The Boring Wicker Man

Ken_S · 17th February 2003, 07:59 PM

The following has been published in the "Reviews" section, but I wanted to post this here on the discussion boards too - mainly trying to start a nice little debate ;)

**********

Let me tell you a story. A story about an 11-year old boy who found his second true idol in Christopher Lee, first seeing him as Dracula in the original Hammer "Dracula" (Horror of Dracula). Then followed a shrouded mummy, a scarred creature made by a God-wannabe, and more Dracula risen from his icy grave - and as the result, the boy was completely over the moon for Christopher Lee. Thus, the 11-year old boy got excited when the next film on this movie "series" on television was going to be "The Wicker Man", another horror movie promoted as a Christopher Lee movie.

Because the broadcast was more later than usual on a weekday night, the boy taped the movie to watch it the next day.

And the next day he - and his mother - did watch "The Wicker Man" on the tape. Together the boy and his mother decided eventually to fastforward half of the movie because it seemed only dull with no excitement at all - and the usual charisma on Christopher Lee was nowhere to be seen. After fastforwarding most of the movie till the only-annoying surprise resolution, the boy was truly disenchanted with "The Wicker Man". The boy had waited for excitement, the same spellbinding Gothic Romanticism as on all the previous movies, plus naturally a good, uplifting story - but none of these things were to be found in "The Wicker Man".

The boy grew almost to hate "The Wicker Man", since all the reviews he saw of it were only praising it as a genuine masterpiece of horror. Thus years went by and the boy grew up - and one day he made the startling discovery that he had really become an adult since his taste in movies had truly changed from his childhood years.

And then, one day - not so long ago - the adult boy decided to revisit the experience of "The Wicker Man" on a rented video. Perhaps, after all those years the boy could finally understand the movie - and watch it without fastforwarding.

He did watch it completely. He finally did understand the story. And he even did like Christopher Lee''s performance in it a lot.

But still, the boy shook almost in disgust by thinking the possibility if other 11-year old boys read only those praising reviews about the movie and wanted to watch it only because the greatest silver screen Count Dracula was featured in it.

That''s the reason the boy is writing this review at this very moment.

- - - -

The most important thing to know about "The Wicker Man" is that this movie is far from the term "horror movie" (as the term is most often used). It is not a horror movie, not even a horrific one. Naturally, for a viewer who is capable of putting him/herself into the main character - thinking the story realistically - YES, it may be quite horrifying thing in the end - BUT as a MOVIE, in cinematic terms, "The Wicker Man" is among the most lame and laughable art films ever done.

Movies are mainly stories. A good story most often has some kind of message in it - and a storyteller has a MOTIVE to tell a story. In "The Wicker Man" there is a story, but somehow I don''t think these movie-makers had any motive to tell this specific story. It seems they may have wanted to publically oppose the organized overpowering religions on our planet but apart from this I don''t find any purpose in "The Wicker Man". It is only a very lame movie with no suspense at all - and when the so-called "horror" finally introduces itself in the end resolution, it only turns the movie into an embarrassing parody of a clash between two religions and nothing else. (Before anyone thinks that the undersigned is a furious Christian believer, I should reveal that I don''t appreciate or follow ANY religion).

The reason that makes me to claim that these movie-makers don''t have any motive in telling the story is their way of presenting the pagan worship as a 60''s hippie thing. The entire movie has a feeling in it that it has been produced under a heavy influence of drugs. It is only a "good trip" of pretty pictures and sweet music, and thus it doesn''t create any tension, any menace from this pagan society on the island ....Well, naturally this COULD have been the movie-makers'' goal, to present pagan worship as only a beautiful thing - but still I say that the movie doesn''t manage to keep one''s interest since no tension is built anywhere within. Naturally, the movie-makers have probably wanted to make "The Wicker Man" as realistic movie as possible - but for me such a realism sounds absurd where a policeman goes ALONE to investigate a disappearance of a young girl because of an anonymous letter... Thus, the movie''s realism turns mighty heavily against itself - which makes the "surprise" ending seem only far more ridiculous.

