Leofwine_draca ...and NOT in a good way. THE WICKER TREE is one of the most awful sequels in existence, a completely terrible movie made all the worse by the fact that THE WICKER MAN is one of the best British horror films in existence. I truly have no idea what Robin Hardy was thinking when he wrote and directed this; it looks like the man's talent left him many, many years ago.This time around, the action is set on the Scottish mainland, where a couple of American evangelists have turned up to preach their usual guff to the residents of a village. The American characters are one of the worst things about this; the acting is horrendous and they're saddled with the kind of goofy charm of an American PIE movie, not a supposed horror movie like this. They're completely at odds with the rest of the production.Elsewhere, the main thrust of the story of the first film is copied almost word for word, with a couple of (poor) twists to differentiate things. There's time for an extensive sub-plot to graphically portray what the "riding of the laddie" is all about, but I wonder why they bothered because it's hardly profound. Christopher Lee was meant to star in this but had to pull out due to ill health, with the reliable Graham McTavish (RAMBO) stepping in; Lee still appears but only in a brief greenscreen cameo. For once I'm glad he didn't appear for longer and debase himself with a leading role here.Former child actress Honeysuckle Weeks turns up, unrecognisably aged and forced to strip for the majority of her running time; you have to feel for her that things have come to this. But it's the tone of THE WICKER TREE that is so very, very wrong; that a sequel to one of the classics of British CINEMA, let alone the horror genre, made by the same writer/director of all people, should totally miss the mark and become this kind of mess. All you can do is shake your head and cry.

Theo Robertson I have never believed for a second that the 1973 film THE WICKER MAN is any type of cinematic masterpiece as some defenders claim . It suffers from a painfully ridiculous plot hole in its central premise . That said at least it has a plot . This 2011 " spiritual sequel " ( Whatever that can be defined as ) to the 1973 original doesn't have a plot " You sure Theo ? I mean it seems stupid making a film and filling it with nothing happening " Well who said anything has to happen in a film ? Well things do happen but they rarely make any sense . Let's also be brutally realistic and point out that films are simply made to make a profit for the company producing it and if Robin Hardy director of the original film says " Hey guys I've just made a sequel to my 1973 masterwork and Christopher Lee returns in it " you can guarantee some naïve fans are going to rush to the cinema to watch it only to realise their mistake after they've paid their money at the box office What makes this film a fairly dreadful experience is the tone . A young Christian couple travel to Scotland to spread the word of the Lord . See what happens when you listen to Pat Robertson ? So they arrive in Scotland and find that when people have sex subtitles suddenly appear out of nowhere as do pagans and cannibals and jokes that fall as flat as a pancake . If you think a Scotsman in a kilt having his genitals damaged is the strong foundation of a running joke you might find this film amusing in some small way . I didn't The visuals are also ill though out . Most of the look of the film resembles one of this television productions that ITV broadcast that again jars with the tone of what happens , much of which is crass and unpleasant . None of this is helped by the cast , many of who give the impression they're all appearing in entirely separate films . The worst performance comes from the delightfully named Britannia Nicol who is supposed to carry but would have difficulty in carrying a cup of coffee in to my living room . It's no surprise that she was never seen after this film . In fact neither was this film seen again after it made its limited release to the cinemas

t_atzmueller This Film has been sitting on my shelf for almost two years, and I have been reluctant to watch it until a few days ago. The reason: The original "The Wicker Man" counts among my favorite films. Sure, occasionally I give the tepid Remake with Nicolas Cage a gander, just out of glee or what in German is called "Schadenfreude". But "The Wicker Tree" was the real deal, a sequel in spirit, filmed by the original director Robin Hardy and claiming a cameo appearance by Sir Christopher Lee.Even the hardened Fans must admit that "The Wicker Man" was a great film not because of Hardys skill as a director, but despite of them. "The Wicker Tree" was bad – not as in "so bad it is good", like the remake, but bad as in pointless. It is a virtual retelling of the original story without any of the elements that made the original great. The amazing music, the quirky characters, the foreboding atmosphere, last but not least the eroticism – none of it has made it into this film. Let's start off with the protagonists: where Officer Howie had a naivety about him that made his character amiable, we get two bible-thumbing trailer-trash bumpkins that are about as uncharismatic and non-likable as they come. Anybody who has ever travelled south of St. Louis will probably know that kind of people and will agree: these people are more annoying that Jehovah Witnesses on a field-trip. But director Hardy paints them so unsympathetic, it's almost embarrassing. One almost couldn't wait until they would cart them off to the Wicker Man (in this case a Wicker Tree) – and here comes the major letdown and spoiler: the "heroine" actually survives the movie.The second reason for watching "The Wicker Tree" despite low expectations and better knowledge was that I'm a devoted Sir Christopher Lee fan and a completist in that regard. Supposedly Sir Christopher's guest-role should have been a little longer but apparently ill health prevented that. The cameo lasts by my estimation a little less than a minute (I didn't time it though) and adds absolutely nothing to the story. To mind sprang Oliver Reeds cameo appearance in Ken Russells "Lisztomania" (Reed walks in through one door and Reed exits through another door).To summon up the review in two words: utter disappointment. A fellow reviewer has ended his report such: "Fans may be tempted to watch this based on their admiration for the original. Please don't." I can only add that I've watched "The Wicker Tree" based on my admiration for the original and can do nothing but pass on the warning.3/10

Robert J. Maxwell This remake of "The Wicker Man" is not to be dismissed lightly. It is to be violently repelled and thrown away with great force.Nobody can act. The idea was ripped off from a superb movie and then raped and pillaged. The young woman, Brittany Murphy, does her best to imitate Brittny Spears and fails miserably, probably because Spears is -- or was -- a nonpareil of vulgar celebrity, until replaced by Lady Gaga who is in turn being replaced in the public ardor by Miley Cyrus, who achieves imitation simply by sticking her tongue out and wiggling her ass.Please. Please -- see the original "The Wicker Man".