108 user reviews
3.1
/10
| Average votes grouped by age and by sex: | |||||||
| Age: | 1-12 | 13-17 | 18-25 | 26-35 | 36-49 | 50+ | Total |
| Men: Votes: |
10 1 |
3.8 6 |
3.1 14 |
1.6 10 |
2.7 15 |
2.7 3 |
2.9 49 |
| Women: Votes: |
10 1 |
1.9 8 |
3.4 21 |
2.9 12 |
3.7 9 |
1.5 2 |
3.2 53 |
| Total: Votes: |
10 2 |
2.6 15 |
3.3 35 |
2.3 22 |
3 25 |
2.7 7 |
3.1 108 |
| Total includes those who didn't specify sex. | |||||||
Reviews from 1 to 50 (total: 108)
I actually did not mind this movie. It was not that bad really.
| 7/10 | shazjoao@ - 1728 reviews 5.4.2012 |
Incredibly awful when compared with the original. Very slow, badly acted and without intrigue (unlike the 1973 version) A waste of Ellen Burstyn's talent.
| 2/10 | quillsinc@ - 140 reviews 4.8.2009 - age: 26-35 |
Omg... I don't know what to say... Did I just waste an hour and a half of my time watching that retarded, weird for no reason, WORST ENDING EVER movie? I would rate it negative it was so bad... don't waste your time... this movie just reminds you that hollywood is getting very bad and that people have too much money.
| 1/10 | njebali1987@ - 2 reviews 16.1.2008 - age: 18-25 |
The definition given of a '7' rating is this: 'Good movie, worth seeing'. And that's how I feel about this film. It has an original feel and atmosphere about it, a couple of surprises, and an ending that's not half as predictable as people are saying, though I'll admit it wasn't a shocker... just enough to make you say 'well look at that... that's a twist'. Only thinking about it afterwards does the ending make sense. During most of the movie, you're frowning because you're in this guy's shoes and nothing makes perfect sense... only a little sense. That's because you're meant to sympathise with the main character but also with other characters, who are very different from him and do not come with baggage that's remotely similar to his. His background and mindframe are more accessible to the common person and so the audience tends to feel mildly confused throughout the movie as they will him to solve the mystery. I understand how that can feel frustrating but I think movies are better when they're somewhat interactive. Overall, not an thrillingly suspenseful hour and a half but not simplistic or dull, either. So if this sounds reasonable to you and/or if you have interest in paganism and nature (environmental and human), I say go see it.
| 7/10 | scotcanliz@ - 42 reviews 3.1.2008 - age: 18-25 |
This movie ranks up... Or rather down there with BattleField Earth... I don't even want to think any more on this one... Just don't rent it, or even waste your time watching it when it's on tv for free, go throw a frisbee around instead!
| 2/10 | myrrdancer@ - 28 reviews 4.6.2007 - age: 36-49 |
Never did measure up to my expectations let alone those the writers were trying for.
| 6/10 | dtmoores@ - 64 reviews 23.4.2007 - age: 36-49 |
This movie was rated PG-13, and frankly, only kids that age should really enjoy it. The island idea seemed interesting until it turned into a cult/conspiracy idea. The way this movie was set up took away all horror, and the ending was disappointing beyond belief. Well, always better than a "happily ever after" ending, I guess.
| 5/10 | lil_devil4321@ - 15 reviews 12.3.2007 - age: 18-25 |
[ATTENTION: This review reveals content of the movie.]
I've lost all respects to Nicholas Cage. Wow, this was just horrible. The only part I enjoyed was the end, when they burned him, but when they broke his legs?.."ohh! My legs! My legs!" The entire theatre was laughing. Which would be fine, except it was a "horror".
| 1/10 | chucks_a_veggie@ - 5 reviews 27.2.2007 - age: 13-17 |
Oh my GAWD!! That was so awful it hurts my brain! Is Nick Cage actually TRYING to grenade his career? As a fan of the original, artsy, elegant, fantastic 1973 version, this movie could not have disappointed more. Whereas the original deserves its cult status, and its prominence in every film school curriculum, this one is laughably BAD! I feel so very, very sorry for all the people who were involved in the 1973 original. They must be horrified! From the heights of art film perfection, to the depths of B-movie shlock in one terrible misstep..."OH NO! NOT the BeeeS!!" GAWD!!!
| 1/10 | barnesville@ - 22 reviews 27.2.2007 - age: 36-49 |
Interesting story not all that bad of a film, it has its good points.
| 6/10 | cfh_trendkill@ - 487 reviews 22.2.2007 - age: 18-25 |
Pppllleeeaaassseee, give me back the two hours of my life. I swear, I didn't know that a movie could suck that much!!! It won't happen again, I promise!!!
| 1/10 | sam-il@ - first review 5.11.2006 - age: 26-35 |
Although Cage has his moments, there was not enough suspence. Also, the men could have been more tormented. Some humour.
| 6/10 | jane_chambers@ - first review 23.10.2006 - age: 36-49 |
I don't quite understand the bad ratings... I thought this movie was pretty good! I mean, it won't win an Oscar but it was stirring till the end. I mean common, Wicker Man is at least 10 times as good as Grudge 2! The only negative thing about this movie is that they made you believe it's a horror flick. It's more of a mystery-movie.
