Wicker Man (2006) - spoilage

[clockworkcanary]

If you haven't seen this or the original, I suggest you not read this thread.  If interested, definitely watch the original first before watching this pile.

I'm sure this topic was up when the movie came out, but after rewatching the original a few days ago, we decided to get the remake and see how badly they butchered it.  Boy, I was surprised just how bad of a job they did! 

Words cannot describe this crapfest painful watching experience.  They took a likeable village of people and made them into pseudo-feminazis who seemed to be bitter, repressive, and sadistic (the original villagers were nothing like this).  Nicolas Cage's character emotes about as much as he always does ...like he just swallowed a few barbituates.  He wasn't likeable, the girl wasn't likeable, the village wasn't likeable, and "Miss" Summersisle was no Christopher Lee!  And the "wtf" moments that just didn't make sense like the whole "seeing the girl everywhere" and the thousand flashbacks to the opening scene.  And why Cage?  He wasn't pure -or at least they didn't imply it.  No sexual tension nor any real focus like in the original.

And what the eff was up with all the women beating?!  Cage punches 2-3 women who weren't even physically threatening him at the time and even pulls out some matrix side-kicking action?!!!  Sorry, I'm just going to say it - the director was obviously sexist, portraying what he "thinks" women would be like if they ruled their own society.  That, along with the sadistic attitude of the women, their repressive governing, their grand scheme of manipulating Cage all along, and all the woman-beating portrayed in this clearly reveals more about the director's fear of women than anything actually about women.  Maybe his girlfriend just dumped him - I dunno.

The original was a unique classic with celtic influences, song, and mystic...and with a great ending.  This was a pile of dung that they couldn't have effed up worse.  About the only part I enjoyed was when Cage gets the bees-to-the-face, gets his legs broken (but why did they do that really?!), and gets burnt alive.  Maybe we were supposed to find him so vile that we didn't mind his little conclusion (shrugs)...too bad they forgot not to make every single character vile.  And my godless, what the eff was up with that stupid bear suit and Miss Summersisle's Braveheart facepaint?!!!

Ok, I'm done ranting...but this movie really p**sed me off.  No wonder Christopher Lee wanted nothing to do with this!

[Sister Grace]

I loved the original, I consider it a classic. I have to agree with you about the remake...it was aweful!! the only thing they could have done worse was have Will Smith play the lead role... That really p**sed me off when they chose him for I Am Legend--he's no more of a Vincent Price then Nicholas Cage is Edward Woodward..
Also, a thing that struck a chord with me... in the original, the setting is a Scottish island. When we think of places that have long-held traditions and stick to "old ways" or are seeped in deep folk lore, you don't think of off the coast of Seattle ( i think it was there they chose the setting, but not sure).

[Just Plain Horse]

Meh, I had no desire to see this ripoff, and this does nothing to encourage me to change my mind. I think the violence towards women is only to further amp up the viewpoint of men oppressing women- it's a deliberate manipulation of the audience's feelings. To assume all men beat & or repress women is as narrow-minded as believing any women in power is an evil conniving b***h who hates men. The original Wicker Man was completely different. Although the male protagonist was a bit of an authority figure, he was still a sympathetic character who was trying to do what he thought was "right". His fate was as sad as it was horrible...or ironic, if it is your thing to feel amused at others people's suffering.

[Sister Grace]

Meh, I had no desire to see this ripoff, and this does nothing to encourage me to change my mind. I think the violence towards women is only to further amp up the viewpoint of men oppressing women- it's a deliberate manipulation of the audience's feelings. To assume all men beat & or repress women is as narrow-minded as believing any women in power is an evil conniving b***h who hates men. The original Wicker Man was completely different. Although the male protagonist was a bit of an authority figure, he was still a sympathetic character who was trying to do what he thought was "right". His fate was as sad as it was horrible...or ironic, if it is your thing to feel amused at others people's suffering.

Here recently one of my co-workers died. Her husband hit her so hard that her brain hemmoraged. Not all men are like this, I have a wonderful boyfriend who would never cause me harm and i like to think the general population of men are not abusive. Abuse of anyone is wrong. wether it is spousal, children, pets or the elderly. I think that it is a new low that hollywood will extort such things to rake in money. Three things will always sell..

