|
Directed by: Neil LaBute Starring: Nicolas Cage, Kate Beahan, Ellen Burstyn Set in the modern day Pacific Northwest (northern Washington's islands, to be precise), this movie follows a CA State Sheriff’s hunt for a missing girl fueled by a letter from a past acquaintance. When Edward (Nicholas Cage) arrives on the island, he encounters this creepy paganistic group of women (men are labor and breeders only) and it only gets weirder as the movie continues. The movie is a remake of the popular horror movie from 1973 (which I have not seen), but seems to follow it with shallow ties. When watching the film I was constantly annoyed with Cage's speech due to his two voice options being "quiet dialog" or "talking really loud" regardless of the location he's in. The movie sends you all around the island as he solves the "mystery" but the clues never make sense. I left the theater confused and annoyed due to not ever being able to understand what the ever-loving hell was actually going on, and listening to people's discussions as they were leaving the theater, they agreed. One group of guy's commented that it was the "worst loving movie I'd ever seen". While I wouldn't go that far, it was very disappointing and the trailer doesn't allude to the actual plot in ANY way. Two final rants: 1. The sound editing was terrible at times. The dialog was so prevalent that it overwhelmed any sort of other sound effects. It's as if it was all re-dubbed in studio. 2. The scenery was clearly forest for the entire movie, so why was the "island" made in CGI for a video cut? Would it really be that hard to shoot a 10 second clip of an island in Washington or Canada? RATING: 2 PROS: Wonderful scenery at times. CONS: Everything else. Poor voice acting, poor sound editing at times, crappy CGI island shots. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0450345/
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2006 00:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 03:28 |
|
|
I thought it was just "average" until the last part of the film where it became "below average". Nicholas Cage's habit of shouting for no drat reason really annoyed me. It made him come across as a weirdo when he was supposed to be the only normal person there. The film was well shot I felt, beautiful scenery for the most part. There were odd parts like the church that were out of context with the way the history of the island was told in this version. I have never seen the original but I have been told it is a million times better than this remake. In the original, which is set on a Scottish island, the natives worships the old Pagan Gods because a few hundred years ago their apple crop failed. There is none of this "sacred feminine" crap, which is apparently a new buzz-term following the Da Vinci Code. The original plays on peoples fears much more as in it, the main character is a devout Catholic and is horrified by how the islanders have become pagans. To me, the scene in the 2006 version with all the islanders wearing animal masks didn't really fit because there was no mention of "Old Gods" in this film, just some sort of odd beekeeping lesbian cult. He is also a virgin and this is the reason he is sacrificed at the end, and he isn't related to any one on the island, he is simply the local police man for that area of Scotland. I really want to see the original because apparently Christopher Lee's performance as Lord Summersisle is awesome. Finally, the funniest part of the film is when we can hear Cage's character clearly having his legs broke, but the director felt it necessary to have Cage scream out "Ouch! You are breaking my legs!" or something to that effect. It made me cringe, did they really think the audience would be that stupid? I half expected him to then shout, "Little Rowan! Please don't set me, your father, on fire after I have spent the entire film searching for you! That would be a most ironic ending!" My rating: 1.5
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2006 13:14
|
|
|
Watchable but doesn't stand up to any kind of scrutiny or repeat viewing. I have always hated Nick Cage and now I hate him even more. Also must break the record for most horror cliches in a single movie. Flashlight in the woods? Check. Child running across right in front of the camera? Check. Foetuses in jars? Oh yes. Children singing nursery ryhmes? Fraid so. It just needs a cat jumping out of a closet and you've got the lot. Silly, silly movie. 2
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2006 00:10
|
|
|
I have to admit beforehand that i am not a fan of remaking films, especially well established films that have already achieved famed cult status. Nevertheless i went into this film open minded hoping that there may have been a slight modernisation of some of the dated features of the original that would allow the story to fit better in todays society. Sadly i was mistaken and the changes that were made were ones that simply bastardised the original story. The following contain details of the film so i'll spoiler it all: The opening scene of cage failing to rescue a family from a burning car initially seemed to be some kind of specific and much needed plot device, something that would be aluded to at a later point in the film as a "ah so that's what it was for" moment. Little did we know however that even though it was made a point to state that neither body was recovered and that the car was spookily uneregistered, that the whole damned scene would serve as little more as character motivation to the rescue of his little girl. A motivation that was later replaced by him finding out that the missing girl was his daughter. Thus the whole first scene was completely pointless. As has already been mentioned, the changing of the paganistic cult from the original to the feminist mother nature movement lends nothing to the film, neither did the heavy handed way in which it slapped the viewer in the face with the paganism motifs. "Rituals of the ancients" eh, well you could have fooled me  .My third gripe has more to do with the character that cage played rather than the acting. For a police officer/detective (i forget which, they seemed to mumble through this point) he seemd to walk around like a bewildered idiot for the whole film. He clearly couldnt see through the flakey facade of his ex fiance nor piece together that something was clearly not right in regards to him being there. There were a few clever misdirections, but walking amongst bees when the film has already established that he's deathly allergic to them clinches the point that he's an idiot. My final big gripe was the tacked on "6 months later" epilogue to the film. It's as if the director wanted to make sure that even the thickest of people in the audience could have figured out what just happened, just incase the 5 minute explanation that occurred not long before that didnt sink in. Essentially i felt that this was a dumbed down version of the original, filmed and written in a way that was essentially designed for idiots to figure out what the story was. Seeing as the original wasnt that hard to follow i see this film as a pointless waste of the audience's time. Do yourself a favour and rent the original, it's cheaper and you'll enjoy it better. My rating: 1 Kin fucked around with this message at 03:05 on Sep 6, 2006 |
