Fog

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!

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.

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.

John Carpenter's name is synonymous with horror films. A few films were not well received, but he's gone on to develop a cult status. His movie The Fog was not considered a huge hit, but has become near and dear to many horror film lovers bloody hearts. So when it was announced that it was part of the rampage of remakes and sequels, half of those who heard rejoiced. They expected that better effects could make the film scarier. The other half of horror-files just shook their heads, expecting another disaster in film. What could a bigger budget and new hot young actors do to freshen it up? Would a bad episode of the Weather Channel really scare a new generation? I was one of the ones shaking my head, skeptical, but I gave it a shot.

Two of television's young actors, Tom Wellington from Smallville, and Maggie Grace from Lost, star in this unnecessary update. The film tries to fill seats with promised SSA( Scares, Screams and Sex Appeal)- obvious from the quick cut trailer which shows typical horror shots AND a low shot of Maggie Grace in her underwear. The promises are never fulfilled. The remake keeps the same plot of the first movie. Apparently somewhere in Antonio Bay's history people have been wronged. Unhappy and looking for revenge, these people come back in the Fog around the town's anniversary. For some reason the film forgets to add the part which makes the audience care about the characters. You don't care if the living out run the Fog or not. With scary and prophetic statements like "It came back from the sea….things always do" this movie provokes eye rolling and incredulous looks every five minutes.

Nothing in this movie made it redeemable. Trying to add comedy, DeRay Davis, as Spooner, is just confusing. At the same time makes one wonder why he's the only person who isn't white in the entire town. The only way that anyone should sit through this movie is if it's being used as a form of torture. I recommend you tell them what they want to know and forgo the pain. I wish I had. Leaving a horror film shocked or scared out of your wits is a desired effect. What The Fog leaves you with is scary- you've just wasted over an hour of your life watching a needless remake.

This is a film that's not concerned with characters, not concerned with story, not concerned with atmosphere, and I'd even go so far as to say it's not concerned with even formula. It's focus is one thing, and one thing alone: spectacle. After all, this isn't the small independently financed ghost story from 1980 – oh no, it can afford explosions, flashy CG effects, and bodies flying through windows every chance it gets. It wants to show you the flashy screen distractions it purchased with its larger budget.

Yes, this is the Mission Impossible of cinematic horror remakes. But apparently the new Fog could not afford the "horror" as in "horror movie" as in "why am I watching this counterintuitive genre film?" Early in the film, the fog first appears out of nowhere overtaking a small fishing ship where two guys and two girls would be doing something naughty except for the tiny detail that they live in a PG13 film. So, instead, the girls are dancing and the black guy has a video camera. Right. Not that I have anything against PG13 horror (the 3 good ones), but when every inch of the celluloid is screaming for an R rating, don't water it down.

Moving on: after the fog mysteriously materializes out of nowhere, making all the boat's equipment go haywire, the party's over. The girls are inside the ship's bridge, the guys are out on deck where an old sailing vessel came out of the fog and vanished. The fog gets the girls first and, are you ready for this, throws their bodies through a window. Ghosts in the fog go through the trouble of throwing bodies through windows.

It's a thing called subtlety. This film does not have it.

Wait, I'm not through – it's not enough for a man to burn to death. Oh no, his smoldering skeleton has to fly through a door, across an entire room, and crash into equipment. And the film's climax? Lots of shattered glass. Flying CG glass. An old man thrown through yet another window, magically pushed across a street, and into a cemetery. Not to mention more fire.

Did it occur to anyone on this film that "hey, maybe we should pull back a tad before this reaches ridiculous levels?" Or, I dunno, "Maybe our effects shouldn't be exponentially more developed than every other aspect of this film." Yes, the effects are the Fog's strong point. I'll skip the story criticism out of pity, and simply say that the Fog brings nothing new to the overused flashback device. It's not bad, just mediocre. And sadly, juxtapose to the two leading performances in the film, I wanted to stick with the flashbacks and forget about the characters in the current time line. The acting, wow, to quote Colonel Kurtz, "the horror, the horror." Tom Welling and Maggie Grace, our leads, demonstrate their knowledge about acting, and curiously made me question whether or not they actually know how to act (I'll reserve my judgment for now.) They know to look left, to look up, to look sad, to look happy, to make eye contact, and yet they never emote. Through the entire film the audience never sees the characters Nick Castle and Elizabeth Williams. We see Tom Welling and Maggie Grace making semi-appropriate faces and gestures to match the mood and scenarios they find themselves in. And I use the phrase "semi-appropriate" deliberately because throughout the performances both actors are clearly suppressing smiles even in their most horror strickened, soul tearing, depressing moments. You know, like the type of acting you'd expect from TV commercial actors? Like Jason Ritter from Freddy Vs Jason.

Maybe they didn't care. Maybe they didn't try. Considering the roles handed to them (and everyone else on the film) I can't say I'd blame them were that the case. Nick is supposed to be something of a renegade stoic youth, his own man with his own business, unbound by the history books or silly traditions. Elizabeth is supposed to be the girlfriend looking for the answer to her nightmares, looking for her place in the world. Spooner is the goofy token black guy. Stop me when this sounds familiar.

Truthfully, I found myself longing for the film to explore the role of the torn alcoholic Father Malone (one of the background character) than spend any more time with Nick and Elizabeth. Or perhaps even his dad, city official Tom Malone. Unlike the two lead characters, these men showcase a few hints at psychological depth – even if those hints were nothing more than an overused writing device. At the very least the actors playing them display a conviction in their parts.

Perhaps the most intriguing character in the film, also the most underused, comes in the form of Stevie Wayne played by Selma Blair. Who, interestingly, plays the character of a jaded disc jockey. Yes, an actress playing an unenthused woman is the highlight, the inspiration, and arguably the most vibrant performance in the entire movie simply because there within lies an actual character.

Because when Selma Blair looks up from behind her mic and sighs, the audience actually gets the sensation that that's what the character, Stevie Wayne, would do. Tom Welling and Maggie Grace, they look up at a cued time because that's what the director has told them to do. They are actors acting, but Stevie Wayne is real.

One of the few genuine characters in the film.