Friday, August 17, 2007

'The Wicker Man' ...

What kind of M. Night Shyamalan/David Lynch-wanna be piece of crap was that?! What was Nicolas Cage thinking? Was Ellen Burstyn channeling William Wallace? What did the beginning of the movie have to do with the end of the movie?

How did it earn a 15% on RottenTomatoes.com? This film deserved a negative score. It was completely asinine. No, I never did see the 1970s British version. And I won't bother.

Yeeeesh. Horrendous waste of celluloid. Or pixels.

4 Comments:

Anonymous Parallel universe Dave said...

Trust me, the original was original. And has nothing in common with the so-called remake beyond the title. I'm not saying it hasn't aged a little - who hasn't? But it's a far more rewarding viewing experience than you'd expect from what you just saw.

Also, I've been to the Summer Isles and the people there are just as odd as the orginal movie suggests!

8:53 PM  
Blogger Beth said...

Well, PUD, perhaps in fairness to the original filmmaker, I'll have to check out the '70s Wicker Man. Anything to cleanse my palate of the crap I saw this weekend!

9:22 PM  
Blogger Mercurie said...

You definitely have to check out the original. It is NOTHING like the alleged remake. This is another case of someone taking a good film and using its name for a total piece of crap (another example being Tim Burton's "remake" of Planet of the Apes).

2:35 PM  
Blogger Mikeachim said...

Yes, the original is mad and unsettling and pagan and unique. With a nasty ending.

Everything this remake isn't, in fact. I agree - not just generic rubbish, but ineptly executed generic rubbish.

2:29 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home