Skip to main content

Step away, from the bike!

The Wicker Man
(2006)

(SPOILERS) There’s been a seemingly endless supply of remakes of ‘70s movies since the turn of the millennium, most of which I’ve managed to avoid. I’ve yet to experience the dubious pleasures of Stallone’s Get Carter, Branagh’s Sleuth, or Rod Lurie’s Straw Dogs, for example. I did have a vague interest in Neil La Bute’s take on The Wicker Man, however, given it has developed its very own cult reputation, of a “so bad it’s good” variety. Most of which rests on a typically eccentric Nicolas Cage performance, which I tend to be all for. But still, I was resistant, out of respect for the original. It seemed a sacrilegious act to have even gone there, which given the themes of Robin Hardy’s film might have been exactly why LaBute thought it was fair game.


Not the bees!”, is the key quoted line from the remake, which isn’t even in the original theatrical cut (like the 1973 film, this Wicker Man has a cult following, and like the 1973 film it also has its very own legacy of alternate versions; the context is entirely less respectful, of course). Such is the thespian excess on display in the climactic sequence, it has inspired numerous mocking/celebrating YouTube clips. I’d like to be able to affirm the picture’s revised reputation as a cult comedy classic, but while it undoubtedly features a raft of inspired, lunatic moments, mostly down to Nic himself (Cage says he knew all along it was absurd, but his performances often suggest he’s the only person in a movie who sees the material that way), it remains some considerable distance from such exalted status.


While the remake’s adulterated premise arguably lends itself to the preposterous, and one might read it as LaBute caricaturing – or poking the badger, or bear, with regards to his critics – the accusations of misogyny that had cropped up in his previous work (albeit a misanthropic inclination has always been the most pervasive charge; I don’t think there’s much arguing with that one), there simply isn’t enough besides Cage to support that.


LaBute has never been one for the subtler elements, preferring to tackle his subjects head on. Hence the ungainly decision, whatever is precise root “inspiration” may have been, to engineer a gender reversal on characters from the original; “Summersisle” is now transposed to America, and presided over by a rather stiff matriarch (Ellen Burstyn). Many of the alterations are relatively cosmetic, and the picture suffers accordingly, despite its hyperbolic (Nic) elements. Instead of devising an at-least-interesting take on esteemed material, one mostly finds oneself conscious of how scenes have been lifted wholesale from the original, right down repeating the dialogue, and concluding that change has been made for change’s sake rather than any really good reason.


True, Cage’s Edward Malus (really?) is somewhat different to Edward Woodward’s Sergeant Howie. Which is for the good; a straightjacketed Cage would have been a death sentence to the picture. Malus’s motorcycle cop is most definitely non- virginal, his lure to the island being an ex and (eventually) the prospect that he’s the father of her “missing” daughter. Rather than brandishing Woodward’s (his ex, played by Karre Beahan, is named Willow Woodward; I’m not sure the “tribute” to the actor is really warranted) self-righteous moral fervour, Cage is inimitably Cage, and at intervals gloriously entertaining with it. He’s prone to an unfortunate bee allergy, manifested in deliriously deliberate fashion, particularly so given he is visiting an island known for its honey production where fields are mown in the shape of honeycombs. He even dresses up as a bear at the climax, since we know what their greatest love is, and what they don’t much care for in tandem with that.


If the picture rather traces its way along the lines of Robin Hardy’s film for the first two-thirds, it becomes energetically over-the-top in time for the grand finale. It’s not enough that Cage is swatting bees as if they’re flies, or exclaiming repeatedly “How’d it get burned?!” of his daughter’s doll; he’s compelled to draw his gun and instruct cyclist Molly Parker to “Get off the bike! Get off the bike! Step away, from the bike!”. Then he lays out Dena Delano, before drop-kicking Leelee Sobeiski and running about in aforementioned bear outfit (encumbered by which, he punches more of the island’s womenfolk). When he’s finally accosted, spitting “You bitches!”, his ankles are broken in a moment closer to the sort of surreal comedy you’d expect from The Goodies than horror (“AHHH, my legs!”). His cloistering within the Wicker Man is antically memorable too, ushered to his doom with the chant of “The drone must die!


