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 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!