|
|
Post by GL on Aug 31, 2012 10:03:35 GMT -5
 Agreeing to travel to Scotland on a missionary trip, a Christian couple find their host family part of a clan that practices Pagan rituals and worship that are intending on using them for one of their next ceremonies. What did everyone think of this one? |
|
HNT
 Grizzled HMaM Vet 
Horror in General & Everything Else Moderator[/i]
Kiss my tuchis
Posts: 6,296
|
Post by HNT on Aug 31, 2012 10:25:19 GMT -5
Which Wicker Man is this associated with? I have next to no interest in it either way, because even the brilliant original is not a film that deserves any sort of sequel, but I damn sure have no interest in doing anything further to support the Nicholas Cage abomination or anyone involved in its creation
|
|
|
|
Post by GL on Sept 3, 2012 10:39:57 GMT -5
It's a sequel to the original.
|
|
|
|
Post by GP on Sept 3, 2012 15:27:13 GMT -5
It's not a sequel, it just explores similar themes. It's also a bit crap.
|
|
|
|
Post by GL on Sept 4, 2012 10:02:34 GMT -5
Oh, really? Cause it's by the same director, Christopher Lee was there and it's an island of pagans off the British coast. It had been a long time since I saw the original and didn't remember the island's name so I put two-and-two together.
|
|
|
|
Post by GP on Sept 4, 2012 13:40:25 GMT -5
Oh, really? Cause it's by the same director, Christopher Lee was there and it's an island of pagans off the British coast. It had been a long time since I saw the original and didn't remember the island's name so I put two-and-two together. Yeah me too initially, but it's not set on Summerisle (or in fact on an island, it's set on the mainland) and, although there is definitely a mischief to having Christopher Lee in it, his character, according to Lee, was not intended to be an aged Lord Summerisle. It was loosely based on a book by The Wicker Man director Robin Hardy (Cowboys For Christ) whom, although the director of the original, was NOT the writer of The Wicker Man(that was a playright called Anthony Shaffer, who had nothing to do with this one as he died about ten years ago). Ultimately it's a fairly lame and cynical attempt to cash in on the reputation of The Wicker Man, which is a shame because if they had gone with a different title and kept Christopher Lee out of it it may have played as a fairly interesting independent film. Unfortunately their decision led to the inevitable comparisons and as a result it looks pretty shoddy. |
|
HNT
Grizzled HMaM Vet
Horror in General & Everything Else Moderator[/i]
Kiss my tuchis
Posts: 6,296
|
Post by HNT on Sept 4, 2012 15:15:32 GMT -5
Too bad. I hate this kind of lame cash in attempt. the people involved in the original film made a movie that I love, so I would have given them a shot if they merely mentioned that they were involved in making another picture. The problem comes in when they try to capitalize off of something that has nothing to do with the new film, kinda like the Night of the Living Dead 30th Anniversary abomination, but perhaps not qutie as awful.
|
|
|
|
Post by GL on Sept 5, 2012 10:00:27 GMT -5
Well, I didn't even know the connection (and ended up being wrong about it anyway) but I put it at a two since the nudity was the only thing that really stuck out here. The ceremony makes no sense, the inclusion of the power plant affecting the locals plot-point seems lame and underwritten as if it was stuck in after-the-fact, plus that dreaded British pacing that moves everything along without any sense of energy, enthusiasm or even care, not because it was a weak cash-in on something that happened 40 years previously.
|
|
HMaM Global Mod
Custodian of the Keep
