the wicker man

i have a renewed crush on "the wicker man." it's an excellent film which i've seen only twice, but will surely watch many more times. i'm very concerned, however, about the rehash slated to be released on september first. originally, when i realized there was going to be a remake, i was really interested, so i rented the original again. it was so fucking choice, man. not only could this film not have been done better, but this remake, as i deduce from reading the wikipedia entry and watching the trailer, will completely repaint this entire story and muddy the entire idea.

to begin, the new film replaces christopher lee's incredible character, lord summeraisle, with a female role. this is just completely unnecessary and a too-obvious move to make it modern and borderless. blech-- especially since gender/sex was important to the belief system of this town. also, the trailer suggests that this film is trying to reach for the teen horror audience which demands blood and gore fancy tricks and quick edits. none of this was present or necessary in the original to make it frightening or worth watching. the suspense and creepiness in the 1973 version was inherent in its plot's setup, the setting in general and the tone of its characters. no intense horrror or graphic images were necessary. there was no specific tone of evil or fright-- much was left open to interpretation. i guess the new director realizes that most moviegoers need their movies to be interpreted for them. i shudder to think how awful the soundtrack to the new film will be. that of the original helped make the film. some even call it a musical, as the music was more in the foreground than not, and there a couple of blatant musicalesque scenes. and i abhor musicals.
i believe all the heart and the art will be lost in the remake, as is often the case. but this somehow makes me much sadder than the average remake. the original was made to be a horror film, but of a different ilk. altho i am no movie expert, i don't think there's another film that touches this one-- and i'm especially pointing my finger (and wagging it!) at the never-shoulda-been remake. you money-grubbing whores-- i wish you'd've kept your dirty american paws offa this one. i mean fuck- the original was filmed and set in scotland and this one is set in the US--ugh-- how unromantic-- and filmed in canada. nice way to ruin the mood, asshats!

as a stand alone film, as in had the original not been produced at all, this film could potentially be okay. i would never suggest anyone see it without first seeing the original--or hell, go see it and then watch the original if you wish-- i have confidence you will decide that the original far fucking surpasses this tripe. i'm an anti-fan of nicholas-my-uncle-francis-made-me-an-actor-cage. the new film would tempt me to see it just to see... well... just to see him suffer in many parts of the film. all in all, i haven't decided if i will boycott this new cinematic monstrosity, or if i'll see it just so i'll know how awful it is/ have something to be pissed about for a few hours. but i know i won't be paying to see it with my hard-earned scrill. and neither should you. you should, however (those in my city), gather four non-perishable food items (food drive ends sept 16th) and rent it at video difference. or somewhere else. just see it. there's lots of tits, great costumes, pretty scenery, pagan rituals, great songs, christopher lee, and best of all... sheer unfettered creepiness.