The Fog (2005)

Wonderfully offbeat film!

This is How Movies Should Be Made

One of the best films i have seen

A film of deceptively outspoken contemporary relevance, this is cinema at its most alert, alarming and alive.

The movie is pretty predictable and follows many well established horror tropes (bad communication between the people and unrealistic overall behaviour) The storyline feels forced, the characters one dimensional and even the "bad" guys lack any reasonable motivation.There is not much to say - the film is the bare standard. The acting is average, the scare factor ... well, there is none.My advice: stay away from it (i have not seen the original one - so i cannot recommend it - but i heard that it is much better than the remake)

A film that aspires to nothing, that achieves nothing and doesn't add much to lives, this remake of Carpenter's classic "The Fog" is pure rubbish and another proof that some directors shouldn't be allowed to work in the movie business. Gladly, the person in question vanished from the industry and only makes some short films here and there, and he's about to attempt a return to the scene. I'm talking about Rupert Wainwright, whose previous effort before this thing was the disappointing "Stigmata". It's a mystery to me that a career with such a spasmodic quantity and no quality, the doors are still open for him. Perhaps that Disney movie he did in 1994 was good enough in cash results and probably the only thing that keeps him going in the industry. As for his work in "The Fog", it's just silly. A poor man's horror flick that tries to imitate the original, make some 21st century adjustments, throw some plot twists and gives nothing back to us. And I'm mad that Carpenter and Debra Hill, the ones who brought us the great 1980 film stood as producers for this wreck.The story is practically the same: Antonio Bay, a coastal city celebrating its 100th anniversary welcomes a mysterious killing fog that is taking over its places and its people. Among them Nick (Tom Welling) with his boat business; his girl Elizabeth (Maggie Grace), this time she isn't an ordinary hitchhiker, but Nick's girlfriend who left town some months ago; the lone radio host (Selma Blair) watching everything from her lighthouse; the drunk Father Malone (Adrian Hough) and others. Replicating the same basis doesn't equal same quality, even if you add elements to make it more interesting to audiences, e.g. the whole mystery behind the fog is told to us through good yet unnecessary flashbacks presenting a story from the past. Carpenter avoided that; instead of spoon-feeding us he used of diaries read by the father character or the opening campfire scene with the old man telling spooky stories to the kids. The flashback used now is well made, possibly the most interesting and most horrific the film gets, because outside of that realm the movie is a hilarious mess.No rooting character, goofs after goofs, one or two plot holes and some inconsistencies that it's not even fun mentioning, they're not worthy of such pinpoint. OK, one that was amazingly laughable was when Tom crashed his car (Elizabeth and the radio host kid were also there) into a boat and everyone in the car pass out. Cut to a few scenes later, when we return to see what happened to them, Elizabeth is hurt outside of the car while Tom and the kid are on the other side. No one had gotten out of the vehicle in the previous moment. That had cracking me up for a long time; and by that time I wasn't more interested in the picture. It wasn't scary, thrilling or anything. It just kept pushing things and ideas that only amounted to nothing. One of the few things that made this tolerable was the cast. I don't see a case for qualifying none of the actors as bad, but the only bad thing for them was acting in it, getting a credit and a payment for it. Not saying there's good caliber performances but they didn't annoy me as usually bad actors tend to do while they're in a lousy film. Welling has some appeal though it only works for TV public who won't forget his "Smallville" days - and let's face, in the terms of a girl attracted to a guy the scenario played with him and Maggie Grace is far more realistic than Tom Atkins and Jamie Lee Curtis in the original film. Speaking of Maggie, I can't see her anything besides Shannon in "Lost" and that's already a stretch since I can't stand that character, and she uses of some her traits here as well (and she doesn't have Jamie Lee queen of horror appeal). Annoying as hell just like the guy playing Father Malone. Selma Blair, veterans Rade Serbedzija, Kenneth Welsh and Sara Botsford are fine but their potential was wasted in this junk. The cast made their best given the material they were forced to work with. Mr. Wainwright has said this at one time: "I think all films should aspire to be art, and all art should aspire to be entertaining." Well, if that's his philosophy then I wonder when did something like "The Fog" is allowed to be considered as art? Or for that matter, an entertainment?" This movie cannot be considered anything except filler of time, waste of time. And if a filmmaker dares to say something like that, it means that he doesn't know much about his trade. It's not impossible what he said, it can be done but the quality of the material, whatever it is, gets very compromised. Because for art to be entertaining, it must lose its power of being an art (something that echoes/mirrors life, bringing a relevance to it) and becomes something for the masses, which is something art utopically aspires to be but isn't. It's always restricted. And now we're putting art and this dreadful experience in the same sentence. Blame it on the director for saying that stupid remark. This one goes for the hall of shame for its lack of substantial goodness. It doesn't scare, it just makes you sleepy. I thought I was little biased since I had just seen the classic back to back with this one but even without comparing them, this remake doesn't stand on its own merits, if there was at least one. I already imagine horror fans talking about "The Fog" as if being one of the worst films ever made, and some confused interlocutor will ask which version they're referring to. Shame, shame. 2/10

This film is not that good but it is not as terrible as everyone makes it out to be. The original was done by John Carpenter. I believe John Carpenter would feel that it was done pretty good justice. It has removed the cheesy pirates that were in the original and replaced it with a more supernatural feel to it. Though some of the deaths in the movie are fairly cheap at times, I feel for a remake it is all around not bad. Anyone who enjoyed horror movies of the 70's & 80's then you want to check it out. I enjoy goofy and great old school horror movies. When a remake is done it should be far superior than the original or at least attempt to. This movie stays very close to the original which I enjoyed. Again this is not a great movie and it is border line crappy but it is not as bad as everyone reviewing it makes it out to be. It's a good Halloween time movie to watch on TV if it comes on. As much as I love John Carpenter I feel this movie is definitely better than the original. Not a lot better but it still is. Don't go out of your way for this but if it's on and it's in the Spirit of Halloween time then give it a watch with a few beers. Take it for were it came from.

I picked this movie up thinking that it was good I had never seen the original before and I had not read any reviews about it either. I really wish I had. This is one of those movies you keep hoping will get better but it really does not. I think after about 10 to 15 minutes into it I started to get bored and a little while after that I started to get quite irritated. The actors are bad half the time it looks like the were also bored while making the movie (I would not blame them) Would not recommend this movie to anyone unless you want to waste about an hour and a half of your time and be very bored. I rate this a 1 out of 10