As I get older, I find myself getting less and less upset with remakes. At this point, it's like getting pissed at the wind. (My dog has been known to do this, barking wildly at the swaying branches.) Or maybe getting mad at the current state of politics. It is what it is, there's no changing it, it's not really worth expending energy on.
However, even with that liberal (in the internet age, at least) take on the subject, I have a hard time trying to figure out why anyone would try to remake The Wicker Man. It's got such a good reputation that it would be virtually impossible for you to come out in front of it - it's setting yourself up for failure, even if your movie is pretty good on its own. (Please note: this one is not.) There's a reason that The Classics remain untouched, and yeah, the original Wicker Man is a Classic. BUT, say you take that ill-advised leap and decide to do it - why would you change so much that made it great in the first place? While it's true that the bones of the story are the same here in the 2006 version, so much of what I really dug about the original doesn't make it here - the atmosphere, the use of music, general unease (here it's much more overt), the religiousness of the main character... it gets to a point that it should really just be a different movie.
And who could forget the CGI bees?
Quickly:
My synopsis: California cop Edward Malus (Nicholas Cage) is called upon by his long estranged fiancee to help find her missing daughter. He must travel to Summerisle, a strange island off the coast of Washington to investigate. But the people there are strange in an old-timey/religious fanatic way, and are extremely unhelpful. Malus be very careful if he wants to find the girl and avoid The Wicker Man (a religious idol, not a patio chair-esque monster).
Elaborate Genre: Confusingly-toned, mostly tame (rated PG-13), faux-spiritual mystery thriller.
Overall: A slog. Some crazy Nicholas Cage, but mostly just aggravating. And, CGI bees.
So yeah, there's just not that much to like here. You kind of know you're in trouble early on, when you get a useless prologue where Malus witnesses a car crash very close up, where a young woman and her daughter (OR IS IT?) get violently killed. (OR DO THEY?) There's just not much reason for it... and the way it plays out, it just gives writer/director Neil Labute an excuse to throw in a senseless "spooky" dream sequence whenever the action slows down too much. And I guess that's the main issue here compared to the original film. Wicker '06 feels the need to have something happen every 10-15 minutes, such as Cage being chased by bees (he's allergic!), a ghostly underwater sequence, or our hero punching women in the face. Most of them are crappy, and scenes don't really flow from one to another. One thing that made Wicker '73 so solid was the build and atmosphere - when the shit goes down, *everything* has been slowly building to that point. Here, you are constantly getting attempts at excitement or tension that just don't work.
One thing that this film ofter gets credit for is being "campy" (Netflix) or "unintentional humor" (an imdb keyword). And yeah, Cage is over the top enough to be enjoyable at times. But it doesn't feel like the movie is on the same page that he is - he's chewing some serious scenery, where the rest of the movie seems to be going for a legitimately creepy feel.
Also, while the movie is shot well and looks pretty nice, it feels too brown. If I recall correctly, the original had much more of a lush setting. That lush setting is supplanted here by characters having plant names... so that's something, I guess.
And after yesterday's (arguably) feminist film I got another loaded one here, which feels like it's on the opposite side of the spectrum. But maybe I just don't get feminism. Wicker '06 doesn't have a likable female character in the bunch, and the whole thing just seems kind of icky. It's interesting that it was directed by Neil Labute, who seemed to be doubling down the reputation he built with films like In the Company of Men. I have him classified in the ol' memory banks as "misogynist," but maybe there's more to it than that. I'm not terribly interested in revisiting his work to see if that's correct. Others may say "you don't get it..." his imdb biography says "he has his hand on the pulse of everyday people... who sound or behave horribly for no reason... and you cringe all the more because you know and identify with them." Get your hand off of my pulse, dude! But yikes, this last line: "Here is a man whose entire body of work should be watched and studied by all." I guess you should stop before you get to The Wicker Man.
I will say the ending of the Wicker '06 is kind of effective - it's virtually the same as '73, but I'll be gosh darned if that's not an effective scenario. But you're kind of pissed by everything that got you to that point, so it's a essentially a moot point.
And I'll pose a question - if you look at Nicholas Cage's resume (here from imdb.com), and had to pick one film as a turning point from Oscar-winning movie star to Direct to... I guess, "Streaming" star, what would it be? I have a hard time picking anything else besides The Wicker Man. Also, was anyone asking for The Croods 2?
It's a rough go. Skip it, and watch the original instead.
I would highly not recommend this film.
No comments:
Post a Comment