Even for an open-minded lover of all kinds of movies (from Disney''s "Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs" to "Trainspotting", from "Final Destination" to the remake of "A Little Princess") "The Wicker Man" seems only a poor excuse for an absurd art film. In nutshell, although the basic story IS original, the script is NOT, and thus the movie is incapable of creating any suspense at all. The music, which is mostly treated as source music, is far from remarkable, but yes, it does provide most of the realism into the movie - and time to time it does this TOO well, being a noisy reminder of the fact that it''s only a movie that one is watching and nothing more. (And by the way, "The Wicker Man" is really a hilarious sister-movie to Baz Luhrmann''s "Moulin Rouge" since almost all leading characters burst into song once in awhile).

The only good thing in "The Wicker Man" is Christopher Lee''s excellent performance. It shows that Mr. Lee is an extremely talented actor - but nevertheless, those 11-year old boys (who love to see Mr. Lee wearing a black majestically flowing cape) quite probably won''t appreciate this performance until they are a bit older.

"The Wicker Man" is really not among those movies that you need to see.
"Horror Express" IS. :)

- - - -

Such a story.

LCD · 17th February 2003, 09:33 PM

I first saw The Wicker Man on TV when I was an adult, so I couldn't really say what kind of impression the film would have made on me had I seen it when I was younger. (If I had been eleven, I don't think my parents would have allowed me to watch it, even though the nudity in it was in the context of a religious ritual.)

My husband and I just watched this last week again, (88 minute version) and found it to be just a good story, not really a commentary on organized religion. It simply incorporated old pagan beliefs into a modern society and that was that. Personally, I would not want to keep a date with the wicker man, God bless me!

On the weekend I happened to see a 103 minute version of The Wicker Man go for about $34 U.S. on eBay.

**Dave Hutchens** · 17th February 2003, 10:32 PM

Interesting...couldn't disagree with that particular reviewer more if I tried, but there we are.

I consider The Wicker Man one of the only true horror movies ever made. It is deeply terrifying, on a level very few films have ever reached...it touches the very soul. Of course, it's true that the film was never intended for children; I doubt the average child has the necessary depth of perception. Certainly the reviewer didn't...and still doesn't, as an adult.

BTW, LCD, go for the extended edition. It's an even greater experience.

**Michael Dawson** · 17th February 2003, 10:36 PM

This is in direct response to Ken_S's post (i.e. - "The Boring Wicker Man"). I'm not much for forums or for knocking over someone else's soapbox, but after I happened upon Ken_S's post, I felt compelled to write something.

With all due respect to you, The Wicker Man is arguably one of Mr. Lee's finest films, and perhaps one of the most fascinating, original films ever made. I don't particularly think that the film quite fits into the horror genre per se, but it ranks with the best of that genre by many critics and fans worldwide. In fact, I like the film so much that I have an original poster of the film (one of 270 originals, I believe) hanging above me in my office. It cost me a king's ransom to get it, but has served as a great conversation piece. I can't remember how many countless people I've introduced to this film from that poster. Many of them were not particularly familiar with Mr. Lee or his work, but became avid fans after seeing the film. That all being said, it's a pity that the film went over your head. Apparently, the many layers this film possesses was simply lost on you. I just don't have the time to illustrate all of my points, because if you actually thought The Wicker Man was "boring" and "lame", you'll no doubt miss any points made here against your critique. Getting people to "get" movies is almost as impossible as getting a pig to fly, and there are more constructive uses of one's time. Suffice it to say, I found your critique equally lame and boring. Again, this is given with all due respect, or at least with the same amount of respect that you yielded.

I would have to add that many people out there who follow Mr. Lee's work do not seem to appreciate the fact that he's done considerably more for the horror/suspense genre of cinema than play the role of Dracula half-a-dozen times. Moreover, it would be unpardonable of me to say that his most important contributions to film have ONLY been in the horror genres. His Dracula films are also among my favorites, but he's done so much more above and beyond those roles. Mr. Lee has a diverse career spanning all manner of movies and television productons, and The Wicker Man stands among the other gems in his crown of achievements.

In closing, the whys and wherefores of your critique are as alien to me as the film was to you, and I'm both sorry and dumbfounded to come across a Christopher Lee fan who didn't appreciate The Wicker Man. I didn't think such a fan existed.

