User Reviews

I think the thing that is most disappointing about The Wicker Tree is that it's taken such a long time to come to the screen. Its production spanned several years. The working title 'Cowboys for Christ' is actually quite an accurate description of the film so it seems that the basic idea has remained the same. In fact, it's based on a novel written by Robin Hardy, the director of the first movie The Wicker Man. I haven't read the book but I am very familiar with the original film which remains one of the best movies of the horror genre. The fact that Hardy announced that he would return to director duties and make a spiritual follow up to this seminal classic generated some anticipation. Sadly, the result is a far cry from the original and not a good film on its own right.

There are several problems with this production. The first one is that the story just isn't very good. Its plot trajectory is similar in some ways to The Wicker Man but only in the sense that you kind of know where this is going and it only serves to dispel any possible mystery and tension. In fact, generally speaking, this feature has almost no suspense at all. For some inexplicable reason it seems to have been played for laughs, except not very good laughs because I would hardly say this works as a comedy. At best it comes across like an episode of 'Monarch of the Glen' with some added nudity. It really is that bland unfortunately. It has all the atmosphere of a TV drama. Where the first movie had terrific music and a compelling mystery, this one has a dreary soundtrack and no intrigue. The horror side of the story is only half-heartedly introduced in the final reel. The wicker tree itself seems almost irrelevant while the murder scene is bizarrely underplayed – I mean a subtle depiction of cannibalism? Hmmm, okay.

Another key issue is the two leads. The two evangelical country and western singers are a dreadful couple of characters to base the story around. It feels like they were used in order to appeal to the American market. Whatever the case they are detrimental to the feel of the film and the actors playing them put in poor performances. They are not alone, however, as most of the cast are very below par; the one shining exception being the excellently named Honeysuckle Weeks who plays the nymph Lolly. She was in actual fact terrific and had a strong erotic presence throughout, her scene in the river being easily the best moment in the film and the only part that had any real zest about it. Honeysuckle was the only performer in this that you could imagine adding value to the first movie. The only actor to return is Christopher Lee but sadly he has no more than a brief cameo and unfortunately his scene doesn't really add up to much.

It's watchable. But it's dreary. And it feels massively like a missed opportunity. To expect The Wicker Man II is unrealistic but it isn't too much to have expected something with at least a bit of character. Other that Honeysuckle Weeks, there is sadly a short supply of that here.

Young Christians Beth and Steve, a gospel singer and her cowboy boyfriend, leave Texas to preach door-to-door in Scotland.

When, after initial abuse, they are welcomed with joy and elation to Tressock, the border fiefdom of Sir Lachlan Morrison, they assume their hosts simply want to hear more about Jesus.

How wrong they are.....

The original Wicker man was full of menace and a strange feeling of dread throughout, much like Don't Look Now, and is still heralded today as one of the finest British horror movies ever made.

Now we have this, which stamps all over the classic and almost ruins Hardys vision.

It was so camp, so over the top, and filled with this really strange unfunny humour, that it was like a car crash, you didn't want to watch it, but you couldn't take your eyes off the screen.

The two Americans were truly awful and typecast, and she gave the funniest line in the film, when she is praying and thanking the Lord for her good looks. She really had to look in the mirror.

McTavish is good though, but not in it enough, and really make she film a little bit more affable when in it, hence the score of two.

Lee pops up for a minute, in front of blue screen, looking angry, and that's really the only connection to the original.

It really is a dog of a film, laughable in so many ways, but fans of the original, will just be angry.

See the Cage remake, it's The Exorcist compared to this.

A horrible abomination of a film. I had very low expectations for this film but this is much worse than I ever thought it could possibly be. In fact, in its own way, it is one of the very worst films I have ever seen.

