User reviews

When you haven't seen the original and you think why all the hate for this movie...?

Ignore it because if you haven't watched it then you have nothing to compare it to. As a standalone movie away from the original its a good movie and will leave you entertained for its duration.

If you have seen the original its 100% superior to this nicholas cage version but that movie was groundbreaking for its time and people seem to forget that, we have had so many movies since then with simular ideas and a remake of that great Britisch horror movie with an American cast was always going to be an issue,not to talk about anyone who has seen the original knows what to expect because this is very simular in how the story unfolds so in a way your at a disadvantage starting the movie because you most definitely will start comparing from the beginning, but nonetheless this movie is far from terrible as people make it out to be.

Watch it with an open mind and you will see its a very decent thriller.

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.

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!

I should mention right here that I am not a huge fan of thrillers, but once in a while some thriller surprises me. But there is a part of me - the part of me that wants to see all the bad movies ever made (even the ones from the Bottom 100, and this movie made it to the list thanks to the changes apported in the list since the last summer, and increasing the number of votes caused a strong impact on the list)

In this movie (a remake of a movie I never saw) Nicolas Cage plays Edward, a cop that is invited by his former girlfriend to go on a island searching for a young girl that disappeared there. But Edward soon finds a large mistery to unsolve, and he also finds out that in that community women are the superior race, and men are treated as slaves for their pagan rites, How Edward will find the disappeared girl and connect the dots?

Watching this movie I didn't find it as bad as its overall score of 3,7 and almost all the negative reviews would suggest. Despite I hadn't hopes for this movie I ended up enjoying it so much because of its many twists and turns and it has also some good cinematography. Nicolas Cage here gives another great performance, but I felt sorry for him at the end. And the supporting cast is all good.

Pleasant and interesting thriller, and it doesn't deserve at all the hate it has received. And I know many would be angry at me, but its inclusion in the Bottom 100 is undeserved! Don't buck on conventional wisdom, because I think that this is a nice thriller that fans of the genre will love (and the fact that I liked it as I am not a huge fan of thrillers says a lot!).

Nicholas Cage is in my top 5 fave actors so I might be bias here (I highly recommend Color Out of Space & Mandy)...but I actually really enjoyed this version. It's really not that bad. I found it pretty hilarious at times and of course far fetched. The main problem is the script. When he says "how'd it get burned?" four times! My fave scene has to be when he steals the bicycle at gun point. I mean really...really?!! And his knockout fights with the women. Those scenes are so outrageous you have to find it funny. I'm a female and I wasn't offended by the chick fights. It was an enjoyable watch. This pales in comparison to the 1973 version which you HAVE to watch. That one is awesome and creepy. I'd recommend Cage's version for a good laugh.

Yes, this is a terrible, terrible movie - but it's absolutely hilarious, and worth seeing just for the unintentional humor. Poor Ellen Burstyn, poor Nicolas Cage, poor extremely attractive woman who play's Cage's ex-fiancée...

A masterpiece of unintentional comedy, plays like a Christopher Guest film at times - yes, it's THAT funny towards the end, when Nicolas Cages traipses around the forest in a bear suit...

Hilarious, trust me.

By the end, that it manages to keep topping itself becomes a remarkable feat, considering the ridiculousness and surreal humor the first hour-plus of this movie holds. Oddly enough, it's entertaining.

Reviewers here are outraged, I tell you, outraged at how horribly sensible this movie is! It is a horror movie without the horror -- oh, the horror! Worse than that, it is actually consistent within itself and doesn't rely on shaking first person camera shots. Unacceptable! But seriously, 3.5 out of 10? This movie is a 6.x to 7.x movie. Nicholas Cage was well cast and did a great job. The no-name actors are very convincing, and were a lot stronger than many female leads in other movies.

This leaves just one complaint vector -- the remake is not as good as the original (or doesn't slavishly follow the book). Who cares? Why is that an issue? Thomas Crown two is very different from TC1 -- and both are great movies.

Book readers, get over yourself. By your "logic", The Shawshank Redemption is unfit for human consumption. Create iBOOKdb.com and be done with it.

This movie is for people who don't want to watch blood and guts horror movies. Those who prefer The Green Mile to Carrie. And it works just fine, thank you very much.

Even though it wasn't intended to be this movie is hilarious. It also does some of the creepy stuff well. Much different than the original.

I did watch the "alternative version" that was in the same DVD. Maybe that's the reason why I disagree with the majority of the reviews. I've seen a large number of bad horror movies. Really bad. And so, so many with no plot at all. Or reason. This one has both.

The island is believable as a religious cult that is hostile to outsiders. If one would say, cults sacrificing humans aren't believable, I do not sign that. Unfortunately those have been practiced, and still are. Oh yeah, and seen so many horror movies, that are completely unbelievable.

