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…

Imagine a plant that could think... Think!

The Avengers 4.12: Man-Eater of Surrey Green
Most remarked upon for Robert Banks-Stewart having “ripped it off” for 1976 Doctor Who story The Seeds of Doom, although, I’ve never been wholly convinced. Yes, there are significant similarities – an eccentric lady who knows her botany, a wealthy businessman living in a stately home with an affinity for vegetation, an alien plant that takes possession of humans, a very violent henchman and a climax involving a now oversized specimen turning very nasty… Okay, maybe they’re onto something there… – but The Seeds of Doom is really good, while Man-Eater of Surrey Green is just… okay.

Why are you painting my house?

mother!
(SPOILERS) Darren Aronofsky has a reasonably-sized chin, but on this evidence, in no time at all he’ll have reduced it to a forlorn stump with all that stroking. And then set the remains alight. And then summoned it back into existence for a whole new round of stroking. mother! is a self-indulgent exercise in unabated tedium in the name of a BIG idea, one no amount of assertive psued-ing post-the-fact can turn into a masterpiece. Yes, that much-noted “F” cinemascore was well warranted.

You better watch what you say about my car. She's real sensitive.

Christine (1983)
(SPOILER) John Carpenter was quite open about having no particular passion to make Christine. The Thing had gone belly-up at the box office, and adapting a Stephen King seemed like a sure-fire way to make bank. Unfortunately, its reception was tepid. It may have seemed like a no-brainer – Duel’s demonic truck had put Spielberg on the map a decade earlier – but Carpenter discoveredIt was difficult to make it frightening”. More like Herbie, then. Indeed, the director is at his best in the build-up to unleashing the titular automobile, making the fudging of the third act all the more disappointing.

This isn't fun, it's scary and disgusting.

It (2017)
(SPOILERS) Imagine how pleased I was to learn that an E Nesbitt adaptation had rocketed to the top of the US charts, evidently using a truncated version of its original title, much like John Carter of Mars. Imagine my disappointment on rushing to the cinema and seeing not a Psammead in sight. Can anyone explain why It is doing such phenomenal business? It isn’t the Stephen King brand, which regular does middling-at-best box office. Is it the nostalgia factor (‘50s repurposed as the ‘80s, so tapping into the Stranger Things thing, complete with purloined cast member)? Or maybe that it is, for the most part, a “classier” horror movie, one that puts its characters first (at least for the first act or so), and so invites audiences who might otherwise shun such fare? Perhaps there is no clear and outright reason, and it’s rather a confluence of circumstances. Certainly, as a (mostly) non-horror buff, I was impressed by how well It tackled pretty much everything that wasn’t the hor…

Let the monsters kill each other.

Game of Thrones Season Seven
(SPOILERS) Column inches devoted to Game of Thrones, even in “respectable” publications, seems to increase exponentially with each new season, so may well reach critical mass with the final run. Groundswells of opinion duly become more evident, and as happens with many a show by somewhere around this point, if not a couple of years prior, Season Seven has seen many of the faithful turn on once hallowed storytelling, and at least in part, there’s good reason for that.

Some suggest the show has jumped the shark (or crashed the Wall); there were concerns over how much the pace increased last year, divested as it was of George RR Martin’s novels as a direct source, but this year’s succession of events make Six seem positively sluggish. I don’t think GoT has suddenly, resoundingly, lost it, and I’d argue there did need to be an increase in momentum (people are quick to forget how much moaning went on about seemingly nothing happening for long stretches of previ…

It could have been an accident. He decided to sip a surreptitious sup and slipped. Splash!

4.10 A Surfeit of H20
A great episode title (definitely one of the series’ top ten) with a storyline boasting all the necessary ingredients (strange deaths in a small village, eccentric supporting characters, Emma even utters the immortal “You diabolical mastermind, you!”), yet A Surfeit of H20 is unable to quite pull itself above the run of the mill.

He’s a good kid, and a devil behind the wheel.

Baby Driver (2017)
(SPOILERS) Pure cinema. There are plenty of directors who engage in superficial flash and fizz (Danny Boyle or JJ Abrams, for example) but relatively few who actually come to the medium from a root, core level, visually. I’m slightly loathe to compare Edgar Wright with the illustrious likes of Sergio Leone and Brian De Palma, partly because they’re playing in largely different genre sandpits, partly because I don’t think Wright has yet made something that compares to their best work, but he operates from a similar sensibility: fashioning a movie foremost through image, supported by the soundtrack, and then, trailing a distant third, comes dialogue. Baby Driver is his most complete approximation of that impulse to date.

Rejoice! The broken are the more evolved. Rejoice.

Split (2016)
(SPOILERS) M Night Shyamalan went from the toast of twist-based filmmaking to a one-trick pony to the object of abject ridicule in the space of only a couple of pictures: quite a feat. Along the way, I’ve managed to miss several of his pictures, including his last, The Visit, regarded as something of a re-locating of his footing in the low budget horror arena. Split continues that genre readjustment, another Blumhouse production, one that also manages to bridge the gap with the fare that made him famous. But it’s a thematically uneasy film, marrying shlock and serious subject matter in ways that don’t always quite gel.

Shyamalan has seized on a horror staple – nubile teenage girls in peril, prey to a psychotic antagonist – and, no doubt with the best intentions, attempted to warp it. But, in so doing, he has dragged in themes and threads from other, more meritable fare, with the consequence that, in the end, the conflicting positions rather subvert his attempts at subversion…

Don't worry about Steed, ducky. I'll see he doesn't suffer.

The Avengers 4.11: Two’s A Crowd
Oh, look. Another Steed doppelganger episode. Or is it? One might be similarly less than complimentary about Warren Mitchell dusting off his bungling Russian agent/ambassador routine (it obviously went down a storm with the producers; he previously played Keller in The Charmers and Brodny would return in The See-Through Man). Two’s A Crowd coasts on the charm of its leads and supporting performances (including Julian Glover), but it’s middling fare at best.