Raven MD

**Frederick Bergstrom** · 17th February 2003, 11:31 PM

Well everyone is entitled to his or her own opinion. I would have to say the reviewer was hoping for Christopher to be playing the monsters from some of of his great horror films and not accept him as any thing other than those creatures. Many horror fans need something to happen right off the bat and to be scarred throughout the course of a film to be considered a horror film. A Pagan believing in his beliefs so much as to burn alive a innocent man as a sacrifice to his own wild, crazy beliefs is As frightning as any Dracula , Mummy or Frankenstien film. When I was 11, I too may have wanted Christopher Lee to be Dracula in every movie he was in but I grew up and appreciate his great ACTING and ABILITY to potray differant
charactors and seperate one role from another. As an adult i Long to see every potrayal be it romantic, drama comedy whatever. If an actors potrayal is so strong and moving it may make someone not accept them in other roles than dont watch any other film but the monster films. Being 11 years old You have typecast the actor in your own mind. As an adult we are able to outgrow this..... for those who cant they cannot accept Christopher Lee as a working actor performing his craft greater than any other actor then or now.

mllprncss · 17th February 2003, 11:39 PM

I saw The Wicker Man for the first time about one year ago. I saw it on video. It is a terrifying movie, and I agree, terrifying on a much deeper level than your "typical" horror movie. Even though I knew what was going to happen to that police officer, I couldn't believe it when the ending came. It was a movie that stuck with me. I still get chills thinking about that poor guy. So, in that sense, was The Wicker Man boring. Not on your life! Bizarre, unusual? Yes. Boring? Not to me.

**Matt Gemmell** · 18th February 2003, 12:23 AM

Well Ken s , you certainly will encourage some lively discussion with this thread .
I'll say something ........ I admire your convictions and respect your opinion of the movie even though I don't agree with you .
I'm sure you'll get a few replies detailing why you should love the Wickerman as many ( including myself ) do but I don't see the point . To put it simply ..... you just don't get it . I don't mean to be rude , just concise . If you don't like it , that's fine but don't try to say it's a badly made film because you'll be wrong . It's just not your cup of tea ........... and that's OK .

Josslyn · 18th February 2003, 02:25 AM

The Wicker Man is one of my favorite films.
I saw it as an adult and was fascinated by the story, the acting, atmosphere and the themes both covert and overt expressed within the story-telling.
Having said that, I can see how someone would find the film to be a bit dull - if that person expects lots of action.
The Wicker Man is a thinking person's horror film. Most children or younger adults won't, I think in this day and age at least, find it all that entertaining. Not with the types of films out today. The Wicker Man is very much an art film, more than mere entertainment.
I guess the same could be said about the expectations surrounding many other films or shows.
My roommate and I settled down to watch Ark in Space (Doctor Who DVD) and while I adored it, he thought it was tedious and cheesy. I watched it three times in one week (no comment). So I guess to each his own.

Ken_S · 18th February 2003, 09:36 AM

Quote:

Well Ken s , you certainly will encourage some lively discussion with this thread.

That was exactly what I was after.
Unfortunately some people here don't get my initial point in wanting a DISCUSSION about THE WICKER MAN's merits (or flaws) - and in stead are attacking me personally, which is more of a childish thing than this "still 11-year-old Monster Lover" will ever be.

It also seems that some folk here don't bother to READ an entire post before making wild accusations. In the review I say it very clearly that the flaws of THE WICKER MAN are definitely NOT Christopher Lee's fault - his performance is splendid (although it can still be a boring performance for younger viewers who love Lee's monster classics). I probably should once again say that one of my most favorite Lee films is Hammer's THE HOUND OF BASKERVILLES in which he is FAR FROM anything monstrous as in Dracula or Frankenstein.

It seems to be necessary here for me to underline the fact that I don't have a black 'n' white taste - I like many kinds of films, and most often even my favorite actors can't save a bad movie. SHALLOW GRAVE and REQUIEM FOR A DREAM are good examples of excellent, functional movies despite their "art movie" label. As I said in the review, I totally admit that on another, more deeper level THE WICKER MAN can be rather terrifying - but I can't help it, I like movies which speak to me in more straight terms and yet affect me extremely deeply; I really despise most of the brainless popcorn-rollercoaster-ride-clahsbrroooombang-effects-spectacular-entertainment that oozes constantly from Hollywood.

