Magnificos
Joined Mar 2004
Welcome to the new profile
We're still working on updating some profile features. To see the badges, ratings breakdowns, and polls for this profile, please go to the previous version.
Reviews9
Magnificos's rating
It is a real shame that this disaster will likely play a part in the downfall of potentially intelligent and interesting horror films coming out of the Hollywood wasteland.
The acting is nothing, the plot is not in the least intriguing (the original was suspenseful and a disorientating roller-coaster on first viewing), and there emerges simply no point or reason for this film to exist. I was angry sitting in the theatre, a Cage fan (though now nearly a former fan) wondering why in the world he did this? Obviously I had seen the original, and just this afternoon bought a DVD of the original and watched it. And you know what? These people were crazy to remake it! Some remakes make sense. Really, they do. But here? It's completely out of context this new one! The original is timeless.
The new WICKER MAN is poorly done -- the mystery doesn't exist, the director is a "smack you in the face with contemporary issues kind of guy" with no nuance, and he's completely wrong for this film. He did well with IN THE COMPANY OF MEN, but how in the world, by any bizarre stretch, can that be connected to THE WICKER MAN? It is ludicrous! Others have made that point in a variety of ways, please read their reviews for elaboration.
Cage should make a PUBLIC APOLOGY to any fans he has left at this point. You know, people who appreciate that he got behind cool movies like, say, SHADOW OF THE VAMPIRE. He should hold it at that castle he bought, dressed in his best Elvis style leather jacket, and simply apologize for what stupid idea this was. He'd win back a lot of good will that way.
Are you reading this, Nicholas? Do the right thing and gain some respect back! Nobody cares about the crappy Bruckheimer movies, you took the money and that's cool, but this is something that requires a public apology.
The acting is nothing, the plot is not in the least intriguing (the original was suspenseful and a disorientating roller-coaster on first viewing), and there emerges simply no point or reason for this film to exist. I was angry sitting in the theatre, a Cage fan (though now nearly a former fan) wondering why in the world he did this? Obviously I had seen the original, and just this afternoon bought a DVD of the original and watched it. And you know what? These people were crazy to remake it! Some remakes make sense. Really, they do. But here? It's completely out of context this new one! The original is timeless.
The new WICKER MAN is poorly done -- the mystery doesn't exist, the director is a "smack you in the face with contemporary issues kind of guy" with no nuance, and he's completely wrong for this film. He did well with IN THE COMPANY OF MEN, but how in the world, by any bizarre stretch, can that be connected to THE WICKER MAN? It is ludicrous! Others have made that point in a variety of ways, please read their reviews for elaboration.
Cage should make a PUBLIC APOLOGY to any fans he has left at this point. You know, people who appreciate that he got behind cool movies like, say, SHADOW OF THE VAMPIRE. He should hold it at that castle he bought, dressed in his best Elvis style leather jacket, and simply apologize for what stupid idea this was. He'd win back a lot of good will that way.
Are you reading this, Nicholas? Do the right thing and gain some respect back! Nobody cares about the crappy Bruckheimer movies, you took the money and that's cool, but this is something that requires a public apology.
Those poor, poor animators and production designers on this show. They knocked themselves out on this really terrible effort from third-rate Tim Burton rip-off Brad Peyton.
Lucy the irritating monster in the toilet paper roll with the annoying voice -- completely unlikeable and enough to turn the channel before one episode is finished (never to return). Really lame sight-joke characters. Adult humour in an infantile format which misses the mark completely as to how South Park and the rest pull these things off so well. Insults to gay people, racism, insults to thinking people everywhere. How in the world did the CBC let this one slide on by? Read on.
Those poor animators...
Poorer still are the Canadian Tax-payers who flipped the bill for this one. Not unlike the endless disasters from the English Canadian film Illuminati (Egoyan and those other failures Canadians hate so much), the Canadian public who is paying for this garbage is avoiding it with a passion. I read today that the ratings are down to 118k average for the season so far. Which means, at some point, the ratings dropped to about 90 thousand people, across the whole of Canada, who paid for this. It doesn't get much worse than that. An astonishing .25% of Canadians are watching this show (ONE QUARTER OF ONE PERCENT). It cost us HOW MUCH? As a point of fact, the ratings have been dropping through the floor since the premier episode, falling off an incredible 40%! Some people gave it a chance, then fled after seeing how worthless it was. If this were in the US, it would be yanked immediately and never heard from again. Brad Peyton's career would be thankfully over and he'd be sent packing to flip burgers back in Gander, Newfoundland -- his natural calling. But this is Canada.
Terrible writing, irritating characters, bad jokes, no actual audience that can be identified, and the whole rip-off fake pseudo-Burton/Suess/Sesame Street thing is infuriatingly bad. So how did it happen? It all got a blind-eye instant greenlight because Fred Fuchs signed up his name knowing he'd make a quick buck because Peyton had a deal with Tom Hank's PLAYTONE and the big name recognition that brings (Hanks needed a Tim Burton rip-off for some project). Now the mythic Hanks project has fallen off the map, not listed on the website even, and we Canadians are left holding the bag on this.