I appreciate that Robin Hardy is now an old gentleman and his faculties must be somewhat impaired but how could he agree to decimate the legacy that he built up with the original "Wicker Man" by producing this mess? ( yes I know really, it was the money! ) The narrative is a garbled piece of nonsense and the film seems to move forward as if it was assembled from 4 or 5 different stories. The motivations of the characters make no sense. For example two young American evangelists go on a high profile visit to Scotland, including media interviews etc, but very quickly allow themselves to completely change their schedule and go to some sleepy rural village. The Leader of the Cult isn't even convinced of what his group are doing but still blunders ahead with murders etc. The young male evangelist has a vow of celibacy but a quick glimpse of local lady "Lolly" ( about whom there is much more to follow) displaying her thimble chested form in a river and 3 minutes later he has committed the evil deed with her. The pagan group ( who look like a bunch of middle class chumps straight from the Glastonbury Festival ) wander away for the main female character "Beth Boothby" completely ignoring the fact that they have captured her and yet 5 minutes later they are ensnaring her again for their rite. Promising characters, such as "Lady Delia Morrison", wander in and out of the film and appear to serve no purpose and are omitted from scenes in which they would be expected to appear The acting is truly, truly awful. Whereas in the original "Wicker Man" the female temptation to Edward Woodward's Christian innocent was provided by beautiful, ripe, alluring beauties such as Britt Ekland, Ingrid Pitt and Diane Cilento the temptress in this film, "Lolly", is played by a minor TV actress who rejoices in the name Honeysuckle Weeks, and who looks like a not very convincing gender reassignment case. I'm afraid she would certainly tempt no-one from the path of celibacy! Her delivery of her dialogue is so bad that at one stage they have to subtitle the girl even though she is speaking English! Clive Russell as "Beame" does his usual comedy relief but his character and performance is completely out of keeping with the tone of the rest of the film. Poor Christopher Lee turns up in flashback acting opposite some ugly kid who must be the son of one of the producers because the stilted delivery of his dialogue is sub primary school play standard. The two American evangelists are flat and dull too. Henry Garrett as cowboy Steve has the charisma of a cardboard box and Britannia Nichol as "Beth Boothby", looks a bit like Katie Holmes in a blond wig and a comedy pig nose and changes her characterisation from scene to scene. Poor kids must have thought this was their big break! The photography is horrible. The light keeps changing throughout individual scenes so that we go from morning to early evening light in about a minute. At certain points it appears that some sort of filter is being used but it could just be that the camera is out of focus.

The magic and wonder of the original "Wicker Man" came from a genuinely convincing creation of a rural pagan world. The setting of the original, on an island as opposed to some anonymous border village as in this film, served to reinforce the plausibility of such a world existing. However in this film it is never explained why this one village has evolved in this way compared with neighbouring villages? The appearance of the "Wicker Man" at the end of that film was a truly horrifying event, but one that is entirely consistent with where the narrative of the story leads. However "the Wicker Tree" itself serves absolutely no purpose in the film other than to provide a ridiculous twist featuring the Sir Lachlan Morrison character. What was the purpose of the "Wicker Tree"? The viewer is left with no idea at all other than to assume that it was just stuck in there as an afterthought to try and create some sort of link with the original film.

The "shocking" conclusion of the film sees Beth Boothby reduced to a wax works display and fully on view. Which Pagan tradition features turning sacrifices into wax works statues? What did the creation of a wax work dummy from the May Queen achieve? The offering of Edward Woodward to the Wicker Man in the first film was entirely consistent and plausible within the traditions and situation created. And honestly, if you had murdered a high profile visitor would you put them on display as a wax works model? In this film the end was simply a horribly stupid conceit that made no sense whatsoever.

The film ends up looking like it had been conceived in 37 seconds by a bunch of film executive dummies in suits rather than 37 years in the making by the creator of the original "Wicker Man". I see that they are trying to present it as a "black comedy" and Robin Hardy has said that "it's okay to laugh". Well it's okay to laugh WITH a film but surely not AT a film! Extremely poor and ultimately very sad.

The worst thing about The Wicker Tree is that it's not even the worst attempt at exploiting the original horror classic. The remake of The Wicker Man starring Nicholas Cage is at least so awesomely point-and-laugh terrible that you can enjoy mocking it. This thing is merely another lame horror flick to throw on the ever-growing pile. Robin Hardy turns in a thoroughly pedestrian job as a director but came up with a stupid, shallow and simplistic script that works best as an unintentional love letter to Anthony Shaffer, writer of the first film. I hate to put it this way but The Wicker Tree looks, sounds and feels like the work of an old man who is well past his creative prime and no one had the decency to tell him. If this move had failed spectacularly, you could credit Hardy with perhaps trying to be bold and imaginative. As it is, it's hard to view this as anything more that a much delayed cash grab.