All of which might suggest LaBute was also on board in making the film “absurd”. Aside from being a rather inane mission (assuming he had any respect for the original), though, such mentalist flair isn’t in sufficient supply. And the thematic material that remains is either too literal or under-nourished. The duelling belief systems motif is effectively dropped, since Cage doesn’t believe, leaving him to wonder how, as an outsider, his sacrifice has any value. And the gender divisions are plain clumsy and hackneyed – or perhaps just absurd. I did rather like the – overdone – bee motif, but even that aspect, which has connotations of shamanic practice, is awarded a very pedestrian interpretation.


Still, given The Wicker Man remake’s reputation – the one that doesn’t allow for it being a comedy – as some kind of nadir in movie taste, recognised as such with five Golden Razzie nominations, it’s not unwatchable, or in its own way un-entertaining. Its greatest strength is Cage (I wonder what LaBute must think, given this is by far his best-known feature), elevating every scene he’s in whether the scene likes it or not, but those clip compilations rather do the film more favours than it deserves as a piece of demented genius (I don’t doubt, though, that if you’re watching in a sufficiently altered state, it is the funniest film ever). On top of which, however you cut it, having the ubiquitous James Franco show up in the final scene is unforgivable.


Agree? Disagree? Mildly or vehemently? Let me know in the comments below.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

She writes Twilight fan fiction.

Vampire Academy (2014)
My willingness to give writer Daniel Waters some slack on the grounds of early glories sometimes pays off (Sex and Death 101) and sometimes, as with this messy and indistinct Young Adult adaptation, it doesn’t. If Vampire Academy plods along as a less than innovative smart-mouthed Buffy rip-off that might be because, if you added vampires to Heathers, you would probably get something not so far from the world of Joss Whedon. Unfortunately inspiration is a low ebb throughout, not helped any by tepid direction from Daniel’s sometimes-reliable brother Mark and a couple of hopelessly plankish leads who do their best to dampen down any wit that occasionally attempts to surface.

I can only presume there’s a never-ending pile of Young Adult fiction poised for big screen failure, all of it comprising multi-novel storylines just begging for a moment in the Sun. Every time an adaptation crashes and burns (and the odds are that they will) another one rises, hydra-like, hoping…

My name is Dr. King Schultz, this is my valet, Django, and these are our horses, Fritz, and Tony.

Django Unchained (2012)
(MINOR SPOILERS) Since the painful misstep of Grindhouse/Death Proof, Quentin Tarantino has regained the higher ground like never before. Pulp Fiction, his previous commercial and critical peak, has been at very least equalled by the back-to-back hits of Inglourious Basterds and Django Unchained. Having been underwhelmed by his post Pulp Fiction efforts (albeit, I admired his technical advances as a director in Kill Bill), I was pleasantly surprised by Inglourious Basterds. It was no work of genius (so not Pulp Fiction) by any means, but there was a gleeful irreverence in its treatment of history and even to the nominal heroic status of its titular protagonists. Tonally, it was a good fit for the director’s “cool” aesthetic. As a purveyor of postmodern pastiche, where the surface level is the subtext, in some ways he was operating at his zenith. Django Unchained is a retreat from that position, the director caught in the tug between his all-important aesthetic pr…

I am so sick of Scotland!

Outlaw/King (2018)
(SPOILERS) Proof that it isn't enough just to want to make a historical epic, you have to have some level of vision for it as well. Say what you like about Mel's Braveheart – and it isn't a very good film – it's got sensibility in spades. He knew what he was setting out to achieve, and the audience duly responded. What does David Mackenzie want from Outlaw/King (it's shown with a forward slash on the titles, so I'm going with it)? Ostensibly, and unsurprisingly, to restore the stature of Robert the Bruce after it was rather tarnished by Braveheart, but he has singularly failed to do so. More than that, it isn’t an "idea", something you can recognise or get behind even if you don’t care about the guy. You’ll never forget Mel's Wallace, for better or worse, but the most singular aspect of Chris Pine's Bruce hasn’t been his rousing speeches or heroic valour. No, it's been his kingly winky.

If this is not a place for a priest, Miles, then this is exactly where the Lord wants me.

Bad Times at the El Royale (2018)
(SPOILERS) Sometimes a movie comes along where you instantly know you’re safe in the hands of a master of the craft, someone who knows exactly the story they want to tell and precisely how to achieve it. All you have to do is sit back and exult in the joyful dexterity on display. Bad Times at the El Royale is such a movie, and Drew Goddard has outdone himself. From the first scene, set ten years prior to the main action, he has constructed a dizzyingly deft piece of work, stuffed with indelible characters portrayed by perfectly chosen performers, delirious twists and game-changing flashbacks, the package sealed by an accompanying frequently diegetic soundtrack, playing in as it does to the essential plot beats of the whole. If there's a better movie this year, it will be a pretty damn good one.

