Tiny Times

Monday 9 November 2026

Learning, history, wellbeing & everyday life

Wicker

Marketing image of the Wicker film, used to illustrate post

2 November 2026 – I went with Cinema Club to Showcase cinema to see ‘Wicker’ today.  The synopsis on the cinema website was as follows:

“On the outskirts of a village by the sea, lives a Fisherwoman; smelly, single and perpetually ridiculed. One day, fed up with her stuffy, small-minded neighbours, she commissions herself a husband to be made from wicker. In an otherwise conservative town, this unconventional romance sparks outrage, jealousy and chaos.”

This was a great storyline, and well-played by a stellar cast.  There was a lot of humour, whilst at the same time, dealing with some serious relationship issues and widespread misogyny in a society with very old-fashioned role assignments, until the wicker husband causes a great deal of consternation amongst both the women and the men.  The dialogue manages to be more a mixture of subtle (and not so subtle) inuendo, and perhaps being described appropriately as ‘bawdy’, rather than being outright crude, to the credit of the writer of the original story, Ursula Wills.

The leading members of the cast were: Olivia Colman, Alexander Skarsgård, Elizabeth Debicki, Peter Dinklage, Phil Daniels and Richard E Grant, with great supporting performances from the other actors; and the film was directed by married couple, Alex Huston Fischer and Eleanor Wilson.  Fischer is known for directing ‘Save Yourselves!’ and ‘Snowy Bing Bongs Across The North Star Combat Zone’, whilst Wilson is known for directing ‘Save Yourselves!’, ‘Possum’ and ‘Everything All At Once’.  They both wrote the screenplay, alongside Ursula Wills.

The plot, setting and acting were all truly outstanding.  I was very impressed by this film, and definitely recommend it to everyone, particularly because of the outstanding performances from so many of the cast members, not to mention the special effects and make-up that go into making the man made of wicker.  There were also many great messages about righting discrimination and misogyny, alongside the consequences of seeing the bad in a situation, rather than the good.

Mark Kermode reminds us that this “strange film” is based on a weird, romantic fable, based on a short story by Ursula Wills.  He refers to the film as being ‘bonkers’ a number of time, but also points out that the score by Anna Meredith, with a sound initially created by a variety of different types of recorder helps to ground the film in reality.

He also thought the cast gave great performances, and specifically commented on Olivia Colman seeming to be having the time of her life.

The other members of cinema club all enjoyed the film as much as I did.

I gave it a score of 9, whilst IMDB gave it 7.4, and the Rotten Tomatoes score was 9.4 (94%).

Fraser


AI Contribution: Claude provided a summary of UK reviews, which was then edited and checked for accuracy by Microsoft Copilot (see below).  No human verification took place.

Please provide a full summary of UK film reviews of the 2026 film ‘Wicker’, showing sources….

The UK reviews examined here were largely favourable towards Wicker, although not uniformly so. Praise centred on Olivia Colman and Alexander Skarsgård’s performances and the unlikely romance at the film’s heart. The recurring reservations concerned obvious humour, uneven pacing and the balance between bawdy comedy and genuine feeling. The Telegraph and The Guardian’s Sundance review offered notably less sympathetic responses. This is an assessment of the sources below, rather than an exhaustive survey of every UK review.

Background. Written and directed by Alex Huston Fischer and Eleanor Wilson, the film follows an ostracised fisherwoman (Colman) who commissions a basketmaker (Peter Dinklage) to weave her a husband (Skarsgård). Their unconventional happiness provokes jealousy in a village governed by restrictive marriage customs. The official film website credits the source story, The Wicker Husband, to Ursula Wills; several reviews use Ursula Wills-Jones. The UK cinema release date of 30 October 2026 is confirmed by NME and Little White Lies. Festival reviews are identified separately below.