Beth Boothby (Brittania Nicol) is a Christian country singer who, along with her cowboy fiancée Steve (Henry Garrett), travels from Texas to Scotland as a missionary to revive the faith of a small village. Let me stop right here and point something out because I think it gets at the heart of what's wrong with this film. Hardy was bright enough to realize that England has become such a religiously neutered society that he would have to go far afield to find representatives of Christianity to square off against the forces of paganism. However, he didn't bother to think about how that kind of cultural shift would affect anything else. Paganism in a post-Christian 21st century should not be at all the same thing as during the 1970s when church-going was still part of the established order of life in the UK.

Let me draw an analogy. Organized crime still exists in America but is, by all accounts, a shell of what is once was. If you made a movie about the Mafia today which didn't acknowledge that reality, that portrayed the Mob as the same sort of pervasive and powerful force it was in the 70s or during Prohibition, you'd end up with a silly and contrived bit of nonsense. Tony Soprano could not be Michael Corleone. Yet, other than bringing in Yanks as his designated Christian victims, Hardy didn't put any thought at all into how the passing of time and cultural and economic changes would require re-imagining the Wicker Man story.

The whole of The Wicker Tree is a constant reminder that Hardy didn't think things through when he wrote this screenplay. I mean, the original was set on an island that was physically cut off from civilization. That's the sort of detail that helps the viewer suspend disbelief and accept a pagan cult surviving in secrecy. The Wicker Tree not only takes place on the mainland, it's set in a village near a nuclear power plant. There's nothing isolated or secluded about such a location that would make avoiding public scrutiny easy. And while the original Wicker Man left open the question of what happens after the human sacrifice of a police officer and even hints that things aren't going to turn out well for the murderous cult, this flick ends with an epilogue that expects us to believe that not only can a minor celebrity vanish from a Scottish village with no one caring but that the gruesome death of the founder and leader of the cult would have absolutely no effect on anything. Oh, and it expects you to believe that a human being exposed to flame burns like gas-soaked tissue paper.

Anyway, Beth and Steve arrive in Scotland. The pagan villagers want to kill them. They do. The end. Believe me, I put as much thought into those four sentences and Hardy did with this script.

Topping it all is that while the original seemed like its pagan cult was at least based on some real and coherent religion, The evil faith in The Wicker Tree appears to be nothing more than horror movie tripe that Hardy just pulled out of his butt. I'm no expert and maybe it is drawn from historical truth, but it's presented so poorly and idiotically that it comes off like made up crap.

Now, Honeysuckle Weeks does take her top off and there a good bit of nudity at the end but it is mostly of the real world nudist variety where you kind of wish the folks had kept their clothes on. There isn't anything that's even inadvertently worth seeing here. Watch the original. Watch the remake and turn its awfulness into a drinking game with your friends. Don't waste your time on The Wicker Tree.

Does The Wicker Man need any sort of introduction from me? Any fan of horror, or cinema in general, will know of or have seen The Wicker Man. And long have many of us who love the original awaited Hardy's spiritual followup. And it has quite the history of planning, writing, and production. However, in the long run, what we, the fans got, was something truly... how can I say it... frustrating. After three viewings of the film (over the course of roughly ten years) I have come to mildly appreciate some elements of the film. '

In the film Beth and Steve are born again Christians. Beth being a semi famous trashy country singer turned Christian Performer and Steve being more of a simple minded cowboy, more or less, "going along for the ride". When the two head out to Glasgow to spread their Christian message, they end up in a small village in the Scottish lowlands. It is there that their relationship is thrown into turmoil and become unwitting sacrifices in a Pagan ritual.

This movie is just a straight mixed bag. It looks wonderful. The Scottish and British cast are excellent. And the story might have something going for it. However, the two leads, played by Brittania Nicol and Henry Garrett, are absolutely dreadful when acting against the likes of Graham McTavish or Jacqueline Leonard. Their acting is so dreadful that it makes their inevitable demise rather anti dramatic. Thankfully the rest of the cast look as if they might have had some fun with the material. Particularly Clive Russell in the role of Beame. His screen time seems to be mostly made of comedy relief, in the way this film plays out, his comedy is actually somewhat a breath of fresh air. The audience even gets a cameo from Christopher Lee, playing a character that may or may not be Lord Summerisle from the original film.