What comes to the plot, I did not expect it to turn as unfortunate to the cop (played by Cage), as it did. The conspiracy went deeper than it originally appeared. The end truly was surprising, I was expecting this is about saving the girl. But then a classic ending in horror movies is with the victims really meeting their bloody fate and the monsters surviving.

OK, NOW I'm really confused You people can watch the new version of 'The Hills Have Eyes' and give that piece of cinematographic excrement 7 out of 10 points and now there are 3000+ people on IMDb saying in one voice that the new version of 'The Wicker Man' is a bad movie beyond any reason.

What have I missed? Where was I when the world descended back to the dark ages?!? It seems that as soon as the plot of a movie goes beyond 'random people getting killed by evil monsters for 90 minutes but in the end a man with latex tights, calling himself Superman, will save the day' , people will get bored as in the movie has no potential because YOU ACTUALLY HAVE TO FOLLOW A STORYLINE IN ORDER TO ENJOY IT! It seems that the only thing that the masses will get off on is complete and utter PORNOGRAPHY because it's the easiest and least resource-demanding product of entertainment. I ask you, what happened??? It has been going on for quite some time now. You can see it in all the new comedies, horror-movies and even action, thriller and (i'm crying when i say this) Drama for gods sake. Wherever you turn it's over-exaggeration of idiotic moments.

I could have accepted a shining 5/10 score on a movie like 'The Hills Have Eyes' which carries absolutely nothing more than OLD NEWS, but for crying out loud, when people start badmouthing movies that are actually not bad at all - ....... I'm at a loss for words! Compared to the utter s*** that's been poring out of the US movie-scene recently this move should win an Oscar.

I was going to give this movie 6/10 points after I had seen it but after I had seen 'The Wicker Man's' score here on IMDb I decided to give it 7/10. One extra for proving a point. Dear god people... read a book!

PS- I'm confident most of you idiots don't even understand what I'm talking about because you're too busy eating Hamburgers..

PPS- I appologise to every single person who shares my beliefs. This text is not directed at any persons, rather is commentating the outrageous and indescribable idiocy that the media is sending out and that the masses seem to be OK with.

Fortunately for me, I didn't see the original 1973 version, so I was not burdened by undue expectations upon entering the theater. I am giving this film a 7, although just barely, perhaps 6.5 would be more fair. Like most films these days, yes, the plot is flimsy and it requires an extra dose of suspended disbelief.

But I enjoyed it because it held my interest completely for the whole 2 hours. It built up the suspense very nicely. It was a who-dunnit mystery that turned out not to be such a mystery after all. I did see it coming, but not from afar, as is the case in most movies. If you think this plot is transparent, then go see the Illusionist: no illusion there(but I still liked it).

Fabulous scenery, good mystery, loads of suspense. AND very, very creepy. Plus lots of good, silly laughs, which I think is a good thing in a mystery/suspense/horror-lite film. Throw in some very sexy performances by Kate Beahan, and Leelee Sobieski and you have a winner as far as I am concerned!!

It is a very typical Nick Cage performance. He honed his on-screen persona by the time he was in "Leaving LasVegas," and it hasn't varied much since then, which is bad or good depending on how well you like it. As usual, he is manly, impassioned,and valiant, yet confused, full of self-doubt, and vulnerable. I have to say that this wasn't one of his best performances, but the script had a lot to do with that. Very weak dialogue. They should have hired me to brush it up ;) When he delivered the line, "Step back from the bike!" I must confess I was taken aback. There are a lot of actors who would have ad-libbed something more appropriate there, or just outright refused to say it. I wonder what Brando would have done? Probably just mumbled something incoherent. At the risk of being arrested as a security threat, I have to say that I, nevertheless, enjoyed this Cage performance far more than his "World Trade Center" performance. Now that was really painful!

So, it was just a beautiful movie to watch,and good escapist entertainment. A pleasant way to pass the time. You really can't expect every film to be a masterpiece.

For those numerous reviewers, who said "Worst movie I ever saw," I say, check the current theater listings: "Accepted," "Beerfest," "Material Girls," "Idlewild," "Trust the Man," "Snakes on a Plane," "How to Eat Fried Worms," "Factotum," "Invincible," "The Barnyard," and "Lady in the Water." Not a single one in the bunch is better than Wicker Man, and most of them are far worse. Worst movie, ever? Not even the worst this week, not by a long shot! Get real!

Negative reviewers make Neil LaBute's 2006 remake of "The Wicker Man" out to be an incredulous turkey on the level of "Plan 9 from Outer Space" and "American Beauty," but it's simply not the case.

