Terror en la niebla

The worst movie I have ever seen (so far)! It deserves a "1," but I'm saving "1" for the movies they make when I'm 70 years old.

I wasn't expecting much but I thought "at least it will have a few scary parts to grab me." WRONG! As far as I could tell NO ONE in the theatre was scared ONCE -- not even those teen girl screamers that are always at horror flicks. I think everyone was CONFUSED, not scared -- Why the two love interests for Nick? Why was Elizabeth envisioning the past? Why did no one comment on the one guy's face ROTTING? Why did no one care the priest was drunk all the time? Why did it matter that the statue was made incorrectly? Why did the ghosts resort to using GRAFFITI? (and why did they use what looked like paint?)

WHY? WHY? WHY DID I PAY MONEY TO SEE THIS? Instead of paying for this, ask an eight-year-old, heck, make it a seven-year old to tell you a scary story. I GUARANTEE he or she will come up with a better plot, more realistic characters, and scarier scenes than this piece of garbage!

Allow me to save you $8 by offering something you can do at home that is just as entertaining as watching this movie. Go get a load of whites and throw it in your dryer. Now, add in one red sock. (Make sure everything's dry so you don't end up with a bunch of pink laundry.) Now, hopefully you have the kind of dryer that has the clear window in front. If you do, start the load and watch the laundry spin around. Every time you see the red sock pretend to be scared.

That's it. That's the equivalent to seeing this movie. As entertaining as watching your laundry dry and every bit as scary as a red sock.

Others have already punched all the holes in the plot (or complete lack thereof) that are necessary. I won't beat that dead horse. As mentioned, the acting was completely mailed in. The CGI was hokey, stilted and throw in in a lot of scenes unnecessarily. This wasn't just a really bad movie, this was a really bad horror movie. Most horror movies these days suck to one degree or another, but this moving distinguishes itself as being among the worst of the worst. Seriously, save yourself the time and energy and steer clear of The Fog. I haven't seen a horror movie this bad since I saw the remake of The Haunting.

Remakes are the fashion nowadays, and The Fog was a good candidate. Not because the original is bad, but because it was so good that it's strong story could likely stand the test of updating. Unfortunately, the remake turned out not to be much of a test.

To make this short, the only good things in this movie are Selma Blair and some sweeping shots across the island and surrounding water. Tom Welling is ineffectual in the lead role, and - on this evidence - Maggie Grace simply cannot act. She comes across as a Paris Hilton type - someone famous for being something else, who tries their hand at acting and fails miserably. The ineptness of her performance is such that it really detracts and takes the viewer out of the movie.

Some things get changed around from the original, not for any great benefit. With the journal in Grace's hands, we get the backstory piecemeal and in a more confusing way than in the original movie. For a horror movie, there is virtually nothing to get scared by. The ghosts are about as scary as the ones from Pirates of the Caribbean.

In all, this film is actually a testament to the skill of the makers of the original movie, which is superior in every respect. Twenty years later, with far more technology at their disposal, the result is an abject failure on every level.

I was so disappointed about this. When I first heard they were remaking it, I was worried, but gave it every chance to actually be good. It wasn't. Everything that was good in the original was ruined in this one. There was no "atmosphere" to it, it was just a bunch of overly-beautiful WB-age stars thinly acting out a poor script. The whole purpose of the lighthouse and Stevie Wayne was to present this feeling of isolation and loneliness...in the new one, they seem to rarely use the lighthouse at all. There are extra points in the plot that are unnecessary and... and, I can just go on and on. It was just horrible.

Then, I tried looking at it not as a "remake" but just as a regular movie, as though I was seeing the story for the first time. But, you know what: it still sucks. It doesn't capture you. There are a few good scenes and shots, but overall I just kept wondering when it would be over. So much potential with a story and it just didn't work.

Unfortunately, that's Hollywood today. Horror films can be well made at the same time. Maybe they should stop relying so much on picture-perfect actors and corny digital special effects and start focusing more on the story, the characters, the music (Lord, the original score added so much), and just making it entertaining! 3 out of 10.

It's bad enough that Hollywood has finally run out of original movie ideas, that they have resort to making either A) sequels to successful past movies that don't come close to the original, B) movies based on successful books/video games that don't come close to the original, or C) remakes of successful movies that don't come close to the original. This version of John Carpenter's subtle masterpiece "The Fog" falls into Category C. I was worried when I heard they were remaking this, and I wasn't disappointed (I should get a job predicting movie success/failures--no one believes me, but I'm right at LEAST 90% of the time). I was hoping it would stay true to the original, but so many liberties were taken to "make it so that modern audiences could relate to it" that it became a totally different film, and I don't mean that as a compliment. I mean, I can understand the modern music at the radio station and the up-to-date equipment. But why the gratuitous sex scene? Why the hoochy-koochy-dancers on the boat? And why make Elizabeth and Stevie related to the Founding Fathers (the FF's last names are never given in the original, except for Malone)? Also, there was never any logical REASON for the "attack"--at least in the first movie, it was the 100th anniversary of the crime that brought on the revenge (the crime took place in 1880; the movie was made in 1980). This crime took place in 1871, and the revenge took place in 2005?? 134 years?? That made less than no sense. And that ending?? Talk about anti-climactic. At least in the original, it ended the way it should have--it followed the plot line, it was the REASONABLE conclusion. This one--I only stayed with it to see how it played out, and it was completely unreasonable. I won't give it away, but it made NO sense to the plot. The special effects weren't even enough to redeem this sad excuse for a remake--I kept making jokes about "Pirates of the Caribbean" throughout the whole thing! I couldn't help it--I had to salvage this film somehow! That was the part that was so GOOD about the original, that you never really SAW the faces of the ghosts or graphic details of what they did--think "Blair Witch", people--less is MORE. The human imagination is the best scare tactic on the planet! Once you put a face on the fear, you can deal with it. It's the fear you CAN'T see that messes you up for days on end! All in all, another wasted rental from Blockbuster.