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2006 03:02
|
|
|
There was an episode of the show Supernatural that was more faithful to the original movie than this was. This was seriously a bad movie and the promos that made me think it at least looked interesting were a lie. I guess they did a good job with the promos though, so they get a 1. 1/5
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2006 14:58
|
|
|
I just went to see this movie because my wife wanted to go see something. Our town didn't have The Illusionist and she didn't want to see Beerfest, so Mr. Horseface it was. I really, really wish The Illusionist had been here so I could have avoided wasting $11.50 on tickets to this heap of a "film". Though I'm very familiar with the Iron Maiden song, I've never seen the original movie. That said, this review is absolutely not colored whatsoever by prejudice. Cage was uncharacteristically bad and "Willow" looked thoroughly confused throughout the entire movie, even after the alleged plot came to fruition. As somebody on the IMDB said, you could see the ending coming from a mile away. Oh, you mean Willow, who wouldn't give Cage any staright answers despite her daughter's life supposedly being on the line, was in on the whole thing? WHO'DA THUNK IT? I think this movie has ruined my entire night. Sadly, my wife liked it. She also thought Lady in the Water was an excellent movie, while I thought it was only mildly acceptable. 1.5/5.5 ManiacClown fucked around with this message at 17:20 on Oct 27, 2018 |
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2006 01:17
|
|
|
I too was disappointed by this remake. It seemed to wholly lack the subtlety of the original. Has there ever been a successful remake of a horror movie ever? 2/5
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2006 05:08
|
|
|
the original was boring hippy naked people dancing around a may pole bullshit for about 85% of the movie... which doesn't make me want to go see a remake of it. i love neil labute but i think he should stick to making movies that he writes. and nick cage should be burned in a wickerman in real life... or maybe just have his head set on fire until it's just a skull.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2006 21:18
|
|
|
Porkness posted:I too was disappointed by this remake. It seemed to wholly lack the subtlety of the original. Has there ever been a successful remake of a horror movie ever? Well, you could count The Thing as a horror film? Anyhow, onto my review: As far as I can see this film has absolutely no redeeming qualities, apart from seeing Nicolas Cage hobbled (although you don't even get to see this happen) and burnt alive. Cage's so loving wooden in this film that you're shocked he doesn't go up in flames a lot easier. The rest of the actors/actresses are bad as well, there's a whacky blind three witches style thing going on and the matriachy bit is daft with no comparison in style/quality compared to the pagan plot in the original. There's so many attempts to badly copy the visual style of the original that you want to kill people. I cannot not recommend this film enough. Avoid, avoid, avoid, avoid, avoid, avoid, avoid.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2006 09:56
|
|
I am the law, but an easily bribed kind of law.
|
This movie nearly set a new low for films. While I do not think it is one of the worst movies I have ever watched, I did nearly walk out of the theatre. It had some many random plot holes, that in all truth made no loving sense. Most horror films can have a few plot holes, and they are funny, but these seemed like they should've been vital to the story. 1/5 Pros: The opening car wreck. Cons: Rest of film.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2006 08:09
|
|
|
The director did a decent job in creating an eerie atmosphere on the island, what with all the twins talking in sync and whatnot. However the plot holes left you wondering what the hell it was that you just saw. I found it to be entertaining, but a low quality film overall.  at Cage in a bear suit punching women though
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2006 08:36
|
|
|
Like most of the rest of the people here, I never saw the original, and I now have every intention of finding it to see if it's any better than this movie. That said, this was probably one of the worst movies I've seen in awhile. The acting is wooden and hollow, the plot line is full of holes and red herrings, and makes no sense, and whats more the religious stereotypes run absolutely rampant. I bought this movie (admitting what you've done, its the path to getting better you know), because it looked like it might be a good horror movie. I'm so ashamed. The opening of the movie, begins with Cage's character pulling over a station wagon with a mother and her daughter, to return a toy the child had dropped out the window. Yada, yada, the car gets hit and goes up in flames, Cage gets knocked out, and the bodies are never found. That's the opening scene. Now forget it. It has no actual relation to the movie at all. The movie goes on with Cage now searching for a missing child, who resembles the child in the opening scene, which turns out to be his missing child (see that coming? Everybody else did), on a island populated by a strange cult of 'paganistic' women and their male laborer/breeder slaves. At one point, Cage loses an audio book and asks someone if they had gone through his things, but the point of why the thing mattered or if anybody actually went through his stuff, is never actually explained any further. Furthermore, the plot suspense is relatively lovely, there's no nudity, and actual action or gore is pretty rare. Religious stereotype? Yup, got that too. The film tries to model the inhabitants after a pagan cult, but the comparison comes across as ludicrous more than anything else. For example, when Cage gets to the island, the main scene for the movie, he enters an inn, and is served Mead to drink, and then the innkeeper gets mad when he kills a bee. Lame. If you're familiar with Wicca and Pagan groups, you're probably aware that alot of them like to think that they are directly descended from ancient Druids or underground celtic groups, and the movie plays right up to that, bumbling it up so badly, you want to kick the director. The Goddess bit is particularly designed to kiss rear end to Pagan groups, though I think most of them would take offense at their religion being portrayed this way. 1 star voted for being shot in a decent locale.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2007 23:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 03:28 |
|
|
The only redeeming quality of this movie is Cage punching women, otherwise it's one of worst movies I have ever seen. It's that simple. 1/5
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2007 03:43
|
|
