The Wicker Man

Forums: Movies
Email this Topic • Print this Page

For years the 1974 British movie, "The Wicker Man" has scared the hell out of me. I have always thought that it was the most terrifying movie that I have ever seen.

A reworking of the movie is coming out, starring Nicholas Cage. I saw a short clip of it, and at first glance, looked like a good successor to the original. Only time will tell, because it is not yet released until early September.

http://movies.yahoo.com/movie/1809429392/trailer

One thing that I noticed. The original movie was rated "R", while this new one is a "PG-13". I wonder if this difference has more to do with changes in what is acceptable to youngsters, or has the movie been "softened" to attract a wider audience?

Only time will tell. In the meantime, I have ordered the original on Blockbuster online, so that I can watch it again. I believe that the DVD is a truncated version, but I don't know where I could get the original, longer version.

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 5,144 • Replies: 28

No top replies

I think the R-rating of the original was mostly due to the nude dance performed by Britt Ekland (or her body double). Since the remake is a US film, I doubt that they will repeat the explicit nudity, but they will probably increase on the violence and gore.

0 Replies

Ive never seen it but Ive heard its good.Il put it on my list.

Has anybody seen 'Something wicked this way comes'?Is it as good as the Wickere man or completely diferent?

0 Replies

So typical of Hollywood...

Violence and gore = good

Sex and sexuality = bad

I loved the original Whicker Man, Christopher Lee maintains this is the film role he is most proud of!

Edward Woodward put in a brilliant performance too.

I hope they do the original justice, as I like Nic Cage... he's quirky/sexy

x

0 Replies

The two films have nothing in common except that Something Wicked this Way comes (1983) is also a horror film. It was based on the novel by Ray Bradbury about a diabolical circus. The title was taken from Shakespeare's Macbeth at the beginning of the first act when one of the witches declares: "By the pricking of my thumbs, something wicked this way comes".

The Wicker Man (1973) is based on a novel by Andrew Shaffer and its main theme is a pagan religion.

Isn't it typical that the Franch rating for the original was 12 years and older, while the remake will probably get a rating for 13 or 15 years and over! Confused

0 Replies

Paaskynen wrote:

I think the R-rating of the original was mostly due to the nude dance performed by Britt Ekland (or her body double). Since the remake is a US film, I doubt that they will repeat the explicit nudity, but they will probably increase on the violence and gore.

I sincerely hope that they don't increase the violence and gore. The most terrifying part of the film was that it all so understated. One did not have any idea of what was coming, until it was actually there. It was the psychological understanding about what had happened that was so frightening. (I won't say any more. I don't want to give anything away!)

0 Replies

Paaskynen wrote:

The two films have nothing in common except that Something Wicked this Way comes (1983) is also a horror film. It was based on the novel by Ray Bradbury about a diabolical circus. The title was taken from Shakespeare's Macbeth at the beginning of the first act when one of the witches declares: "By the pricking of my thumbs, something wicked this way comes".

The Wicker Man (1973) is based on a novel by Andrew Shaffer and its main theme is a pagan religion.

Isn't it typical that the Franch rating for the original was 12 years and older, while the remake will probably get a rating for 13 or 15 years and over!

Both sound great, hope to see them one day.

0 Replies

Wow! Phoenix. You are right. The original was really scarey. I recall Edward in that wicker cage--a burnt offering?

Still looks pretty good:

http://www.whatsonstage.com/dl/res_images/EdwardWoodward_colour.jpg

0 Replies

Paaskynen wrote:

Something Wicked this Way comes (1983) was based on the novel by Ray Bradbury about a diabolical circus. The title was taken from Shakespeare's Macbeth at the beginning of the first act when one of the witches declares: "By the pricking of my thumbs, something wicked this way comes".

I stand corrected, it was Act 4, scene 1. Embarrassed

0 Replies

Paaskynen wrote:

Paaskynen wrote:
Something Wicked this Way comes (1983) was based on the novel by Ray Bradbury about a diabolical circus. The title was taken from Shakespeare's Macbeth at the beginning of the first act when one of the witches declares: "By the pricking of my thumbs, something wicked this way comes".

I stand corrected, it was Act 4, scene 1.

Thats it, Im slinging you out of Shakespeare school!!

0 Replies

I'm not sure that more tasteful nudity would now command an R rating. Many movies from that long ago were given R rating when today they could slip by with a PG13. NC17 is actually the new R.

0 Replies

Lightwizard wrote:

I'm not sure that more tasteful nudity would now command an R rating. Many movies from that long ago were given R rating when today they could slip by with a PG13. NC17 is actually the new R.

I was thinking the same thing. I have not seen a movie rated "X", (later, NC-17) in years. I remember that "Midnight Cowboy" came out originally as "X" rated. It is now an "R".

LW- Did "Midnight Cowboy" have scenes cut to make it an "R", or is it just a change in standards?

0 Replies

The one rather overt heterosexual sex scene, the rather tame homosexual scene where Jon Voight rejects the gay man, and the strongly implied gay overtones of the relationship between Voight and Hoffman gave it that rating. Today, it would probably be an R rating and not an NC17. I could practically guarantee that. NC17 as far as sex goes would be considered soft porn. X would be fairly explicit depictions of penetration (not covered by sheets or blankets) and I guess some of us know what XX and XXX. means. :wink:

0 Replies

LW- Oh what changes there have been in the film industry. I can still remember the brouhaha over "The Moon is Blue", and "Lolita". Today the youngsters would probably wonder what the fuss was all about,

0 Replies

Yes, times have certainly changed!

0 Replies

(How about "Electra" in the 30's?)

0 Replies

Lightwizard wrote:

(How about "Electra" in the 30's?)

Never heard of that one, LW. Besides, that was before my time. I'm not THAT old!

0 Replies

Well, there are no professional reviews of the new "Wicker Man" that I could find. I am not too encouraged though, by these reviews from two amateur reviewers who saw the film.

Link

0 Replies

I can't see it being very good, pheonix. But will reserve judgement 'till viewed.

Trouble with remaking this particular film is that the original was 'of it's time' and much of the sinister aspects were implied rather than shown - audiences are more sophisticated now, but they want everything explained of CGI'ed.

x

0 Replies

smorgs wrote:

much of the sinister aspects were implied rather than shown - audiences are more sophisticated now

I dunno about that. I think that implied horror is a lot more sophisticated than explicit horror. I think that the younger people are inured to the "blood and guts" that they see on TV and the movies.

Not wanting to give away the denouement of the original "Wicker Man", I was having a discussion, by PM, with Lightwizard. The thing about the original (longer) version of the film that I saw, was the psychological subtlety of it.

I ordered the DVD from Blockbuster Online. It came in the shorter version. Those few minutes of cuts, IMO, destroyed the aspect of the film that had haunted me, lo these 32 years.

0 Replies

The Wicker Man

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know