest in a remake.
CAST:
Edward Malus: Nicolas Cage
Sister Summersisle: Ellen Burstyn
Sister Willow: Kate Beahan
Dr. Moss: Frances Conroy
Sister Rose: Molly Parker
Sister Honey: Leelee Sobieski
Sister Beech: Diane Delano
Director-screenwriter: Neil LaBute; Producers: Nicolas Cage, Norm Golightly, Avi Lerner, Randall Emmett, John Thompson, Boaz Davidson; Executive producers: George Furla, Joanne Sellar, Trevor Short, Andreas Thiesmayer, Josef Lautenschlager, Danny Dimbort, Elisa Salinas; Director of photography: Paul Sarossy; Editor: Joel Plotch; Production designer: Phillip Barker; Costume designer: Lynette Meyer; Music: Angelo Badalamenti.
Reuters/Hollywood Reporter |
| Homers_pet_monkey |
Posted - 08/31/2006 : 10:15:07
Indeed you do.
I think they need to remake Shaun Of The Dead.
So that it's funny.
I'd walk her everyday, into a shady place
|
| speedy_m |
Posted - 08/31/2006 : 09:35:28
Thirty years from now will it all just be remakes of remakes? In 3D hologram? The Wickerman.... 3D! Filmed in Holovision! Coming to a Holotheatre near you, 07/07/37. Imagine the marketing fun they could have with "Hollow Man". Which was so terrible they decided to make a direct-to-DVD sequel of it. Shockingly, Kevin Bacon wasn't involved. I guess he was busy filming those odd homo-erotic underwear commericials with Michael Jordan. MJ continues to taint his legacy for no apparent reason. But I digress...
he's back jack smoking crack find him if you want to get found
|
| Homers_pet_monkey |
Posted - 08/31/2006 : 09:26:28
It's a never ending conveyor belt isn't it?
What next I wonder? Perhaps we should have a movie remake predictions league.
I'd walk her everyday, into a shady place
|
| Carl |
Posted - 08/31/2006 : 07:29:48
*SPOILER WARNING*
I just skirted over this review, but I gather it's quite negative:
http://www.aintitcool.com/display.cgi?id=24351
Published on Thursday, August 31st, 2006 at 06:13:59 AM CST
One spy has seen the WICKER MAN remake and wants to burn that motherf*@#%$ to the ground!!!
Ahoy, squirts! Quint here. One of our spies has seen Neil LaBute's remake of THE WICKER MAN and boy, he didn't like it much at all. I never heard of a screening here in Austin, so I can't comment on "Gandhiboy"'s opinion until I see the flick Friday when it opens. I want it to be good and there are certain aspects to this review that give me hope, but then there are also other aspects that take it right back away again. I'm pulling for the movie, though. LaBute's put out some great work before, so he's earned a bit of trust with me. At least a $6.50 matinee ticket's worth. Enjoy the review... some spoilers below, but he doesn't give away the new and improved ending, so... that's good, right?
I watched Neil LaBute's remake of "The Wicker Man" last night, and thought I would send along a review to you.
Right off the bat, let me say that I have seen the original 1973 version of "The Wicker Man," and I don't hold it in nearly in as high of esteem as other movie lovers. The film has a rabid cult following, and while I don't dislike the movie, I never really understood the praises heaped upon it. The atmosphere is creepy, the song-and-dance numbers interesting to say the least, and the naked tombstone straddling intriguing. But in the end, it's a thin story padded with '70s-era quirks, capped by an admittedly bravura finale. So the idea of a remake, written and directed by talented filmmaker Neil LaBute (I love every one of his films except "Possession"), didn't exactly strike my as heresy. I was actually looking forward to seeing what LaBute would do with the story in the 21st century.
What I was not expecting, however, was THIS, one of the worst films I have seen this year and a travesty to anyone who found the original even remotely interesting. The central plot remains mostly unchanged: Nicolas Cage plays a cop who goes looking for a missing girl on a remote island (this time off the coast of Washington) whose inhabitants are odd to say the least. The original's religious fanatics have been replaced by a female-driven society whose ancestors sought refuge in the 1800s to escape male rule and persecution. There are a few men here and there, all silent, kept around for procreation purposes. Instead of Christopher Lee, the leader here is played by Ellen Burstyn as a sort of earthly representative of Mother Nature.
I have to say that I really liked the whole male-female dichotomy going on here. It was a brave move on LaBute's part (and probably wise to stay away from the whole religious aspect in this day and age), but I think the risk paid off, resulting in a societal view rarely seen, thus making the movie more interesting.
So Cage goes looking for clues, finding even more mystery and questions around every new corner. And just as the cop's mind slowly begins to unravel, so does the film itself.
LaBute actually does a teriffic job of establishing an eeire and unsettling atmosphere in the film's early scenes on the island. There's something obviously off about the inhabitants, with their Amish-like garb and distrust of outsiders, but their behavior is never overly crazy. It's just damn creepy, and LaBute nails it. It really gave me high expectations for the rest of the film.
Unfortunately, the film is about Cage, and his character is right out of Script Writing 101. As the movie opens, his cop is unable to save a mother and daughter from a horrible accident. So he's got the whole troubled past thing going on. And he's taking pills, which means we're supposed to constantly question whether or not the guy is indeed crazy. The lame dream sequences and black-and-white crash flashbacks don't help matters, either, considering they take up about a quarter of the film's running time.
And that's the big problem here: LaBute has replaced '70s-era kitsch with tired and worn-out cliches. The script even throws in a soap opera subplot invovling paternity issues. It's all very routine and very annoying.