| 9/10 | webmaster@ - 23 reviews 21.10.2006 - age: 18-25 |
This movie isn't so bad I liked it good mystery and I love the begging it started all over again.
| 9/10 | gagelible@ - 74 reviews 30.9.2006 - age: 13-17 |
Most boring movie ever. Ending seemed to be getting better, but it sucked after all. Save your money, even if u can see it for free.
| 1/10 | wllywst@ - 2 reviews 30.9.2006 - age: 13-17 |
All I have to say is I fell asleep during this movie... nuff said.
| 1/10 | d_dawg1@ - first review 25.9.2006 - age: 18-25 |
[ATTENTION: This review reveals content of the movie.]
Well it started out pretty good but could have been rated pg. Nicolas Cage's acting is so bad. He does the same thing in all his movies. Doesn't seem to be able to play the part. The show was pretty predictable when the plane owner dies that seals his fate. I knew the ending almost as soon as he landed on the island. The only scary part was when he was roasted. Really scary movies have lots of darkness and mysterious creepy places. None here. I was waiting for something really scary to happen. Only time was in the well. Otherwise it was pretty tame.
| 6/10 | carol_dycke@ - 3 reviews 21.9.2006 - age: 50+ |
Rent the original, a cult classic. Don't waste your time on this terrible remake.
| 1/10 | rust225@ - first review 21.9.2006 - age: 26-35 |
Bad storie line, a little suspence, bad ending, just BAD!
| 2/10 | good_crow21@ - first review 21.9.2006 - age: 18-25 |
Reminds you of an old time scary movie--the kind you can watch on TV on a Saturday or Sunday afternoon.
| 6/10 | mrslepew@ - 2 reviews 20.9.2006 - age: 36-49 |
There were realistic characters and an unusual plot. It was suspenseful because you could not guess what would come next. Not your average Hollywood formula which scores so well with most people.
| 7/10 | dduffus@ - 4 reviews 19.9.2006 - age: 36-49 |
This is the worst horror movie to hit the theatre this year. Why? Because this isnt a horror movie at all! They lie to you! I am a huge horror fan - and let me tell you a movie about killer mosquitos would be more entertaining than this garbage! I am glad I didn't pay for this piece of crap. Dont be fooled by the trailer and by the fact it has famous actors in it! This is the worst of the worst!
| 1/10 | vulpesvulgaris@ - 27 reviews 19.9.2006 - age: 18-25 |
I can honestly say this is the second worst movie I have ever seen. I have never left a theater before but let me tell you, I was seriously tempted. The only thing that kept me in my seat were the comments and laughter from the rest of the audience. It's not a comedy but you just had to laugh. How dumb does Hollywood think we are?
| 1/10 | hollyelise99@ - 2 reviews 18.9.2006 - age: 18-25 |
Worst. Movie. Ever. Waste of time, and money. I wouldn't watch it again even if it was free.
| 1/10 | mesmerizeme@ - 2 reviews 18.9.2006 - age: 18-25 |
This movie is serioulsy the crappiest movie made in years. I bet people sued who ever made this movie cause it stole there money and they probably fell asleep and got ripped! Dont go see this movie it's a piece of junk and Nic Cage [...] how can u be in these types of movies holy crap!
| 1/10 | walid_nasri@ - 8 reviews 17.9.2006 - age: 13-17 |
We are reduced to this. It is what hollywood expects of us. It is time we say NO MORE!
| 1/10 | dennis@ - first review 17.9.2006 - age: 36-49 |
In general, It will take your attention, but then when the truth is faced, you realise how stupid is this movie. Lack of originality. Terrible end! Really a waste of money.
| 2/10 | british_81@ - 2 reviews 16.9.2006 - age: 18-25 |
The movie was awfully long for no reason. It didnt make much sense. I cant believe I was talked into watching this movie. What a waste of my time and money. I strongly dont recommend it. The story wasnt good and it wasnt a horror movie. I wasnt scared at all.
| 1/10 | littlelin1@ - 5 reviews 15.9.2006 - age: 18-25 |
Please do not see this movie unless you enjoy wasting 5 dollars ocasionally. This movie was just discusting, please avoid it and go see another movie.
| 1/10 | d1sco.stu2005@ - first review 14.9.2006 - age: 13-17 |
Waste of money. First the beginning has nothing to do with the rest of the movie. I guess this type of movie if one were the actor want to make an easy 100 g's.
| 2/10 | westres@ - first review 14.9.2006 - age: 18-25 |
The reviews made it look scary, and gave me the impression that there would be ghosts and a creepy little girl. Look at the movie poster!! I felt very misled. Besides that, the story wasn't even very good.
| 2/10 | kandruko@ - first review 14.9.2006 - age: 26-35 |
I'm not sure why Cage is accepting these horrible movie rolls (The Weatherman, even World Trade Center was not that great... and now this)! Does he owe someone money? I should have known this movie was crap from the opening scene. The actress playing the waitress in the diner sounded like she was reading her lines right from the script. And the guy playing the other cop, oh man, don't give up your day job. The editing guy needs to be fired. I stopped counting the number of scenes where Cage's gun was there and then it wasn't. Come on Nic, give us another "Leave it in Las Vegas". Please, stop with the crappy roles, you're a Coppola, have some self respect!
