Oh shit! Is this the Wicker Man remake? The whole idea behind the "reimagining" of the story (one of my favourite horror films of all time) actually made me feel ill in my brain but I had no idea it was this bad.
haha my friend linked this to me a couple days ago. HILARIOUS.
it makes me want to see wicker man, actually.
This is like a big-budget version of that role playing video floating around on the internets where the kids yell "Lightning Bolt! Lightning Bolt! Sleep!"
"How'd it get burned! How'd it get burned!" "Not the bees! Not the bees!"
4 of 16 people found the following review helpful: metacinematic examination of mob-raising tactics, which has been mob-razed by reviewers, January 2, 2007 Reviewer: Raphael Zimmerman (Prescott, AZ USA) This film contains so many individual elements of poor screenwriting, but together they add up to a compelling thriller that dabbles in Odyssey territory. The viewer might object to the patience, however small, that Cage's character shows towards his ex-fiancee, who petitioned for his help in locating their daughter, and yet insists upon giving only cryptic outlines of the story behind her disappearance. This objection has some weight, until you consider the large number of thrillers that are produced in which these types of scenes occur, and in the final resolution of the story, the cryptic speaker is still merely a traumatized innocent whose reluctance to efficiently convey information was just a device used by lazy screenwriters to prevent the audience from at once knowing too many details of a sloppily-constructed mystery. In this film, however, just when an observant viewer has registered her suspicion that the film is being written by formula, a series of revelations lift the plot out of cliche and into profundity.
This film is art, and should be viewed as a work of art. By choosing to depict a society of empowered, vile women, the filmmakers bare their breasts before the arrows of "misogynist hunters," but then again, if the filmmakers were making a film in which the women were completely disempowered, that too would be viewed as mysogynistic. If, as a storyteller, you take an issue involving a percieved minority too far in any direction, whether the group in question ultimately falls or is victorious, the final verdict on your stance towards that group is always that you must hate them, and the only effect that your decision regarding how to conclude the story will make, is whether your story is viewed as an archetypal suggestion or an allegorical suggestion that the group be oppressed. What should truly be oppressed is this conception that white males have no business depicting anything in any way, because its influence on the opinions of consumers of art, regarding the quality of films such as this one, is adding up to cooperative censorship.
A lot of the details of the film are more meaningful for their lack of explanation. From the non-speaking men, to the march of pregnant women, the details of the film have a rich associative relevance, and indicate to the viewer, the markings of a society in which the major plot events could realistically occur. Rather than condemning the plot events as unrealistic and the stray details of the film as detached and nonsensical, the observant viewer of this film will accept the filmmakers' challenge to trace the abstract, albeit often ambiguous, way in which these stray details themselves establish not only the realism, but the inevitability, of the plot's resolution.
If you want to see one of the worst movies ever made, take your pick of Rob Schneider comedies. If you want to see an artfully constructed film with many layers of meaning, which tempts its viewers to dislike it by using many elements of poor filmmaking in a powerful and original context[/b], and which bait, many of its viewers unfortunately gobble, just like the film's protagonist, see The Wicker Man (2006).
hahahahahahahahahahahaha ... ohhhhh it hurts. I had the misfortune of seeing that horrible horrible atrocity (why remake a perfect film?) ... it's sooooo much better in the condensed form where our dear friend is allowed to shine. He can punch a woman like none other.
Edward Malus (Cage) after a horrible car crash where he had stopped a car to return a little girls doll that she had thrown out the window, receives a letter from his former fiancee, Willow Woodward (Kate Beahan), asking him to come to a small Pacific Northwest island populated by a secretive matriarchal pagan community, to investigate the disappearance of her daughter Rowan. Upon arriving on the island, he discovers a matriarchal society ruled over by Sister Summersisle, a nod to the original film.
Most of the women on the island are hostile towards him, and the few men are all silent as if they have had their tongues removed. Malus questions the inhabitants of the island about the missing child, only to be told that she doesn't exist. Then when Edward finds Rowan's name crossed out in the school role, he is told by the teacher, Sister Rose, that she burned to death. Cage then profoundly states: "you little liars", to innocent children[/b] and then mocks the Pagan Culture. Willow tells Malus that Rowan is his own daughter, and she is certain that Rowan is being held captive somewhere. Malus fears that his daughter has been sacrificed, or is about to be.
Soon thereafter, Malus finds a Crypt in a graveyard. Being the CURIOUS CHAP he is, he decides to go for a swim, gets locked in the Crypt and 11 hours later, his ex finds him. He then gets out of the aforementioned Crypt, and humorously screams "How'd it get burned, how'd it get burned, how'd it get burned, how'd it get burned, how'd it get burned, how'd it get burned?[/b] After a continuing investigation, Malus is made aware of the coming ritual and while frantically searching for Rowan, he follows the group to the harvest festival where he finds Rowan tied to a stake. He rescues her, he runs away, only to be led, by her, to the waiting crowd. The girl was in no danger at all, and the islanders' true plan was to sacrifice Malus - his relationship with Willow was merely part of an elaborate plot to lure him to the island. They needed a stranger who was connected to one of their number, by blood. They capture him, break his legs and place him in a giant wicker cage shaped like a man. Rowan drops a flaming torch against the wicker statue as Malus begs her to stop; she sets the statue ablaze.