The comparisons between this movie and its predecessor are inevitable, and will always be The Wicker Tree's biggest weakness. In the original film Sgt Howie is a devout Christian. Even up to his final moments he stayed that way. And that is exactly why he was sacrificed. In The Wicker Tree the two leads Beth and Steve are really just frauds. Phonies. Beth seems a bit oblivious to it as her character intentionally hides from her past. Like I said about Steve early about being "along for the ride", that truly is his character. He is no Christian. He just wants to get into Beth's panties, and when he cannot do that, he goes elsewhere. The point is, these characters are deeply flawed in comparison to Sgt Howie. Howie was a perfect sacrifice because of his devout nature. Beth and Steve are far from perfect. If anything, they are the opposite of that. This is what makes their demise feel absolutely lackluster. It feels like it doesn't mean anything.

Following in those same lines is the Pagan Cult itself, led by McTavish's Sir Morrison. A number of times in the film we are made to outright question whether or not Sir Morrison even believes what he preaches. In comparison to Lee's Summerisle, Morrison is again not devout. And I suppose this is the ongoing theme of the film. That even those that claim they believe, they really do not, it's just in how they were "raised".

Another comparison is in the storytelling. Unlike "Man", which plays out like a solid mystery with one of the best twist endings ever, "Tree" doesn't even attempt at mystery. The direction and narrative reveals throughout make the audience feel like they already know what to expect. That's not a good feeling when I go into a movie and early on I am hoping it doesn't end like I think it's going to. That's exactly what "Tree" does. It makes no attempts at twists or turns. It's all incredibly straight forward. Too straight forward, unfortunately.

The film does have its moments, however. It really is shot wonderfully. The color scheme is green and yellows, and it matches that Pagan theme really nicely. As well, Hardy has one or two moments that are noteworthy. The lead up to Steve's death is, in my opinion, handled pretty well. When Steve is about to be eaten by the cult in the ruins of the castle, there is a wonderfully dreadful build up to the whole event. And although we see very little gore, what we see is enough to give that feeling of deep dread. I liked that element. And again, the moments of levity I actually did welcome. Even if they felt like they belonged in a different film.

Overall I really don't hate this film the way a lot of people do. I did at first. Actually, I really hated it at first. But after three viewings over a long period of time, I do feel as if I can watch this movie without having that bad taste in my mouth anymore. It really isn't a horrible film. It's just very questionable as to why Hardy decided to absolutely turn everything he did in "Man" upside down in "Tree". It works to a degree, but as a Spiritual Sequel, it simply doesn't hold a candle to the original film.

If you haven't seen the film you probably should just stick with the original. But if you must see The Wicker Tree do your best to keep an open mind. It is the only way you will really enjoy the film.

I saw this movie last night , it was shown as part of the annual Dublin Horrorthon here in Ireland. I have seen the original movie starring Christopher Lee and Edward Woodward, and this film is being promoted as the official sequel to that film.

Now Lee does show up in this film , in a very very short flash back sequence but that is as far as his involvement in this movie goes. But obviously the film makers wish to cash in on the gravitas his name brings and have him as top billing. Apart from this brief injection of class and excellence this film is just utter drivel. I don't know what route the director wanted to originally take with this piece, but 80% plays out like its trying to be a comedy and it fails miserably , then when the eventual climax comes it give horror a go and then fails at that as well.

The two main characters are a pair of young Americans from Texas, The Girl is a Britney Spearseque character who has shunned her dirty pop image of singing about sex in pick up trucks and is now on her Jesus Christ around the world tour. She is joined on her adventure by her Cowboy Fiancé (who wears the ugliest cowboy hat in the history of cowboy hats). These are two of the Dumbest characters that have ever graced the cinema screen. The first 3/4s of the film is pretty much a comedy of errors about these two out of towners trying to convert a small band of "heathens" who live in the village of Tressock. Which we are informed by on screen titles and I'm not kidding it actually says the following "Scotland - On the Borders of England" , Really ? wow, cheers for that geography lesson.

The plot meanders along unconvincingly till we reach the pointless and laughable climax. The credits roll and everyone in the cinema is asking the same thing, "What the hell did we just watch?" . This is a badly acted , and ill conceived movie. I would rather sit through Nicholas Cage's version of the Wicker Man twice over and countless Head boxes filled with bees than watch this drivel again. avoid like the plague.