I basically wrote the review to give an opposite, honest and justifiable view on the movie which most people think as a true classic. I'm aware that matters of taste can never be debated about - I was after a healthy, mature conversation, and I sincerely hope that people here would not continue their personal attacks on me but concentrate in explaining WHAT EXACTLY makes THE WICKER MAN so good in their eyes and hearts.

Sincerely,
KEN

**Jacob Remery** · 18th February 2003, 09:37 AM

All i can say is that i watched The Wicker Man on Dutch t.v. when i was about 9 or 10 years old.
I didn't understood the story but loved every minute of it.
Imo you can still love a movie, even when you don't understand the storyline.
I'm 32 years of age now, I do understand it now and still love the movie. :D
It's my alltime favorite movie.

The thing with The Wicker Man is that it oozes atmosphere.
As a kid i did pick up that atmosphere and got into the whole movie.
Awesome music and great acting.
I think atmosphere is essential for a movie to be good.

Certainly The Wicker Man isn't everybody's cup of tea.
The story might be too bizarre for the mainstream audience.
If people don't like it, that's fine by me.

LCD · 18th February 2003, 02:42 PM

And just in the way an 11-year old wouldn't comprehend all the complexities of a movie like The Wicker Man, a 50-year old man might not be enthralled by The Rugrats. Like, some women like bingo (not me), others may love studying 18th century tapestry. Different tastes and personal backgrounds make for different choices. For me, The Wicker Man is a brilliant story beautifully told on film; it is simple yet layered, engagingly horrifying, and grips you by your beliefs, whatever they are.

Now, if you're talkin' bad movies with great actors, I've seen one that takes the cake. It even made me return the cheap EP speed video, I was so disappointed. Has anyone ever seen Bad Man's River starring Lee Van Cleef and James Mason? It was reeeaaaal bad. You couldn't tell if it was a spoof, a comedy, or what, and it just seemed that the actors gave up somewhere along the way because they knew it was so bad....Even the legendary James Mason (another fave actor of mine) couldn't save it.

Greg Harris · 20th February 2003, 12:23 AM

Well, i also love the wicker man.

infact.

i work in the entertainment section of WHSmiths, and an italian lady came into the shop i work at, and asked for what i thought was 'the wicked men' she said it was an old 70's film and implied that i probably have never heard of it.

i said that i'd never heard of it, then someone told me that she said 'the Wicker Man'

I then screamed 'The Wickerman? with Christopher lee?' across the shop and made a pratt of myself.

Its a shame she didnt want the DVD, we didnt have the VHS.

Thankyou for reading my useless information of the day.

Anne Ikonen · 20th February 2003, 03:50 PM

I think that The Wicker Man is one of the best Christopher Lee films what I have ever seen.I bought it about a year ago,and have watched it many,many times since then...In my opinion,The Wicker Man is really a very good horror film,if you can call it as a horror film,(perhaps "horrifying" but not a horror film)and I was amazed at the ending,because I couldn't believe that the film would end like it did...So,for me The Wicker Man remains as a cult classic,one of the best films that was ever made...

**Stuart Ball** · 21st February 2003, 07:15 PM

To enter the Wicker Man debate.........

I can see why the film is regarded as a classic.......I can also see why it isn't everyones cup of tea.

The Wicker Man is an intelligent movie but it is just not something I can savour again and again. In fact,if Mr Lee wasn't in it I probably would never have watched it.

Each to his own I suppose!

**Don Boycik** · 24th February 2003, 10:30 AM

thank you for saying that. that's the only reason i wanted to see it was for Christopher Lee. to me it kind of dragged on a bit. granted he had a wonderful part and my favorite part was the part where he sang least he does in the extended version anywys. and the storywise is a different pace druids i will give it that. it's different than the usuall movies that came out then and now. and it's a shame that the gentlemen who played the lead if forget his name has cancer now. but to me the original dracula. the curse of frankenstien, the musketeer movies, the lord of the rings movies etc.... are much better movies than The wicker man and i don't mean to sound a bit harsh that's not where i am aiming at. and i agree to each his own. but it's just not cup of tea as they say. i'm sorry.