The Wicker Man remake

I have to agree. The very idea of a remake is terrible, but actually the new Italian Job is quite a good film. I just wish in these cases they'd just make a new film with a new name, rather than cynically cashing in on the name of an old film. A new Nicholas Cage film with similarities in story to The Wicker Man might have made a reasonably good film, but by calling it a remake it's only ever going to be compared to the original and offend the very vocal fans of the original.

The original The Wicker Man is a cult film, and as such nobody would expect it to appeal to everyone. In fact, if it did appeal to everyone it wouldn't be a cult film. :rolleyes:
 
Ending is the same as original but lacks any magic and is uninteresting.

There is an unconvincing prologue pay off. Mark says he wanted to like it.

It's so wet (he says)!

His mobile rings in the end, despite the fact it never did during the film.
 
I don't know! That it inspires horror? If you don't know the ending, it's pretty horrific and it plays into all those primeval fears of paganism and ancient religions. Do you mean horror movies should have more blood and guts?
 
If you mean "dire" in a sort of "widely considered the best British horror flick of all time despire its unfinished state" way, then yes. ;)



Eh? SOTD was a comedy parody of zombie movies in general - but other than the joke title there is little to connect it specifically with DOTD. :confused:
 
Is it too much too ask of an American audience that they watch a film that doesn't have everyone speaking in American accents?

It annoys me that they feel the need to remake perfect Japanese horror films but at least theres a genuine language barrier there and not everyone likes to read subtitles, but Shaun of the Dead?!, are they worried that people won't understand English if it's spoken with an English accent?
 
You should hear his review of Little Man! He said it was evil and is possessed by the devil and a whole lot more. It sounRAB appalling. He said it was rancid.
 
I can understand why The Wicker Man isn't for everyone (as DEmberton said, it wouldn't be a cult film if it DID appeal to everyone). But to me it's a brilliant film in part because of its flaws. Its relaxed production style and barmy approach give it a very singular feel that makes it a very unique, strange, mysterious and classic film. In short, it is great because it is rough around the edges.

I also think that Woodward and Lee's performances are absolutely magnificent, and the characterisation of Howie is exceptional (which lenRAB to the brilliance of the ending). It's a bit wacky with the nudity and the folk music, but, once again, this creates a certain individuality that makes the film stand out. It's also a good little mystery story that, if you don't know the ending, provides a real twist.

I have referred to it a lot so far, but... that ending! One of the best film endings of all time, a magnificent bit of cinema. As I've said in earlier posts, I find it incredibly powerful and disturbing.

The ending undoubtably goes a long way to making the film, which is why I oppose a remake so strongly. Even IF the ending is the same, with a 12A certificate it simply cannot be as powerful and disturbing as the original's ending. Which, to me, means that the film will be half of what the original was, if that.
 
I think the above post covers really well why there's a bit of diversity when it comes to the original. Many of the people who don't like it, don't because of it's banalaity and how very odd it is, but I love it. Not just for the genuine moments of horror (like the ending) or the unfolding of the story, but because of the unintentional comedic value that arrives in certain delivervies of certain lines or some of the performances (like the extremely camp landlord, or Britt Eckland's dubbed performance), lol.
 
I think it's a really bad idea to remake the Wicker Man.

Guess I'll have to pop the original on, close the curtains and watch it whilst chanting "it's not been remade, it's not been remade" :D
 
Well I must be one of the only people left in the world who hasn't watched the original... I roughly know the story, but i'll be going along and watching with an open mind.

I actually quite like Cage as an actor and the trailers make it look a snappy film... so i'm affraid i'll be handing my cash over and giving it a watch.

Perversly - I tend to really enjoy films that critics and internet fans totaly maul... so this should be rather fantastic! ;)
 
Just found this on Wikipedia

Police officer Edward Malus (Nicolas Cage) investigates the supposed disappearance of the young daughter of his ex-lover from a small island populated by a secretive matriarchal pagan community. It turns out that, as part of a years-long scheme, which started with being seduced by his ex-lover, he is lured to the island to be killed as sacrifice to the goRAB. So it looks like Nicolas Cage will die at the end of the film and WON'T be rescued Hollywood style
 
Am I going to be the only one who didn't find it as bad as I was fearing?

Sure, it's not a patch on the original. The ending is far more disturbing in the original
they stand around chanting and smiling whilst he is burning, not singing, which was a lot more disturbing
but still if you don't know the original it may be a shock.

And as for the pagan vs christian thing, it is still there. Okay so he isn't the devout christian that he was in the original, but the pagan themes are there. They haven't been supressed to avoid offending anyone. The matriarchal society bit is new in addition to the pagan side of it (Lord Summersisle is now Sister Summersisle).

Incidently as I was getting up at the end, a lady behind me said to her friend "They've changed the ending. He got rescued in the original"!!!!
 
Back
Top