« Brothers of the Head | Filmstalker | Cameron's Avator casting rumours »


Wicker Man poor reviews

TheWickerMan_Poster.jpgWow, The Wicker Man is getting some of the worst reviews I've seen for some time, but quite frankly it's no surprise, press screenings or not.

This morning I heard James King talking about it on the radio, and he was quite scathing. He talked about the fact that in the UK it's a 12A, that means anyone of any age can watch the film as long as they are accompanied by an adult...some horror.

Then he mentioned the unintentional comedy of the film, during a parade of everyone in animal costumes Cage dresses as a bear, when he has to chase after someone he removes the suit and leaves the bear feet on during the forest chase scene.

There are similar comments appearing from other reviewers. It's a poor attempt at a remake, the idea doesn't work, and basically it's rubbish.

The Guardian today have some comments which just really hammer home how bad it is...

in the Toronto Star, Peter Howell dubbed the film "an unholy mess" full of moments of "unintended hilarity". He added, "The updating of this tale of ritual sacrifice on a godless island named Summerisle is wrong in just about every way it could be."...

...Screen International critic Allan Hunter dismissed it as "a clunky, conventional mystery yarn that will appal aficionados of the Robin Hardy classic". Danny Minton of the Beaumont Sun went further, predicting that The Wicker Man will go down as one of the worst movies of the year. "This is the kind of film for which Golden Raspberries were made,"...

...Roger Moore of the Orlando Sentinel struck a kinder note..."It doesn't quite work out because LaBute or his studio lost its nerve and couldn't decide whether to play the film ironic, horrific or just a goof,"

Oh dear, it's not sounding good at all is it? You can see more poor reviews over at Rotten Tomatoes who are currently giving it a measly 15%.



Those are some pretty damned bad reviews. I do wonder, though, when you get a film like this that the studio refuses to preview and bad reviews follow, if the bad reviews are because the film really is crap or it's just the critics flexing their muscles and demonstrating their anger/sour grapes at being left out of the process and having to actually pay to see the thing.

You’re always going to run into trouble trying to do a watered down remake of a much loved classic, they would have been better off doing a movie along the lines of The Wickerman, but with its own take on the story and under a different title. If you use the original movies title as a cash in, it serves you right when the comparisons are poor and you get negative reaction. Has anyone seen Population Population 436 with Jeremy Sisto, its along the lines of the Wickerman to a point, but because it is its own movie you don't draw comparisons to a genre classic and it ends up being a fun little movie.

I think you're right, there is always some kickback, and for those reviewers - shame on you. That's knee jerk, pathetic and petty. Sure, mention it in the review, but don't let the review be affected by it.

From the start though most of us knew this was a bad idea. Cult classic for a remake, relocation from Scotland to off the US coast, sex changes for the main character, killer bees and the desire to care as the big connection instead of hook of the original. It all went against what made the first one so strong, and that was easy to see from the outset.

More thought should have gone into the early planning and script and critics should have looked at that instead of studio money men who thought throwing Cage at it would make money regardless.

Hey bullett, thanks for the heads up on Population 436, I love Jeremy Sisto!

Population 436 is a neat little movie for what it is Simone, not exactly horror, more along the lines of the X files, Twighlight zone or something of that nature, but as "Weird town" movies go its pretty fun. Fred Durst is in it, but don't be put off he turns in a pretty good performance. If you can judge it for the fairly low budget effort it is, it’s entertaining, in my opinion at least, though I see some of the people on the IMDB don't like it, but that’s no real surprise.

If I could help it, I never read the comments in IMDb anyway. I just added it to my Amazon rental queue!

This is one of the worst films i have ever seen! It wasnt scary! The dialogue sounds as though it was constrewed by monkeys (not the smart kind either) The acting is TERRIBLE. It was a good job this film provided a few laughs towards the end (albeit unintentionally) The ridiculous cries of "How did she burn?" from Cage provided me with such laughter that i had 2 vacate the premises! Other funny bits include Cage dressing as a bear and joining in the CAMPEST procession ever. Do NOT watch this film unless payed a heft sum


Add a comment


Site Navigation

Latest Stories



Vidahost image

Latest Reviews


Filmstalker Poll


Subscribe with...

AddThis Feed Button

Windows Live Alerts

Site Feeds

Subscribe to Filmstalker:

Filmstalker's FeedAll articles

Filmstalker's Reviews FeedReviews only

Filmstalker's Reviews FeedAudiocasts only

Subscribe to the Filmstalker Audiocast on iTunesAudiocasts on iTunes

Feed by email:


My Skype status


Help Out


Site Information

Creative Commons License
© www.filmstalker.co.uk

Give credit to your sources. Quote and credit, don't steal

Movable Type 3.34