| 2/10 | b.morton@ - 35 reviews 14.9.2006 - age: 36-49 - One reply |
A good movie, although I could've waited to see it on DVD. What is the Wickerman? Didn't see that coming. It's given me some ideas... just kidding;)
| 7/10 | karma.1977@ - 2 reviews 14.9.2006 - age: 26-35 |
You better be a Nicholas Cage fan to watch this. Although, if you don't go in with any hope of watching a blockbuster... it isn't too bad... mostly.
| 5/10 | eartheagle77@ - 2 reviews 13.9.2006 - age: 18-25 |
Possibly one of the worst movie I've ever seen. Never thought that Nicolas Cage would play in a movie that lame. There is no horror in this movie. Oh wait, I did jump off my seat once. It was the employee tapping on my shoulder telling me that the movie was over!!!
| 2/10 | k_julienbaker@ - 8 reviews 13.9.2006 - age: 18-25 |
Very disappointing, I don't know how Nicolas Cage accepted doing this movie, must have been paid alot. Story made no sense, the more I analyzed it, the more I got frustrated with the story.
| 4/10 | peedy7@ - 2 reviews 13.9.2006 - age: 36-49 |
The only good thing about seeing this is I got a great nap out of it! Avoid seeing this by all means, it is NOT worth $10!!!
| 1/10 | tiny_kaytee@ - 7 reviews 13.9.2006 - age: 13-17 |
I must say something about the rating for that. U guyz are all wrong. The #1 is way too high for this movie. The rating should drop in the negative for that crappy movie. Like someone said earlier. Nicolas Cage must of owed somebody a big favor or somethin.
| 1/10 | phenom_007@ - 2 reviews 11.9.2006 - age: 26-35 |
I enjoyed it. I hate blood and gore horror so this was a refreshing change.
| 7/10 | louise2000@ - first review 11.9.2006 - age: 36-49 |
Crap, Crap, Crap. I want my money back! I'm telling you, this film was garbage! It starts, and you're thinking, "Ok, I see, I see... lot's of holes and questions... this is going to be wicked at the end when they explain everything! "... and then... it ends. NADA! Nic Cage must have owed someone a HUGE favour. Don't bother with this one.
| 1/10 | csophie_garner@ - first review 10.9.2006 - age: 18-25 |
The movie had potential, but it became almost like "The Village".. that out of this world, weird stuff... Right at the start when he stopped the mother and daughter it had potential, but then after that when he goes there to look for this girl... well... that is when it went downhill... And the ending was just like any other ending, they could have made it WAY better that is all that I am saying!
| 6/10 | nomer_02@ - 6 reviews 10.9.2006 - age: 18-25 |
In the running for worst film of the year, It may beat out lady in the water.
| 1/10 | clarke10999@ - 95 reviews 10.9.2006 - age: 36-49 |
Oh boy - wow!! Anything else is just not worth the effort - skip unless at gunpoint.
| 1/10 | servicecp@ - 45 reviews 9.9.2006 - age: 26-35 |
This movie was quite horrible indeed. I've read the previous reviews and it seems to be suspenseful, but then it drags and drags and drags since nothing is discovered or begins to get interesting. Despite how I feel about Nicholas Cage the movie itself was quite boring and the other characters were jus weird and disturbing in a very bland way. The only way u may be entertained is if u like seeing men burn and I dont. Especially when it's the only character that has a bit of intelligence.
| 1/10 | booski_babe@ - first review 9.9.2006 - age: 18-25 |
[ATTENTION: This review reveals content of the movie.]
Not a good movie, boring. Horror? Not a very good one. I'd like to know how the girl and lady got out of the car before the collision, or after? Makes no sence.
| 4/10 | randie_best@ - 4 reviews 9.9.2006 - age: 36-49 |
This movie is worth seeing... I don't understand why all the bad comments!! Not the kind of horror I think some people are used to, (if there's no blood and guts, it's not considered a horror anymore) but a horror all the same. I liked the ending... definitely not happy, which is what a good horror should be. If you are looking for a hacker/slasher movie... this is not the one to see, but if you want a fairly good psychological horror with a unpredictable ending, go see this one.
| 7/10 | luvmuzik1000@ - 2 reviews 9.9.2006 |
I would have rated this movie a 1, but I suppose it wasn't THE worst I've ever seen...
| 2/10 | lesliejune@ - 22 reviews 9.9.2006 - age: 26-35 |
Horrible plot and it was so boring that I wanted to scratch my eyes out. Seriously it was long and tedious, very predictable and the storyline really did suck.
| 1/10 | s_campbell85@ - first review 9.9.2006 - age: 18-25 |
Note: User reviews posted on this page are personal opinions of our readers. We are not responsible for their content.
Did you see ''The Wicker Man''?
Terms and Privacy Policy under which this service is provided to you.
© 1996-2013 CinemaClock Canada Inc.
