The Wicker Man

Audience Reviews

View All (1000+)

Shaun R Horrible film should be burned into oblivion. Rated 0.5/5 Stars •  Rated 0.5 out of 5 stars 06/08/25 Full Review Josh A I watched this movie this morning while I was ill and in recovery. I quite liked it. I still am ill by the way. But, basically, the main thing you need to know is that I haven't seen the 1973 movie before but plan on seeing it and its spiritual sequel, The Wicker Tree. I just watched this one first as it was on Prime Video. It's a solid mystery story with Nicholas Cage, to be honest. Is it boring at times? Yes. But is it overall a good film? I'd say so. It's entertaining enough and kept me satisfied while I was ill, so I liked it. Also, the ending was alright, but the version I saw from the 1973 film was better. Not much else to say. I'm going to get some rest now. Good night. Rated 3.5/5 Stars •  Rated 3.5 out of 5 stars 12/13/24 Full Review Kyle M The surrounding notoriety of “The Wicker Man” remade in 2006 starring Nicolas Cage effectively resurrected the story under piqued attention, which led to having the signature twist unveiled prematurely. 2006’s director Neil LaBute seemingly sought in cashing on the genre’s firmer foundations being reworked to further rust without much attributive originality to guarantee impressionable significance beyond the given reputation’s negative reception. It ideally been proven to work in going for the unfamiliar angle that supposedly modernizes how it was done previously, not for the better by the way. Robin Hardy’s directorial passion has gotten connected to the 1973 cultural take on pagan horror with an edgier grit ethically driven through an investigative narrative that’s been brewing the somewhat chills as the twists and turns been going back and forth, spiked by the decade’s stark saturation for an unsettling mixture. It unfortunately got affected by its own legacy, like most horror tales unable to separate from having an intimidating, timeless impact but rather as formulaic feats to self-destruct its fearful intentions. Though a notion been previously assured that such knowledge wouldn’t change the climatically built effect, if only it wasn’t so obvious that is, as well it doesn’t change the profound disturbance at the end. So which leaves performative deliverance in carrying the film besides its structural intelligence, exceptionally excelled by Edward Woodward and Christopher Lee with mesmerizing convictions over influential religious reliefs they had to embrace. Watching the original and remake back-and-forth easily declare a winner in the double feature when the latter’s approach showed frivolous, immature execution that visually parodies the circumstantially weighted gravity. The only provocative effect is to see the original if haven’t done so, to actually see how comparably bad and how much the remake lacks as it only replays the scenic direction in conversationally coerced matters that made the outing much lower than immediate predictability with misled “edge”. Because of that, it apparently lost the pull into welcomed slumber, contrast to the diegetic yearn. Even though there isn’t much enthusiasm towards the British film due to how disturbing it anchored, there’s no need to argue that the remake is soulless after witnessing what unfolded prior – unless star power actually becomes the appealing factor in terms of familiarity. Though with zero interest in ever seeing it nor any direct connections besides associated spirituality, Ari Aster’s “Midsommar” did, however, came to mind upon watching the traditional celebrations unfolded in the 1973 original, especially the tactics it’s characteristically used. Even without seeing it, just from a glance and narrative familiarity actually show true modernization of the story Robin Hardy directed and became one of the genre’s cherished influences to inspire effective frights. Rated 2/5 Stars •  Rated 2 out of 5 stars 11/01/24 Full Review Jelisije J A terrible remake of the original film where half of the actors go so over the top that it confound me why they were even casted in the first place. A good picture and a good location of the film setting, but my god the execution of this film was terrible. Rated 1/5 Stars •  Rated 1 out of 5 stars 10/29/24 Full Review Steve Z You just don't get it. Nicolas Freaking Cage! "OH MY LEGS!" Rated 5/5 Stars •  Rated 5 out of 5 stars 10/19/24 Full Review Kathy H Some cynical American filmmakers were looking for a cash cow with name recognition, so they remade a classic, creative, highly original British folk horror film for American audiences they were convinced are far too dumbed down to understand the original and will never ever compare the two because in their opinion, American audiences won’t listen to anything that doesn’t feature American accents, just as they won’t/can’t read subtitles. The result is the Wicker Man 2006, featuring Nicolas Cage chewing the scenery and playing a Nicolas Cage character. I personally have far more respect for American audiences than the makers of this film, so I recommend you all go watch the 1973 original. Those of us who aren’t Americans should watch the original, too. I can remember being so excited to see this remake when I first learned it was in production. Disappointment doesn’t get near my feelings when I actually saw it. I’d like to put everyone involved in the 2006 film in a wicker man and toss a match. It’s that bad. Rated 0.5/5 Stars •  Rated 0.5 out of 5 stars 06/15/24 Full Review Read all reviews

The Wicker Man

My Rating

Read More Read Less POST RATING WRITE A REVIEW EDIT REVIEW

Most Popular at Home Now