The Wicker Man [Blu-ray]

Good movie.

After having watched both versions of this movie, I thought that there were two major problems with the Nicholas Cage remake: 1. The stark dichotomy between Christianity and Paganism isn't present and 2. The people of the remake's Summersisle are joyless in thier pursuit of a harvest.The original police officer was clearly a devote Christian, praying instead of answering Willow's call to sleep with her. The detective in the remake didn't have this. While in the first movie it was clear that the islanders needed someone who was pure (a virgin), someone who's beliefs were radically different and didn't have a connection to the island. In the remake, this has totally disappeared, and the replacement back story (of Willow and Edward) didn't really cut it. Without this dichotomy, the film falls flat...the women have no real reason to choose Edward, other than the fact that he had fathered one of the children...any man on the island could have been the sacrifice. Why choose him? What made him so very special that he, and only he, could fulfill the part of the sacrifice?Secondly, the filmmaker of the remake made his pagans very joyless. There wasn't the fun, the sensuality or the joy that the original's islanders had. In the original, people are having sex in the fields, Willow tries to seduce the detective and the bar patrons encourage this with lusty folk songs. The director of the remake took all the fun and joy out of the film, making it seem like a prison, run by women. There was no life, no fun, no May pole. It was almost like being in a convent...there wasn't the same sense of joy in life that the original had.If the director of the remake had really wanted to catch the spirit of the original, he needed to reproduce what made the original so successful (and I'm not talking about Christoher Lee's terrible haircut!) He needed to recreate the joy and sensuality of Summerisle. Instead he made a very Christian film, showing a society run by women to be a horrible, joyless place. This remake is a completely joyless, almost anti-women movie.I agree with most people who have seen the original and the remake...do yourself a favor and see the original. You'll enjoy it a lot more.

I am a Nicolas Cage fan, but I was put off by this film's lukewarm reviews. I watched this film (the unrated version with the alternate ending), and then I re-viewed the 1973 VHS cassette (84 minute) British film version of the  Wicker Man [VHS ].The 1973 British film version is classic lusty cinema from a comparatively staid era. Today's cinema viewers are jaded, and the 2006 US film remake reflects US modern cultural differences while following a similar plot. The 1973 film depicts British Pagans lustily worshiping agrarian fertility and human fertility while seeking a Christian sacrifice to appease their Pagan indifferent gods. The 2006 film depicts Dianic witchcraft (a magickal tradition discussed in  Drawing Down the Moon: Witches, Druids, Goddess-Worshippers, and Other Pagans in America Today (Compass)  where men play a weak supporting role): the Dianic witches proactively identify a potential future sacrifice in case the witches' apiaries (where symbolically the queen bees rule and male drones largely are idle) fail.That said, Nicolas Cage believably depicts a man personally pulled into a (Pagan) family intimate problem. And both film versions follow the identical plot to the point of repeating dialogue. But the 21st Century Dianic witchcraft depicted in this film remake lacks the entertaining charm of the 20th Century lusty Paganism depicted in the film original version.

Great movie it's got a twist at the end

As someone familiar with the original 1973 Wicker Man movie, this movie can't so much as wave in its direction, and is ultimately a great poster child for horrible cult-classic remakes. The changes between the original movie's story and this one are hilariously stupid at best and boring at worst, and subtlety is not a word in anyone's vocabulary here. That being said, it's quite fun to watch as a group and poke fun at the absurdities, but more so if you have the context of the original. I'd highly recommend watching Edward Woodward and Christopher Lee's stellar performances in the 1973 version (which I believe is free at this time with Prime) before watching this, then get some friends together and spend your night making fun of some bad Nicholas Cage!

I cannot believe they cut out the pinnacle scene where Nicholas Cage gets set on by bees.Not just because of the memes, but because it made sense why he had a bee allergy in the plot. They show his fricking epipens and then nothing?I would say not worth it in this cut. The whole film draws you in, messes with you (and Nick Cage) and then gives you this crazy, big finale. Which this cut absolutely castrates.Unbelievable.

Regarding the 1973 version, let's admit that this is a strange movie, to say the least. It is, of course, a cult classic, and as far as "artsy" movies go, par for the course. If you want a lot of nudity and sexual content, this delivers, gratuitously so. If you are reading this review, you know the plot of the movie, which is the best part. The twist at the end is what makes the film. However, to praise the 1973 version as some great cinematic feat while bashing the 2006 (Nicolas Cage) version as a total flop is an utter display of bias and sentimentality. The 2006 version is better in many respects, not the least being its feminine overtures, which is more consistent with the Celtic mythology which drives the actions of the island cult. I imagine those who see the 2006 version with no knowledge of the 1973 version will find the newer version to be quite good. "Remakes" rarely fare well among a cult film's adherents, and those who prefer modern special effects, acting, and directing, etc., generally do not like the older and arguably "cheesier" films. "The Wicker Man" story is what makes this a great film.

got the blu ray but it was burned??tell me how'd it get burned how'd it get burned how'd it get burned!!

Many have tried to remake and create sequals to the infamous British classic The Wicker Man and all have failed. This film is no exception. This is another example of what happens when American's get their hands on another countries finer pieces of work they did it with The Ring, The Eye, The Uninvited (a blatent rip off of Korean movie Tale of Two Sisters)and now The Wicker Man. As a pagan The Wicker Man (original)is fairly accurate in that we worship nature and it's duality. The American version dipicts a society that considers women superior and as much as I love female empowerment that's not what paganism is about. It's filled with stupid gimicks such as all the women refering to each other as 'Sister' and torture by bees....seriously? Bees? On the plus side they did pay homage to the original film and it's pretty well acted with a few disturbing dream scenes. It may not be brilliant but if your looking for a something to watch with a few friends on a friday night with a few bottles of wine it's not too dismal....just as long as you're not expecting too much.

Definitely not as good as the original starring Christopher Lee (because, ultimately, who could compete with him?), but one can see that this was rather a desperate American remake that is notorious because of, well, that, as well as Nicholas Cage, unfortunately. It isn't all bad, in my opinion, because if this was compared to the 1973 version, one could see that the producers were trying to give Cage's character (Edward Malus) more of a personality, but it only ends up twisting the storyline that makes this stand out too far behind the other. But, personally, it is okay to watch, even though they added in too many stupid lines as many would have already heard, like "Not the bees", "Step away from the bike" and "How'd it get burned?!" (x4). Nonetheless, you could say that this is an acquired taste.

I saw the original of this movie only last year (2013) and thought it was absolutely diabolical and nowhere near the alleged CLASSIC it was supposed to be. Having just watched Nicholas Cage's version I can't see why it gets so many bad reviews. Okay it isn't amazing but it was an enjoyable watch all the same. It could've been better but I think that is down to the direction of the film rather than Cage's performance, which was decent but not his absolute best.

Dont waste your time with this piece of rubbish its an incoherant insult to the original classic of the same name!What is it with highly paid but lazy filmmakers rehashing old classics for a new generation of movie goers,but taking away all themagic and charm that made the originals so great?This film is so bad it doesnt deserve a star at all!!!

Thankyou for this Blu-ray It is brilliant filmNicholas Cage is good actor this filmDelivery are quick and very good service