There's something wrong with the sky.

Hold the Dark (2018)
(SPOILERS) Hold the Dark, an adaptation of William Giraldi's 2014 novel, is big on atmosphere, as you'd expect from director Jeremy Saulnier (Blue Ruin, Green Room) and actor-now-director (I Don’t Want to Live in This World Anymore) pal Macon Blair (furnishing the screenplay and appearing in one scene), but contrastingly low on satisfying resolutions. Being wilfully oblique can be a winner if you’re entirely sure what you're trying to achieve, but the effect here is rather that it’s "for the sake of it" than purposeful.

It was one of the most desolate looking places in the world.

They Shall Not Grow Old (2018)
Peter Jackson's They Shall Not Grow Old, broadcast by the BBC on the centenary of Armistice Day, is "sold" on the attraction and curiosity value of restored, colourised and frame rate-enhanced footage. On that level, this World War I documentary, utilising a misquote from Laurence Binyon's poem for its title, is frequently an eye-opener, transforming the stuttering, blurry visuals that have hitherto informed subsequent generations' relationship with the War. However, that's only half the story; the other is the use of archive interviews with veterans to provide a narrative, exerting an effect often more impacting for what isn't said than for what is.

You kind of look like a slutty Ebola virus.

Crazy Rich Asians (2018)
(SPOILERS) The phenomenal success of Crazy Rich Asians – in the US at any rate, thus far – might lead one to think it's some kind of startling original, but the truth is, whatever its core demographic appeal, this adaptation of Kevin Kwan's novel taps into universally accepted romantic comedy DNA and readily recognisable tropes of family and class, regardless of cultural background. It emerges a smoothly professional product, ticking the expected boxes in those areas – the heroine's highs, lows, rejections, proposals, accompanied by whacky scene-stealing best friend – even if the writing is sometimes a little on the clunky side.

He mobilised the English language and sent it into battle.

Darkest Hour (2017)
(SPOILERS) Watching Joe Wright’s return to the rarefied plane of prestige – and heritage to boot – filmmaking following the execrable folly of the panned Pan, I was struck by the difference an engaged director, one who cares about his characters, makes to material. Only last week, Ridley Scott’s serviceable All the Money in the World made for a pointed illustration of strong material in the hands of someone with no such investment, unless they’re androids. Wright’s dedication to a relatable Winston Churchill ensures that, for the first hour-plus, Darkest Hour is a first-rate affair, a piece of myth-making that barely puts a foot wrong. It has that much in common with Wright’s earlier Word War II tale, Atonement. But then, like Atonement, it comes unstuck.

Prepare the Heathen’s Stand! By order of purification!

Apostle (2018)
(SPOILERS) Another week, another undercooked Netflix flick from an undeniably talented director. What’s up with their quality control? Do they have any? Are they so set on attracting an embarrassment of creatives, they give them carte blanche, to hell with whether the results are any good or not? Apostle's an ungainly folk-horror mashup of The Wicker Man (most obviously, but without the remotest trace of that screenplay's finesse) and any cult-centric Brit horror movie you’d care to think of (including Ben Wheatley's, himself an exponent of similar influences-on-sleeve filmmaking with Kill List), taking in tropes from Hammer, torture porn, and pagan lore but revealing nothing much that's different or original beyond them.

It seemed as if I had missed something.

Room 237 (2012)
Stanley Kubrick’s meticulous, obsessive approach towards filmmaking was renowned, so perhaps it should be no surprise to find comparable traits reflected in a section of his worshippers. Legends about the director have taken root (some of them with a factual basis, others bunkum), while the air of secrecy that enshrouded his life and work has duly fostered a range of conspiracy theories. A few of these are aired in Rodney Ascher’s documentary, which indulges five variably coherent advocates of five variably tenuous theories relating to just what The Shining is really all about. Beyond Jack Nicholson turning the crazy up to 11, that is. Ascher has hit on a fascinating subject, one that exposes our capacity to interpret any given information wildly differently according to our disposition. But his execution, which both underlines and undermines the theses of these devotees, leaves something to be desired.

Part of the problem is simply one of production values. The audio tra…