The Wicker Man
This review contains spoilers
The Wicker Man (2006)
A lacklustre, uninspired, ill-conceived, and poorly executed unnecessary remake of one of the most interesting films of the 1970s. I stop short of calling it offensively bad only because it is not interesting enough.
The basic premise remains promising: police officer Edward Malus travels to the isolated island of Summerisle after receiving a letter from his former fiancée, Willow, claiming that her daughter Rowan has disappeared. The islanders are evasive, the community is governed by a strange pagan belief system, and Malus gradually realises that the investigation is really a trap designed to bring him there.
Unfortunately, almost every potentially effective idea is handled with such bluntness that the film drains itself of suspense. The original’s unsettling atmosphere has been replaced by a succession of obvious clues: Rowan’s burnt doll, her abandoned sweater, a suspicious grave, and the removal of her name from the school register. Rather than allowing these details to accumulate gradually, the film presents them as increasingly conspicuous signals announcing exactly where the plot is going.
The change from the original film’s agricultural and fertility imagery to the remake’s obsession with honey and bees is similarly heavy-handed. The island’s failing honey production, the repeated references to bees, and the eventual description of Malus as a “drone” are all meant to connect the mystery to the sacrifice. But the symbolism is explained so insistently that it never becomes genuinely eerie. It feels less like a disturbing belief system than a screenwriter’s diagram of one.
The film also struggles badly with its central character. Edward Malus is introduced as a traumatised police officer haunted by an earlier accident, but the film never develops that trauma into a convincing psychological arc. Instead, it becomes an excuse for erratic behaviour and increasingly hysterical outbursts. Nicolas Cage’s performance turns that instability into spectacle, particularly during scenes in which Malus confronts the islanders or reacts to the apparent disappearance of Rowan. His intensity is not matched by the screenplay, so the performance often feels detached from the surrounding film.
The island community is another missed opportunity. The women who control Summerisle are clearly intended to be sinister, but their behaviour is so exaggerated and their dialogue so unnatural that they rarely seem mysterious. Their refusal to answer simple questions does not create ambiguity; it merely delays information the audience already understands. Even the island’s rituals feel staged for the camera rather than rooted in a coherent culture.
The final act makes the film’s weaknesses impossible to ignore. Malus disguises himself in a bear costume during the island’s festival, a scene that should be grotesque and disorienting but instead becomes one of the film’s most unintentionally comic images. He then rescues Rowan, only for the apparent rescue to be revealed as another part of the islanders’ elaborate plan. The reversal is structurally faithful to the original, but it lacks the earlier film’s religious tension and tragic inevitability.
The climax, in which Malus is placed inside a giant wicker effigy and burnt as a sacrifice, is similarly more noisy than disturbing. The islanders chant that “the drone must die,” reducing the central metaphor to a slogan. In the unrated version, the notorious sequence involving a wire cage, live bees, and Malus’s anguished “Not the bees!” reaction pushes the film even further toward grotesque camp. It is memorable, but not in the way the filmmakers intended.
That is the central problem with this remake: it reproduces the original’s plot mechanics without understanding what made them work. The 1973 film built unease through restraint, ambiguity, atmosphere, and the clash between competing belief systems. The 2006 version replaces those qualities with exposition, exaggerated performances, obvious symbolism, and shock tactics.
There are isolated ideas here that might have supported an effective remake, particularly the use of honey production and the possibility of an emotionally damaged investigator being manipulated by a closed community. But the film never develops them with enough subtlety or conviction. What remains is a strangely empty exercise: a familiar story, stripped of its mystery, its atmosphere, and much of its purpose.
A lacklustre, uninspired, ill-conceived, and poorly executed unnecessary remake of one of the most interesting films of the 1970s. I stop short of calling it offensively bad only because it is not interesting enough.
The basic premise remains promising: police officer Edward Malus travels to the isolated island of Summerisle after receiving a letter from his former fiancée, Willow, claiming that her daughter Rowan has disappeared. The islanders are evasive, the community is governed by a strange pagan belief system, and Malus gradually realises that the investigation is really a trap designed to bring him there.
Unfortunately, almost every potentially effective idea is handled with such bluntness that the film drains itself of suspense. The original’s unsettling atmosphere has been replaced by a succession of obvious clues: Rowan’s burnt doll, her abandoned sweater, a suspicious grave, and the removal of her name from the school register. Rather than allowing these details to accumulate gradually, the film presents them as increasingly conspicuous signals announcing exactly where the plot is going.
The change from the original film’s agricultural and fertility imagery to the remake’s obsession with honey and bees is similarly heavy-handed. The island’s failing honey production, the repeated references to bees, and the eventual description of Malus as a “drone” are all meant to connect the mystery to the sacrifice. But the symbolism is explained so insistently that it never becomes genuinely eerie. It feels less like a disturbing belief system than a screenwriter’s diagram of one.
The film also struggles badly with its central character. Edward Malus is introduced as a traumatised police officer haunted by an earlier accident, but the film never develops that trauma into a convincing psychological arc. Instead, it becomes an excuse for erratic behaviour and increasingly hysterical outbursts. Nicolas Cage’s performance turns that instability into spectacle, particularly during scenes in which Malus confronts the islanders or reacts to the apparent disappearance of Rowan. His intensity is not matched by the screenplay, so the performance often feels detached from the surrounding film.
The island community is another missed opportunity. The women who control Summerisle are clearly intended to be sinister, but their behaviour is so exaggerated and their dialogue so unnatural that they rarely seem mysterious. Their refusal to answer simple questions does not create ambiguity; it merely delays information the audience already understands. Even the island’s rituals feel staged for the camera rather than rooted in a coherent culture.
The final act makes the film’s weaknesses impossible to ignore. Malus disguises himself in a bear costume during the island’s festival, a scene that should be grotesque and disorienting but instead becomes one of the film’s most unintentionally comic images. He then rescues Rowan, only for the apparent rescue to be revealed as another part of the islanders’ elaborate plan. The reversal is structurally faithful to the original, but it lacks the earlier film’s religious tension and tragic inevitability.
The climax, in which Malus is placed inside a giant wicker effigy and burnt as a sacrifice, is similarly more noisy than disturbing. The islanders chant that “the drone must die,” reducing the central metaphor to a slogan. In the unrated version, the notorious sequence involving a wire cage, live bees, and Malus’s anguished “Not the bees!” reaction pushes the film even further toward grotesque camp. It is memorable, but not in the way the filmmakers intended.
That is the central problem with this remake: it reproduces the original’s plot mechanics without understanding what made them work. The 1973 film built unease through restraint, ambiguity, atmosphere, and the clash between competing belief systems. The 2006 version replaces those qualities with exposition, exaggerated performances, obvious symbolism, and shock tactics.
There are isolated ideas here that might have supported an effective remake, particularly the use of honey production and the possibility of an emotionally damaged investigator being manipulated by a closed community. But the film never develops them with enough subtlety or conviction. What remains is a strangely empty exercise: a familiar story, stripped of its mystery, its atmosphere, and much of its purpose.
Mini Review: A lacklustre, uninspired, ill-conceived, and poorly executed unnecessary remake of one of the most interesting films of the 1970s. I stop short of calling it offensively bad only because it's not interesting enough.
Watch the Trailer