As Malus is being sacrificed, the crowd of women chant, 'The drone must die', which is a reference to the male bee, known as a drone. AAHHH!! MY LEGS!!When the drone mates with the queen, it dies shortly after, sacrificing itself for the better of the colony, so the people on the island represent a beehive society. Though he NO, NO, NO, NOT THE BEES, NOT THE BEES, AH AH AH, THEIR IN MY EYES, MY EYES!! OH NOOOOOOOO!!!! pleads to the onlooking crowd, he is ultimately burned alive in a 'wicker man'.
Six months later, two women from the island are seen in a bar picking up what appear to be new male sacrifices.
edith head
5,106 Posts
Comments
Oh shit! Is this the Wicker Man remake? The whole idea behind the "reimagining" of the story (one of my favourite horror films of all time) actually made me feel ill in my brain but I had no idea it was this bad.
I need to see this post haste.
Plus the Faststimes "cameo."
Dude shoulda quit circa 1992.
I love the bear running punch. Hysterical. I can't stop watching this.
it makes me want to see wicker man, actually.
This is like a big-budget version of that role playing video floating around on the internets where the kids yell "Lightning Bolt! Lightning Bolt! Sleep!"
"How'd it get burned! How'd it get burned!"
"Not the bees! Not the bees!"
ok that is my favorite part on my 6th viewing
And Birdy.
and 8MM
These wicker man clips are genius. Moving to the top of my queu.... Now.
"Hello Machine...I love your work."
Jaw-droppingly bad.
metacinematic examination of mob-raising tactics, which has been mob-razed by reviewers, January 2, 2007
Reviewer: Raphael Zimmerman (Prescott, AZ USA)
This film contains so many individual elements of poor screenwriting, but together they add up to a compelling thriller that dabbles in Odyssey territory. The viewer might object to the patience, however small, that Cage's character shows towards his ex-fiancee, who petitioned for his help in locating their daughter, and yet insists upon giving only cryptic outlines of the story behind her disappearance. This objection has some weight, until you consider the large number of thrillers that are produced in which these types of scenes occur, and in the final resolution of the story, the cryptic speaker is still merely a traumatized innocent whose reluctance to efficiently convey information was just a device used by lazy screenwriters to prevent the audience from at once knowing too many details of a sloppily-constructed mystery. In this film, however, just when an observant viewer has registered her suspicion that the film is being written by formula, a series of revelations lift the plot out of cliche and into profundity.
This film is art, and should be viewed as a work of art. By choosing to depict a society of empowered, vile women, the filmmakers bare their breasts before the arrows of "misogynist hunters," but then again, if the filmmakers were making a film in which the women were completely disempowered, that too would be viewed as mysogynistic. If, as a storyteller, you take an issue involving a percieved minority too far in any direction, whether the group in question ultimately falls or is victorious, the final verdict on your stance towards that group is always that you must hate them, and the only effect that your decision regarding how to conclude the story will make, is whether your story is viewed as an archetypal suggestion or an allegorical suggestion that the group be oppressed. What should truly be oppressed is this conception that white males have no business depicting anything in any way, because its influence on the opinions of consumers of art, regarding the quality of films such as this one, is adding up to cooperative censorship.
A lot of the details of the film are more meaningful for their lack of explanation. From the non-speaking men, to the march of pregnant women, the details of the film have a rich associative relevance, and indicate to the viewer, the markings of a society in which the major plot events could realistically occur. Rather than condemning the plot events as unrealistic and the stray details of the film as detached and nonsensical, the observant viewer of this film will accept the filmmakers' challenge to trace the abstract, albeit often ambiguous, way in which these stray details themselves establish not only the realism, but the inevitability, of the plot's resolution.
If you want to see one of the worst movies ever made, take your pick of Rob Schneider comedies. If you want to see an artfully constructed film with many layers of meaning, which tempts its viewers to dislike it by using many elements of poor filmmaking in a powerful and original context[/b], and which bait, many of its viewers unfortunately gobble, just like the film's protagonist, see The Wicker Man (2006).
hahahahahahahahahahahaha ... ohhhhh it hurts. I had the misfortune of seeing that horrible horrible atrocity (why remake a perfect film?) ... it's sooooo much better in the condensed form where our dear friend is allowed to shine. He can punch a woman like none other.
I thought he was good in Adaptation though.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wicker_Man_%282006_film%29
(SPOILERS)