First of all, let's be honest about the original 1973 version: Yes, it's a unique and original film in multiple ways and has numerous strengths, including fine Scottish locations and the presence of Britt Ekland and Ingrid Pitt (the former's siren-like "How Do" song & dance is a definite highlight), but it's not the masterpiece that many claim. What's wrong with it? For one thing, the protagonist, Sgt. Howie (Edward Woodward), is annoying and unlikable; he comes off as a Pharasaical tighty-righty (which is how he struck me and I'm a Christian!). This is a serious flaw when you consider that the entire film focuses on Woodward's progressive search for the missing girl. In addition, Christopher Lee is just 'there' as Lord Summerisle (which is blasphemy to Lee fans since Lee considered his part in "Wicker Man" his personal best). The biggest problem with the original is that the film plays out in a dull manner; the plot itself is interesting, but the delivery isn't.

Woodward is so unlikable and annoying that, on some subconscious level, I was almost glad with his outcome at the end. Which brings up another criticism of the original film: I didn't find the ending horrifying. It was supposed to be, but somehow it wasn't.

One last criticism of the 1973 original is that it's understandably dated. It's obvious a product of the free-love hippie era and it shows. If any film screamed out for a remake this was it.

THE PLOT: The story in this new version switches to America. Nicholas Cage plays a California cop searching for his ex-fiancé's daughter on a mysterious privately owned island in Washington's Puget Sound. The society is backwards, pagan and matriarchal; the men are mute and second class. As the film progresses, Cage comes to see that the inhabitants are lying to him about the girl's disappearance.

WHAT WORKS: Unlike Woodward, Cage is likable as the protagonist (or, at least, we can relate to him). His mounting frustration and anger over the situation are understandable. When he ultimately turns to outright violence against the women we understand what has driven him to such actions.

The British Columbian locations are good, pretty much on a par with the Scottish locations of the original in their own unique way.

Ellen Burstyn is better than Christopher Lee as the villain. We don't even meet her until an hour into the film and she comes off as a creepy religious psycho (just because she's pagan doesn't mean she's not religious). Lee was bland in the original.

Molly Parker as the school teacher and Leelee Sobieski are fetching (with Kate Beahan a distant third). Molly and Leelee are fully clothed at all times and yet somehow ooze beauty. Molly, in particular, has a very unique allure. One reviewer complained that there weren't any scenes of naked women as was frequently the case in the original, but the director didn't feel the need to go the softcore porn route. Lebute shows that true beauty is far more than numerous displays of softcore eroticism and overt nudity. If you want that rent a porn video.

The story is generally entertaining, sometimes fun and, at times, unintentionally amusing. For instance, the scene where Cage talks with the "barmaid" and the patrons has some laugh-out-loud aspects. There are other humorous moments (Cage apprehending the bicycle: "STEP AWAY FROM THE BIKE!", running around in a bear costume, the dead girl suddenly appearing in his arms on the dock, numerous hilarious lines like "OH NO, NOT THE BEES, NOT THE BEES!!", etc.). Despite this, the picture somehow maintains a serious aura. The original, by contrast, was dead-pan serious and never entertained in this manner.

The ending is horrifying (more so than the original), even though I knew it was coming. If you're in the right mood it can also be funny. The alternate ending is even better with the inclusion of overt torture scenes (although I know why they cut one of the torture scenes, the bees would've killed Cage since he was allergic to them). The Wicker Man prop is intimidating and over twice the size of the original.

In the theatrical version there's a "6 months later" coda tacked on, which is an important scene. It shows how pre-meditated the actions of the women are in the film. It also explains one of Leelee's mysterious lines earlier in the story, "When you leave, take me with you." This sequence shouldn't have been cut from the alternate ending.

WHAT DOESN'T WORK: The search-in-the-barn sequence is pretty useless, but adds to the mounting mystery. Also, the story really bogs down in the graveyard scene where Cage and Kate have a heart-to-heart talk.

Some people may look down on the film because of the unintentionally funny scenes noted above. I think it makes it more entertaining. If you don't agree with me STEP AWAY FROM THIS REVIEW!

FINAL ANALYSIS: Both the 1973 and 2006 versions of "The Wicker Man" are equally valuable for their positive aspects noted above. The insane criticisms of the remake are unwarranted (remakes are, of course, a lose-lose situation: if the film in question is remade frame for frame like "Psycho" people complain, and if the filmmakers deviate from the original they'll complain even more; you can't win). The fact is that the 1973 version is severely dated and NEEDED to be remade, and this is a quality updating. It's worth catching if you like mounting mystery stories with creepy elements. On top of this, there are amusing elements. And, thankfully, the protagonist isn't some irritating legalist with a corncob stuck up his arse.

The film runs 102 minutes.

GRADE: B

This movie was absolutely amazing with a fantastic ending and outcome. It had a good story to it and delivered! For people who hated this movie I'm confused for because this was what I call a inspiring awesome weird horror . I've got to words for this movie it rock,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, I would give this movie a 7.0 /10 If people were really horror fans they would enjoy and understand where the movie is coming from, I've got to say that this movie has to be my 2nd favourite horror movie first be misbegotten another underrated movie. 7.0/10 overall it could of been a 10 if the movie went faster and not as slow as it did.