Scanialara You won't be disappointed!

Voxitype Good films always raise compelling questions, whether the format is fiction or documentary fact.

Bea Swanson This film is so real. It treats its characters with so much care and sensitivity.

Kamila Bell This is a coming of age storyline that you've seen in one form or another for decades. It takes a truly unique voice to make yet another one worth watching.

bowmanblue In short: why bother? Yes, the original Wicker Man was a classic. Yes, the remake was completely pointless (and that's being kind). So... here we have a (semi) sequel to the original Wicker Man. And, if you look closely at the promotional material, you'll notice that it even has good ol' Christopher Lee in it. So, it must be good... right? Wrong.The first thing you should know is that Christopher Lee's 'input' is literally less than a minute long. The film is almost a remake (in as much as there's nothing new in the story, so it's basically a retread of the old version). Two American Christians come to a small village on the Scotland/England border to help spread the word of God.If you've seen either of the Wicker Man films you'll know what happens. If you haven't, you'll probably guess.The acting is poor all round, some of it bordering on comedy. The 'horror' is lacking. No gore here and the 'traumatic' scenes from the original are not even nearly repeated here.Simply don't bother with this. It adds nothing to the original except to cash in on its reputation. Even if you haven't seen the original, don't expect an interesting horror film here. Just don't bother. Did I mention it's not that good?

twokeets My husband and I stumbled upon this movie on TV late last night, and were really enjoying it at the beginning. We enjoyed the Pagan elements of the story, and the friskiness of the storyline. Knowing nothing about this film, we assumed, in fact, that this movie was a lighthearted tale, showing the folly of the young Christians trying to convert the determined Pagan folk. The tone of the film up until about the last half hour is light and sexy and humorous, which made us really like it. Then it suddenly veers into a much darker place, and the tone becomes like that of a good old vintage '70's horror movie. So basically my complaint is the sudden change in tone. It is true that the film seemed a bit superficial, but it was also pretty funny. It could have been improved by deepening the story somehow. And I guess I felt a little unsatisfied at the end, because of the shift in tone. But I still say it is worth viewing, especially if you like Wicker Man-type stories. This is definitely not the Wicker Man, as it is pretty humorous for most of the movie. Maybe that is why Wicker Man (the original) is so effective--it maintained the same ominous tone from the beginning of the movie. But, in conclusion, I have to say I enjoyed watching this movie for what it as. And if you enjoy watching a beautiful naked woman pray to the goddess from the middle of a lovely Scottish stream, you will enjoy it too.

Rich Wright This film in a capsule.First 60 minutes: Bad country singing. Lots of Bible bashing. Dodgy Scottish accents ahoy. Awful acting, even from the extras. Gratuitous nudity in a bed. Gratuitous nudity in a stream. A LOT of pointless talking. Christopher Lee in a blink-and-you'll-miss-it cameo. I'm sure there was more, but I must have nodded off.Last 30 minutes: Hey-ho, things are looking up. A cat just drunk some poisoned milk. (sniff,sniff). And look, here's an American girl shoving a bit of broken glass up a Scotsman's kilt. Ho, ho. And there's her cowboy boyfriend, being devoured by a bunch of naked cannibals. FINGER LICK'IN GOOD!! And don't forget about the...Oh, who am I trying to kid... it's just dreadful twaddle. It makes The Wicker Man from 1973 look like The Greatest Film Ever and the 2006 remake of that movie... well, let's not go crazy now... 3/10

Paul-b-1 Associating yourself with a successful previous film is always a double-edged sword, as the guaranteed audience from the first film are liable to be more critical if the subsequent movie is short of the mark.What can I say about this movie? The original "Wicker Man" was like a finely crafted sculpture, while the "Wicker Tree" by comparison is more of a turd on a stick. OK, perhaps that is a bit harsh, and I did find the movie reasonably entertaining, but there is something of a gulf in quality between these two films.The Plot In essence – two "born again" young people (one former pop singer and a reformed gambler) leave the American "God Belt" to convert the inhabitants of Scotland. No luck in the cities, so they go to the country where a local community (who seem to have a dearth of children) take them to their hearts before killing them as a part of a May day ritual.The issues Firstly, the setting. Yes, I could see a remote rural island community being seduced into Pagan ritualism, but this is set on "the border between Scotland and England", i.e. mainland Britain. In fact much of the filming took place not that far from Edinburgh, a major city.Secondly, the motivation. In the original, an isolated rural island community turned to human sacrifice when its sole source of income, fruit and veg, failed disastrously. In the sequel, however, the boss of the local nuclear power plant is aware that his facility is leaking deadly radioactive material into the water table which has rendered the local population sterile. OK, if you live in a small community next to a nuclear power station and suddenly nobody can have children, surely your first suspicion would be the plant itself – you wouldn't let the plant owner convince you that the dramatic rise in childlessness was as a result of displeasing pagan deities. I mean, it's not like nuclear power doesn't already have a reputation..Thirdly, the method. I am aware that a number of Wiccan followers were a bit concerned about the misrepresentation of their religion in the original film, but at least it all looked plausible to the viewer. Sadly, in the Wicker Tree the "pagan rituals" portrayed all seemed completely wacky. Did pagans really turn the may Queen into a human waxwork? Did they really chase someone around, catch them, rip them apart with their bare hands and eat them? Even if it were true it would still seem preposterous.Fourthly, the victims. When Edward Woodward's character flew over to the island to locate a missing girl, the audience was shocked when his good intentions were betrayed and he ended up sacrificed. In this film, however, the victims are annoying "God-bothering" Americans and it is a blessing to all when they end up slain.Fifthly, the loose ends. Why build a wicker tree? Why try to butcher an animal using a table circular saw? Why petrify the May Queen? There were only about five or six pickled May Queens on display, so this practise hadn't been going on for long, yet it clearly wasn't working – why continue? Why hadn't the childlessness of the village been spotted by the local Health Authority, bringing down a wave of investigations on the nearby nuclear plant? What was the point of Christopher Lee's bit, other than to tie in to the old film? Even then he wasn't referred to as "Lord Summerisle"..In conclusion, I actually quite like the movie for its silliness, but don't for one moment think that you will be getting another "Wicker Man"..