joshua_skye

JUG FACE… unoriginal (we've all seen this basic plot many times before, we've also seen it done better), misogynistic (there's female nudity, a mother violently sexually assaults her own daughter, but the director goes out of his way not to show even so much as the upper butt crack on a male, an old man takes a dump in a bucket with his pants on - yet there doesn't seem to be a tact barrier as there is clearly no problem showing a miscarried fetus), filled with generic cardboard characters, and worse… it commits the most unforgivable of horror movie sins… it was just plain boring! There are no twists. There are no turns. The ending is predictable. Very disappointing.

Just watched "The Wicker Tree." Wow. What a monumental disappointment. As a HUGE fan of the original (not the absurd Nick Cage remake) I have to say that this failed in every way the original was a success. I haven't been this disappointed in a movie since "Congo." Yeah, its that bad!

Though they were somewhat misrepresented, the original focused on the beliefs of the Pagan community depicted. I was particularly impressed by the fact the film didn't confuse Paganism and Satanism as SO many of its peers did at the time. And let's face it, most movies still do. I also loved the reverence with which Paganism was presented by the filmmakers. As the bigoted Christian makes his way through the labyrinth constructed for him we see a beautiful, intelligent, spiritual, fully realized culture…a culture often scorned, mocked, and openly denounced by sanctimonious Christians. Is there a history of human sacrifice in Paganism? Yes. Is there a history of human sacrifice in Christianity? Absolutely...and of genocide, infanticide, and countless acts of self-righteous slaughter!

But I digress.

The original "Wicker Man" gave the world a respectful portrait wrapped up in what is often considered a horror film, though I would argue that it isn't. "The Wicker Tree," however, is everything the original wasn't. It's mainstreamed, dumbed-down, pandering, and a steaming pile of clichés amidst all-too-fleeting moments of affability. It spits in the face of the original film's uniqueness and reverence, and there are even times where it has the audacity to actually mock the classic film. I frankly could not believe the same man created both movies.

"The Wicker Tree" is transiently interesting, often just silly and entirely dreadful. It is a failure of colossal proportions that makes the classic a fluke success. By comparison the chauvinistic, vomit-inducing Nick Cage remake of "The Wicker Man" was good. Robin Hardy stated during a screening that "It's okay to laugh." Well, I guarantee you it wasn't because he initially intended the humor as so many fanboys would like to believe. The themes of the film are as outdated as the original's were innovative. Particularly eye-rolling was its non-too-subtle cautionary nuclear-age message, a chestnut straight out of 1950's schlock. Uggg. Just uggg.

This is one of my very favorite short films ever! I first saw it on Logo a while back and finally just happened across it on a DVD I just rented. I love everything about it. Lex and Jonathan are good looking, which is always nice. The acting is beyond the scope of most short films. I mean, you can really tell what's going on with Lex. The guy's eyes emote more emotion than most Hollywood big wigs could even dream of. The performance is amazing. The writing is top notch and the direction is fantastic. This is a high quality production and a lot of love went into it. I wish that this would be turned into a full length feature film but only with the same cast. How about a sequel!!! That would be great too.

I thought it was very well written, wonderfully acted but the most depressing film I've seen since "Dancer in the Dark." Every character is sick and dying leading selfish, though bleak lives infatuated with the most miserable aspects or times of their lives… AIDS, 9/11 and even JFK's assassination are obsessed over in surreal detail. Nothing cheerful, nothing funny happens... nothing to break the single gloomy tone... and maybe that was the point. Through it all though, I could not help but like and appreciate it and the talent involved. I didn't think the sex was all that more graphic then we've seen in about a hundred straight flicks, though I dare say that because it's guys getting naked instead of women there's going to be an unjust criticism of it (even from gay audiences). Personally, I thought it was refreshing to see some uninhibited male actors for a change. Hollywood and audiences pretty much demand bare breasts and glimpses of female nether-regions, or at the very least are so used to it that its not even a big deal in PG rated fare… take particular note of the gratuitous underwater shot in Steven Spielberg's Jaws at the beginning of the film where the camera practically swims up the actress. It is at the very least a double standard, at most sexism and homophobia offensively entwined. That is an attribute of this film and of all those involved, the brave defiance of convention. There is nothing worse then an independent film that tries too hard to be acceptable to mainstream Hollywood or Middle American pretentiousness. No matter how much an indie panders those two self-important factions, neither will accept the indie anyway. So why bother? This film dares to be its own entity and for that I salute it and all those involved. Bravo!!!