Sex
Violence
Drugs

[Just Plain Horse]

As bad as Hollywood is, it's merely a product of a society that has an obsessive, yet simultaneously repressive view on all of the subjects you mentioned, Grace. If people weren't being taught that sex is taboo, yet simlutaneously the greatest experience bar none, people wouldn't buy porn... and for that matter, wouldn't seek it out or create it either. The same can be said of drugs... except that they are so addictive, if anyone who's curious gets just one taste of them, it can draw them into a lifetime of abusive behavior... meanwhile alcohol, tobacco and various caffineated beverages are readily available- though they can be just as addictive. So, there are double standards there- as there is with violence. People act out of anger, frustration, confusion and fear when it comes to violence- all things our society fosters... and makes money off of. While the acts someone does to another should NOT be ignored, people should ask questions about the state of mind that drives one to attack others close to him/her- and not just "does it condemn this person for knowingly acting or not". Very little is done to examine how our society pushes and manipulates people to act according to norms that are self-destructive. Even with smoking- a self-administered killer- nobody is looking beyond using tobacco companies as scapegoats and letting the matter fade away quietly. The root of all problems people have stem directly from people- people aggressively pushing against each other for what they think they need in life and must be divisive to get. People cause their own problems- and problems for others in turn- but tell someone they're hurting themselves and how do they respond?

In the very short view, anyone watching the film mentioned who takes the message to heart about how the characters act and what role models they are can come to any number of bizarre conclusions- which is expending far more thought about the matter than anyone involved in the movie did- but it still suggests that people are susceptable to influence, doesn't it?

[DistantJ]

My Mother bought this DVD because she really wanted to see it. The film was embarassing! I've never seen a remake where somebody misunderstood the whole thing this much, and on top of that some truely rediculous things occur and nothing makes a lot of sense!

Lame.

[Just Plain Horse]

*nods* To be honest, I utterly refuse to see movie remakes of anything if it's made in this country. The best remake I've seen to date was Peter Jackson's "King Kong", and frankly afterwards I was like, "Well, what did that show me the first one didn't? Kong sliding on ice and penis worms eating a guy's head". I'm off of remakes altogether. Style over substance sucks.

[Sister Grace]

*nods* To be honest, I utterly refuse to see movie remakes of anything if it's made in this country. The best remake I've seen to date was Peter Jackson's "King Kong", and frankly afterwards I was like, "Well, what did that show me the first one didn't? Kong sliding on ice and penis worms eating a guy's head". I'm off of remakes altogether. Style over substance sucks.

I agree, also can we not come up with anything that has not been done by the asian film market?

[DistantJ]

I like a good remake if the original is in a position where it actually needs a remake. Not that one is essential, but I mean movies DO get dated. Some very much so, and if the story, characters and such are timeless then a remake can bring it into the present day. A good example is the way Optimus Prime and the Transformers are now in the hearts of a whole new generation of kids like he was in ours, but all modernized, just true to his past.

Problem is, most of them pick movies which were perfect before, haven't become very dated yet, and then make an inferior movie as the remake. Why?!

[clockworkcanary]

Exactly - why?  Why did they take a near classic with mostly friendly characters and bastardize it with this remake with not a single likable character.  Cage was an asshat, the little girl was a brat (or her ghost -whatever), his ex was feigning stupid, the teacher was unbearable (no pun intended), I guess we were supposed to hate the innkeeper too, and the ring leader was also unlikeable.  I just don't get what the hell they were trying to do in this remake.

[Bonehead-XL]

Come on, guys, this is Badmovies.org, right? This is one of the best "So bad it's good" films to come out of mainstream Hollywood since the glory days of Steven Segal.

I mean, I like Nick Cage, he can be a great actor, but, anymore, if he's not gunning for another Oscar, he's just phoning it in. Of course, he's good in comedy, and I laughed an awful lot during this one.

Yes, it's a smear on the reputation of the original but... Well, I direct your attention to this video if you don't believe this movie is a modern camp classic:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e6i2WRreARo
	Small | Large

And for fans of the first "Wicker Man," the writer and directer have reteamed up for a follow-up called "Cowboys for Christ," with Christopher Lee and Ingrid Pitt both back.

[Andrew]

I have not seen the remake yet, but have watched that short clip you posted a number of times now, because it popped up a couple of months ago - maybe longer.  Watching Nicolas Cage punch out (or kick) a few women, once while wearing a bear suit, and then go completely nuts screaming about bees being poured on his head is some of the funniest stuff I have ever seen. 

Granted, it's probably sandwiched between two hours of boring crap, but those moments will keep me sane, and happy.

[CheezeFlixz]

Granted, it's probably sandwiched between two hours of boring crap, but those moments will keep me sane, and happy.

That would be the case, as with many movies the very best parts are in the previews. If you decide to inflict this this atrocity on yourself at least have a pillow a handy.

[clockworkcanary]

I guess I have to admit I can never tire of watching Cage with the face full of bees.   

[DistantJ]

Difference is, Wicker Man is a film which has you laughing at the s**tness, not the bad movie "this is awesome, in a cheesy kind of way" vibe I usually try to find.