So I sat in my theater seat, twidddling my thumbs, anxiously waiting to see what LaBute had up his sleeve for the ending. Would he wuss out and change the original's jaw-dropper of a conclusion?
I should've gotten the hint that something was wrong right at the start of the last reel, when the movie suddenly abandons its modern dress and turns into what looks like a film literally made in the 70s. The tone shift is so jarring that instead of inducing fear it merely illicits giggles.
And then the ending. I am not going to reveal the remake's ending here. But let me say this: The last two minutes of this film are the worst two minutes I have seen of any film this year, quite possibly this century. What LaBute does is absolutely, positively infuriating to anyone who has seen the original. He just bends it over and rapes it while screaming out, "Who's your daddy?!" Apparently, modernizing a film means adding an insulting semi-twist ending that nearly negates everything you've seen before it. It doesn't even make sense when you really stop and think about it as the theater lights come up. And if you want to get really technical, this film puts the entire feminist movement one giant step back.
But I digress. The acting here ranges from good (Nicolas Cage) to fantastic (Ellen Burstyn, Molly Parker, Leelee Sobieski) to awful (Kate Beehan, the young girl's mother). The same can be said of LaBute's direction, which is at times inspired, other times adequate. The score by Angelo Badalamenti is terrific, as always.
I know I wouldn't have hated this film as much as I did if it wasn't for the that final scene, and I wouldn't have hated that final scene as much if I had never seen the original. So if you're going into the movie fresh, you'll probably be merely disappointed. The rest of us will just have to weep at what LaBute has done to our collective memory of the original "Wicker Man." Thanks a lot, dude.
If you use this, you can call me Gandhiboy (You had previously posted a review of "RV" from me in April)
 |
| mosleyk |
Posted - 06/07/2006 : 12:03:35
I enjoyed Con Air, but I also didn't take it very seriously when I watched it. I just had fun with it. It plays like a big spoof of action films to me, but I think that didn't translate on the big screen perhaps like it was suppose too (just a theory of mine). As for adaption....hated it! It was so whiny, and couldn't care less about any of the characters....especially Cage who in his own brand of method acting techniques (he should revisit Meisner and Hagan)somehow took "playing the pity" to an all-time high.
But that is just my opinion and I am not an authority by any means. |
| darwin |
Posted - 06/07/2006 : 10:37:23
I set the date at 1990 because that would include Wild at Heart (I should have said quit after 1990) and didn't set the date later because I thought movies like Face Off, Amos and Andy, and Con Air were too steep of a price to pay for Adaptation (I haven't actually seen Adaptation but it has been waiting on my DVR for over a year). |
| floop |
Posted - 06/07/2006 : 10:13:00
quote:
Originally posted by darwin
Maybe Cage should have stopped in 1990.
then he wouldn't have been in ADAPTATION. or WILD AT HEART
"I don't have any money to buy new clothes and if they paid me to get some I'd probably buy more hoodies." - Mark Wainfur |
| darwin |
Posted - 06/07/2006 : 10:05:52
Nicolas Cage strikes as having a similar career as Bruce Willis. They've both put out a bunch of movies and many of them have been horrible, but they've also both been in some great movies. Maybe Cage should have stopped in 1990. |
| floop |
Posted - 06/07/2006 : 09:29:18
maybe it'll be good. who knows. i liked his first films (for the most part). he seemed to have a lot of promise as a young, new director. but he's kind of been off the radar now.
for some reaon i just don't see the need for a WICKER MANN remake. not that any films need to be remade, and not that the original is that good, but will that story resonate and have the same shock as the original probably had. i mean, the twist ending is kind of the whole thing...
"I don't have any money to buy new clothes and if they paid me to get some I'd probably buy more hoodies." - Mark Wainfur |
| Carl |
Posted - 06/07/2006 : 03:10:28
Maybe some executives lured him into Hollywood by saying a young actress had gone missing, and could he find her. They're gonna burn him in a giant wicker camera. Or something.
:|
|
| floop |
Posted - 06/06/2006 : 22:05:32
i wondered what happened to Neil LaBute. guess he's doing the director-for-hire thing now
"I don't have any money to buy new clothes and if they paid me to get some I'd probably buy more hoodies." - Mark Wainfur |
| BLT |
Posted - 06/06/2006 : 16:12:38
Cage has made more shitty movies than anyone should be allowed. |
| edbanky |
Posted - 06/06/2006 : 15:06:04
quote:
Originally posted by Carl
http://www.apple.com/trailers/wb/thewickerman/
Quite possibly a load of crap. I'm not a big Nicolas Cage fan for a start, and it kinda looks like a typical Hollywood remake. Edward Woodward was offered a cameo, which he turned down.
Weird, weird, weird.
First Wickerman is overrated I think, but I have a feeling this remake will find a far superior method of sucking hard. I didn't even look at the trailer, but Nicholas Cage? I sure as poo hope he is playing the innkeeper or the maypole singer guy. Who else could he play?
I admit that Wickerman has its own place in film history, and I actually enjoy watching it. I have a feeling you have to either appreciate the "craft" of the flick OR be like me, and be tickled by the quaintness and spookiness of the island, in order to enjoy it. Maybe if I lived in some rural parts of the British Isles, I might have no reason to like the movie?
Good thing the guy turned down a cameo; they probably would've made him say "damn, dirty pagan" or something.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I signed up for the FrankBlack.net forums and all I got was this lousy signature. |
|
|