More favourable reviews

  • Empire (Helen O’Hara). O’Hara praised Skarsgård’s casting, the expressive wicker prosthetics and Colman’s delicacy as a woman surprised to find companionship. She found a heartfelt fable rather than simply a sexual comedy, while acknowledging inconsistent pacing. The original review was located.
  • Screen Daily / Screen International (Amber Wilkinson). Wilkinson’s Sundance review welcomed a witty, romantic satire, praising the central performances, practical effects, sound design and cinematography. She found that the social commentary supported rather than overwhelmed the love story. The original review was located; the draft’s Metacritic conversion of 90 was not independently confirmed.
  • Stylist (Abby Allen). Allen enjoyed the central pairing, Elizabeth Debicki’s performance, the supporting ensemble and the sound design. Her assessment was that the film offered an entertaining, darkly comic romance beyond the trailer’s sexual emphasis. The original review was located.
  • Film Review Daily (James Cameron-Wilson), 4 stars. Cameron-Wilson admired the earthy humour and the film’s treatment of jealousy, desire and patriarchy. He considered it a richly realised allegory, with strong performances and a poetic dimension beneath the raunchiness. The original review confirms the four-star rating.
  • UK Film Review (Chris Olson). Olson enthusiastically praised the comedy, Colman and Skarsgård’s partnership and Richard E. Grant’s supporting turn. His review, framed around the London Film Festival, also found substance in the film’s examination of social cruelty and gender expectations. The original review was located.
  • Time Out (Leonie Cooper). Cooper’s enthusiasm is supported by an attributed excerpt in Rotten Tomatoes’ first-reviews round-up. However, the original review and the draft’s four-star rating were not retrieved, so the more detailed comparisons and claims about folk horror are not treated as independently verified.
  • The Arts Desk (Saskia Baron). The publication’s own film index confirms Baron’s favourable assessment and praise for both leads. The full review and stated four-star rating were not retrieved; the draft’s more specific comparison between romance and sex comedy therefore remains unverified.

More qualified responses

  • Little White Lies (Katherine McLaughlin). McLaughlin found the film entertaining and its central performances poignant, but considered the humour obvious and sometimes one-note. Its ratings are not a single star verdict: the original page gives 4/5 for Anticipation, 4/5 for Enjoyment and 3/5 for In Retrospect. The draft incorrectly assigned 3 to Enjoyment.
  • NME (James Mottram). Mottram found the film fresh and enjoyable and praised Colman’s performance. His principal reservations concerned the lack of narrative momentum and a third act that runs out of steam. The original review supports this mixed assessment; no star rating is assigned here because it was not exposed in the retrieved text.
  • The Times (Kevin Maher). Maher’s praise for Colman is corroborated by Rotten Tomatoes’ attributed excerpt, which suggests that she elevates a less accomplished film. The full original review and rating were not directly verified, so the excerpt should not be treated as a complete account of his verdict.

Negative reviews

  • The Telegraph (Robbie Collin), 1 star. Collin criticised the film for retreating into broad comedy when it approached deeper emotion, including the reasons for Debicki’s character’s envy. Stylist reports the one-star rating, while Metacritic reproduces the relevant criticism. The full original review was not retrieved; the detailed attribution therefore remains dependent on secondary sources.
  • The Guardian (Benjamin Lee). Lee’s Sundance review found that the bawdy humour, dark fantasy and romance did not cohere. An indexed syndication entry confirms the review’s author and festival context, and Forbes reproduces his negative assessment. The original review and the draft’s two-star rating were not independently retrieved, so that rating is not presented as verified.

Common threads

  • Praise for Colman and Skarsgård recurs across the more favourable reviews. This is the strongest shared positive, but the available evidence does not establish that every critic praised both leads or all the supporting cast.
  • Empire, Little White Lies and Screen Daily admired the wicker effects; Screen Daily and Stylist also highlighted the sound design. These specific endorsements are firmer than a blanket claim that every aspect of the production was widely admired.
  • Humour and pacing. McLaughlin questioned the comedy’s subtlety, Mottram found the third act weak, and O’Hara acknowledged inconsistent pacing. Such reservations were not confined to the most negative reviews.
  • Emotional payoff. Critics differed over whether the film’s romance gave its comic premise sufficient depth. Wilkinson and O’Hara found tenderness and humanity, whereas Collin and Lee questioned the balance of comedy, fantasy and feeling.
  • Aggregate scores. Checked on 4 November 2026, Metacritic’s retrieved page displayed 70/100 from 37 critic reviews, classified as Generally Favorable. Rotten Tomatoes’ first-reviews round-up displayed 94%, but the live film-page percentage and the draft’s total of 190 reviews were not directly verified. These aggregates include international critics and can change as reviews are added.

Other reviews. The Financial Times’ attributed wording and three-star rating could not be confirmed from the retrieved material, so they are not used to establish the overall verdict. The linked Kermode and Mayo’s Take video is identifiable as a Wicker review, but its description does not establish Kermode’s opinion. No verdict is inferred from it, and failure to locate other reviews is not treated as proof that none exists.

Overall, the checked reviews suggest a generally well-received comic fable rather than an unqualified critical success. Its admirers found a tender romance, strong performances and imaginative craftsmanship beneath the bawdy humour; its detractors felt that the broad comedy weakened the emotional possibilities. Verification was based on accessible source text and search results, not unrestricted access to every full review. Original review text was located for Empire, Little White Lies, NME, Screen Daily, Stylist, Film Review Daily and UK Film Review; The Times, The Telegraph and The Guardian’s assessments remain partly dependent on secondary material, while Time Out and The Arts Desk were only partially verified.

Sources: