Most Helpful Customer Reviews
|
|
51 of 63 people found the following review helpful:
1.0 out of 5 stars
Just plain bad, January 6, 2006
Of all the horror remakes over the past few years, I honestly thought that no one would ever dare to remake John Carpenter's the Fog. The original Fog, which starred Adrianne Barbeau, Jamie Lee Curtis, Janet Leigh, and Hal Holbrook, failed at the box office but was regarded as a cult classic and one of Carpenter's best thanks to the ultra eerie atmosphere and sense of dread. This remake, directed by Stigmata director Rupert Wainwright, is not only beyond bad, it's abysmal. The eerie atmosphere and sense of dread are replaced with attractive stars (Smallville's Tom Welling and Lost's Maggie Grace, along with Selma Blair in Barbeau's role) to go with an incomprehensible storyline that has little to do with that of the original, and an ending that isn't just mind boggling and non-sensical, it's just plain ridiculous. I never thought that a cult classic like Carpenter's original Fog would ever be remade as a PG-13 crud-fest like this, but I shouldn't be surprised at all these days. All in all, if you're a fan of the original film, then you already know to avoid this like the plague, because no matter how "Unrated" it can be, it can't come close to being scary or as good as the original.
|
|
|
9 of 9 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Good Movie, January 21, 2006
A Kid's Review
This movie is a pretty good remake. I love the old errie town. Its true this movie is not The shining, but I think it is worth your renting money. I went to the theater and saw this movie. I really didn't get scared but I love the town and scenary. If you want to see a good movie, rent this today!
|
|
|
11 of 12 people found the following review helpful:
2.0 out of 5 stars
A missed opportunity to recreate a classic., January 30, 2006
I am a fan of the original version of "The Fog" and of John Carpenter's work in general. When I first learned about this remake back in the fall of 2004, I groaned. Why would anyone want to redo a film less than thirty years old or a film whose original director is still alive for that matter? As I read the news snippets that were posted at various websites, I felt there was some hope for this unnecessary update. The saving grace factor being the late Debra Hill and Carpenter himself were set to produce. I later found out that Carpenter was a producer by name only. Hill would succumb to cancer before production began. All hope seemed to be lost. Then casting news started rolling in. Tom Welling, Maggie Grace and Selma Blair all signed on as the three leads. Why they felt the need to cut the ages of all the central characters in half is beyond me. I kept debating on whether or not I should even see the remake when it came out. Then the trailer debuted on the internet. I saw it and it looked very good. Appearances are deceiving.
For those of you who have not seen the 1979 original or this 2005 retelling, here is a rundown of the plot:
In the late 1800s the four founding fathers of the small Oregon town (originally California) of Antonio Bay made a deal with a group of rich lepers to allow them to purchase half the island as their new home. The founding fathers double cross them. The four of them board the clippership the lepers are traveling on in the dead of night and begin robbing them of all their money and possessions. The ship is set ablaze as the four men escape while every man, woman and child on board perishes. Flash forward 130 years or so to present day where the local historical society has erected a statue in honor of the men who made it possible for Antonio Bay to grow from a settlement into a prosperous, thriving township. Apparently the dead lepers have other ideas, because they return from their water grave and start offing all the oldest living descendants (and anyone else who gets in the way) of those responsible for their demise.
For the most part, the story is cut and paste from the original. There are slight changes to the back stories to all the characters. They were written to be the descendants of the conspirators. While this was an interesting take on the prologue, it was never really fully explored. There was also a really ridiculous and ludicrous plot twist which inlvolved one of the leads turning out to be the reincarnated spirit of the head leper's spouse. What the hell were they thinking?
Casting was a problem in and of itself. Why the filmmakers felt the need to cut the ages of the centrals characters in half is beyond me. Tom Atkins was perfectly in his element as Nick Castle in the original. Tom Welling brought nothing to the story in his portrayal of the character (I would have approached Kurt Russel for the part). At first glance, Maggie Grace seemed like an adequate casting choice for the role of Elizabeth Williams (it was Elizabeth Solley in the original). After seeing a few episodes of "Lost" I wondered why they casted her, because her acting is very flat and mechanical. She didn't impress me at all in the movie, either (I think Eliza Dushku or Jessica Biel would have been better). Selma Blair did what she could with what she was given. I just had a hard time seeing her as the mother of a 12-year-old even though she was 33 when they were shooting the film. She is very youthful looking...which is exactly what the filmmakers were looking for. I would have gone with someone who in very least LOOKED old enough to have a child that age. Charisma Carpenter or Laura Dern, for example. Blair also didn't have the sultry speaking voice that Adrienne Barbeau does. In hearing her voice over in the original, I felt like I was listening to a real DJ. Blair didn't capture that like Barbeau did. It could have been worse: Fergie from The Black Eyed Peas was intially cast as Stevie Wayne, but left because the filmmakers would not give her top billing.
The supporting cast was slightly better. Sara Botsford updated the role of Kathy Williams (who was written to be Elizabeth's bitch mother in this version) originally played by the late great Janet Leigh. She played it well, but her involvement with the other characters was changed drastically from the way she was written in the original. Botsford did a good job. I found her diction to be a bit off, though. In one scene, she is reading the names on the monument, she seems to have a slight British accent. I thought she was Canadian. Whatever, go figure. Adrian Hough did a respectable job as Father Malone, but did not quite surpass the horror Hal Holbrook exuded knowing he is the descendant of a thief and murderer. Spooner, the new and unneeded token black character was just plain annoying and completely out of place. I really wish one of the lepers had skewered him with a sicle.
The ending of the film was a complete and total insult to my intelligence and everyone else who saw it. Why did they have to change the story so much? This remake is nothing more than a prime example of a wasted oppotunity to retell a classic in a fresh way. The script was horrible, the acting was wooden and the visual effects were garbage. The only nice thing I can think of to say about "The Fog" (2005) is the cinematography is top notch.
John Carpenter was approached and asked his opinion of this recycling of his cult classic. His response: "No comment." He must be kicking himself for allowing this remake to happen. Debra Hill is probably turning over in her grave. It would be just desserts if she came back to haunt Carpenter and slap him on the back of his head for not having actively produced this feature. Had he done so, he might have been able to save this train wreck from occuring.
Then again, that's just wishful thinking.
|
|
|
Most Recent Customer Reviews
|
DVD ~ Piper Perabo
DVD ~ Barry Watson
DVD ~ Camilla Belle
DVD ~ Stephen Dorff
DVD ~ Sarah Michelle Gellar
