nystulc

Western-themed werewolf movie. The werewolf scenes, and action were nothing to rave about, but the characters and acting were decent.

I'm going to totally spoil this, so stop reading now.

This is second remake of "The Wicker Man". Note that I also have mixed feelings about the original "cult classic", as well as about the Nicholas Cage remake, though the latter at least had the virtue of being funny.

Here, the setting is Sweden. The evil pagan cultists are even more obviously depraved. The body-count is higher. And the film-maker is even more obviously on the side of the evil pagan cultists. The Christian (or anti-Christian?) themes of the first film is largely absent, and the only nod to them is that the poor doomed slob who will be the central final sacrifice is here named "Christian".

I watched the longer, slower directors cut, but despite that, the film kept my interest throughout the buildup (where most of the extra scenes were). But eventually, at not too far past the mid-point, my interest began to flag. This is the point where the poor doomed idiots, who were visiting this hippy-trippy commune of ancient Swedish pagans, ought to have started to realise they were in serious trouble, and attempt to formulate a plan of escape and survival. Their failure to wise up and attempt to save themselves, deprived the second half of the film of tension, and effectively transformed the film it a celebration of evil.

Another innovation is that the poor doomed slob who the pagans end up burning alive is not the central protagonist. Rather, the central protagonist is his girlfriend, evidently intended to be a more-sympathetic character than he is. She is also the only character who seems on the verge of figuring anything out. But instead of trying to save her friends and herself, she decides to join the hippy-trippy pagans, leave her friends to die, and smile as her not-so-good boyfriend gets burned alive. Are we supposed to be happy for her?.

Fascinating, I guess. But is it good.

My first reaction while watching this film was that the detractors must be wrong. Hamill's acting is very good; the battle scenes have effective moments; I was fine with the level of humor (not particularly funny, but okay). The mystery of why Luke was acting the way he was, seemed like a mystery ... and I was intrigued to know the solution.

But the longer the film drags on, the more it seems that there would be no positive solutions to the any of the mysteries or plot elements it set up. Before I hit the 2 hour mark, I am losing interest and hoping for the film to end. But the film drags on; & each passing minute seems to bang further nails into the coffin of any sense of hope or positive feelings.

Luke (Hamill's character) ends up being one of the most disappointing things about this film, for reasons that are in no way Hamill's fault. Hamill could have brought much to the new trilogy, if used effectively, but not only has that opportunity been wasted, but it has seemingly been wasted with devastating finality.

Some critics have gone on about the film's gender politics. As to that, I will only say only that this might not be the film for young boys, because it offers them nearly nothing in terms of positive male role models. The overall effect matters more than the individual examples. The first and second time Poe Dameron got justly humiliated by the female authority figures, I was okay with it. But the continuing humiliation of Poe detracts not only from Poe, but also from Finn, and even from new spunky female Rose, by rendering their story arcs and their heroic efforts pointless and even counterproductive. Then Finn tries to be heroic in the finale, and Rose puts a stop to that too. Thus does the film seem to cut off its nose to spite its face. All this is part of a broader problem of a confusing array of story elements adding up to little or nothing.

But I suppose, for the girls, there's still Rey to root for. The filmmakers also give us a good look at brooding bad boy Kylo Ren's manly waxed chest, and quite evidently regard this as a treat. Not for me, sorry. I sense where this is going, and I don't find it particularly interesting. It remains to be seen if the new Star Wars will find its new audience; but I can definitely see why so much of the old guard feels let down.

I am aware that this film has been badly received by most reviewers, but I cannot get myself to agree. It may be corny, cheesy, gimmicky, but for me, all the gimmicks worked. I loved the matte paintings, which most sfx connoisseurs scoff at. I loved the stiff acting, and melodramatic cornball dialogue, and the shallow Tolkienesque ambiance. I adored Jack Palance's ham acting as the villain. I loved the Elf, and the Dwarf, and the Giant, and the Witch. I loved the music (and did not notice anything particularly "70s" about it, but perhaps that was because I grew up in that era). What I loved most about it was an aspect that another commentator complained about: its incompleteness. That other commentator (from IMDb) complained that he felt like he was watching part 2 of a three-act play. Well, that's a good thing, isn't it? What is the point of immersing oneself in a fantasy world if it is going to be so small it can contain itself in a single film. The implication that I was watching a small part of a much greater story was what gave this film its charm. The cryptic references to things beyond its borders made the world created seem far vaster than it was, and helped the matte paintings seem to come to life.

-- NystulC