Lucy the irritating monster in the toilet paper roll with the annoying voice -- completely unlikeable and enough to turn the channel before one episode is finished (never to return). Really lame sight-joke characters. Adult humour in an infantile format which misses the mark completely as to how South Park and the rest pull these things off so well. Insults to gay people, racism, insults to thinking people everywhere. How in the world did the CBC let this one slide on by? Read on.
Those poor animators...
Poorer still are the Canadian Tax-payers who flipped the bill for this one. Not unlike the endless disasters from the English Canadian film Illuminati (Egoyan and those other failures Canadians hate so much), the Canadian public who is paying for this garbage is avoiding it with a passion. I read today that the ratings are down to 118k average for the season so far. Which means, at some point, the ratings dropped to about 90 thousand people, across the whole of Canada, who paid for this. It doesn't get much worse than that. An astonishing .25% of Canadians are watching this show (ONE QUARTER OF ONE PERCENT). It cost us HOW MUCH? As a point of fact, the ratings have been dropping through the floor since the premier episode, falling off an incredible 40%! Some people gave it a chance, then fled after seeing how worthless it was. If this were in the US, it would be yanked immediately and never heard from again. Brad Peyton's career would be thankfully over and he'd be sent packing to flip burgers back in Gander, Newfoundland -- his natural calling. But this is Canada.
Terrible writing, irritating characters, bad jokes, no actual audience that can be identified, and the whole rip-off fake pseudo-Burton/Suess/Sesame Street thing is infuriatingly bad. So how did it happen? It all got a blind-eye instant greenlight because Fred Fuchs signed up his name knowing he'd make a quick buck because Peyton had a deal with Tom Hank's PLAYTONE and the big name recognition that brings (Hanks needed a Tim Burton rip-off for some project). Now the mythic Hanks project has fallen off the map, not listed on the website even, and we Canadians are left holding the bag on this.
Right out of left field and completely out of proportion with the scale of this film and the actor's previous work.
I don't know what I can say beyond what others have said when they discovered this film. I just bought an old Rhino VHS copy of this film on a whim and watched it. Having been familiar with Arch Hall Jr's lame-o performances in cheese like WILD GUITAR and other films -- and enjoying them for what they are, B-movie junk -- I was blown away by his performance in this film and walked out of my place and wandered the streets for an hour or so in a daze. Really.
Probably any other actor would be chewing scenery here, and be over the top with this. But this guy is astonishing. I've seen people like this. I've met them and got the heck out of situations with them whenever possible. Arch Hall is REAL in this film. He is horrifying. He deserved an Oscar nomination for this. Really. I don't think there is false note in this performance. He is a powerhouse in this film that anybody who has ever seen it will never forget.
I guess what threw me for such a loop is pondering how somebody so weak in other performances could scale heights like this -- and we're talking near-Brando heights here -- in a tiny budget exploitation movie. Is it a magical synergy with the director (who is pretty inventive -- some terrific POV shots in here and strong feel for suspense)? Is it a casting miracle? Is it somebody managing to funnel all the hatred and horror of their soul into a role without filtering? It will likely be an eternal mystery. All I can say, as a low budget filmmaker, I dream of getting a performance like this on film. Any upcoming low budget filmmaker MUST see this film. Write down the basics of how this film was made, conception up, and watch the way the limited resources are handled. And try and find yourself an actor in a role like Arch Hall to help carry the thing through any shortfalls. GOOD LUCK!
I don't know what I can say beyond what others have said when they discovered this film. I just bought an old Rhino VHS copy of this film on a whim and watched it. Having been familiar with Arch Hall Jr's lame-o performances in cheese like WILD GUITAR and other films -- and enjoying them for what they are, B-movie junk -- I was blown away by his performance in this film and walked out of my place and wandered the streets for an hour or so in a daze. Really.
Probably any other actor would be chewing scenery here, and be over the top with this. But this guy is astonishing. I've seen people like this. I've met them and got the heck out of situations with them whenever possible. Arch Hall is REAL in this film. He is horrifying. He deserved an Oscar nomination for this. Really. I don't think there is false note in this performance. He is a powerhouse in this film that anybody who has ever seen it will never forget.
I guess what threw me for such a loop is pondering how somebody so weak in other performances could scale heights like this -- and we're talking near-Brando heights here -- in a tiny budget exploitation movie. Is it a magical synergy with the director (who is pretty inventive -- some terrific POV shots in here and strong feel for suspense)? Is it a casting miracle? Is it somebody managing to funnel all the hatred and horror of their soul into a role without filtering? It will likely be an eternal mystery. All I can say, as a low budget filmmaker, I dream of getting a performance like this on film. Any upcoming low budget filmmaker MUST see this film. Write down the basics of how this film was made, conception up, and watch the way the limited resources are handled. And try and find yourself an actor in a role like Arch Hall to help carry the thing through any shortfalls. GOOD LUCK!