I am wincing in pain. I feel robbed. I feel like a small period of my life was laid waste by the absolute pointlessness of this cinematic vomit. I honestly cannot understand why anyone would want to do such a thing.
A remake is occasionally excusable, for instance if the original is interesting but technically lacking, or damaged by time, or knee-deep in cultural references which nobody understands anymore.
None of those things is true of the original Wicker Man. The references are drawn primarily from Frazer's seminal work on folklore, The Golden Bough (more readily available today than it was when the movie was made). The print of the film is maybe a little grainy but rich in texture, and captures the beauty of the Scottish Islaes in a way few films before or since have done. And the original boasts career-best performances from Edward Woodward and Christopher Lee (even the generally poor Britt Ekland is rather good in that film).
Any excuse offered for this nonsense is inadequate. The remake rips great chunks of the original, only ineptly insert them into a hokey horror movie with ridiculous "modernizing" touches (like a female Summerisle) and pathetically obvious references (like the character names being taken from the actors in the original film).
It looks pretty good, if film stock is one's measure of a good film. But why add FX? Why add back story? Why does the copper have to have an ex there for him to get all worked up? It's so transparently trying too hard.
And failing.
Horribly.
Every single, leaden step of the way.
(For additional perspective, here are some pertinent remarks from my daughter, a mini film critic.)
For a start, no effects needed on this movie. There were NO FX on the original, none needed either. Instead of best performances, there were possibly worst! The whole "Oo, I'm scary" thing is ludicrous. The Wickerman is not scary. It is, in the sense that you would never want to meet any of the people on that island, but horror? Please!
A remake is occasionally excusable, for instance if the original is interesting but technically lacking, or damaged by time, or knee-deep in cultural references which nobody understands anymore.
None of those things is true of the original Wicker Man. The references are drawn primarily from Frazer's seminal work on folklore, The Golden Bough (more readily available today than it was when the movie was made). The print of the film is maybe a little grainy but rich in texture, and captures the beauty of the Scottish Islaes in a way few films before or since have done. And the original boasts career-best performances from Edward Woodward and Christopher Lee (even the generally poor Britt Ekland is rather good in that film).
Any excuse offered for this nonsense is inadequate. The remake rips great chunks of the original, only ineptly insert them into a hokey horror movie with ridiculous "modernizing" touches (like a female Summerisle) and pathetically obvious references (like the character names being taken from the actors in the original film).
It looks pretty good, if film stock is one's measure of a good film. But why add FX? Why add back story? Why does the copper have to have an ex there for him to get all worked up? It's so transparently trying too hard.
And failing.
Horribly.
Every single, leaden step of the way.
(For additional perspective, here are some pertinent remarks from my daughter, a mini film critic.)
For a start, no effects needed on this movie. There were NO FX on the original, none needed either. Instead of best performances, there were possibly worst! The whole "Oo, I'm scary" thing is ludicrous. The Wickerman is not scary. It is, in the sense that you would never want to meet any of the people on that island, but horror? Please!