|Page 1 of 43:||          |
|Index||427 reviews in total|
298 out of 391 people found the following review useful:
This movie is really good if you're a complete moron, 17 October 2005
Author: holder_MD from United States
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.
170 out of 240 people found the following review useful:
Kill me now and save me from trash like this..., 1 November 2005
Author: joannafannadanna from Greenwich, CT
I recently saw THE FOG and then read a lot of the reviews posted on
IMDb about it. In my opinion, you people are being TOO easy on it. Can
you rate anything BELOW a 1? Can I give a NEGATIVE rating to this film?
And most of all, I'm writing Revolution Studios and demanding my money
back. When you pay money to see something in a theater, I feel that
there is a mutual and unspoken guarantee from the studio releasing it
that the film will, at the very least, resemble something that LOOKS as
if it were made by a group of people who know something about
film-making. After seeing this, I would have to seriously question
whether or not Rupert Wainwright has ever actually seen a film or if
he's just going by what other people have told him ("Hey, Rupert,
movies are really cool! You use this thing called a camera and it
records people doing neat stuff! Doesn't that sound interesting?").
I don't need to be insulted like this. The original FOG was a good, solid piece of horror film-making that generated its scares by making the most of a small budget along with great music and decent effects. The new one is a poop stain on the remake underbelly that Hollywood has chosen to embrace. I don't just hate this movie, I LOATHE it. I loathe it and everything that it stands for because what it stands for is taking your money and then kicking you in the balls.
167 out of 243 people found the following review useful:
The WORST!, 17 October 2005
Author: chatterchit-1 from United States
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!
135 out of 185 people found the following review useful:
The biggest disappointment of the Year, 16 October 2005
Author: perfect14u from United States
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
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.
121 out of 180 people found the following review useful:
Avoid this movie at all costs., 17 October 2005
Author: war_cat2 from San Diego (aka Kirk)
I saw this opening night and let me tell you. The first hour is so bad
that at least a half dozen people got up and left. The lady behind me
puked half way thru the movie as well (I think because the movie made
her nauseous). The last 1/2 hr does have some cool cinematography but
not enough to save the film from the horrible creation it is. Bad
acting, horrible script writing, stereo- typical characters with less
than 1-dimension. Leave well enough alone (the 1980 original).
___SPOILER BELOW____ The best (funniest) part of the film comes when
the lead lady watches a videotaped segment of some murders and we see
the hilarious reaction of guy who hid in the freezer. "Just chillin'"
he was. :-)
We also get an infamous horrible script writing one-liner "What's going on here?".... see if you can spot it.
81 out of 101 people found the following review useful:
The first tomato can be thrown at the screen two minutes after the opening credits, 20 October 2005
Author: NateF88 from IL
I wasn't angry about The Fog remake until I heard that it was going to
be released by Revolution Studios, a company known to house crap
movies. From then on, my hopes weren't that high, and they sank even
lower when I saw the trailer. It looked to much like Boogeyman or
Darkenss Falls rather than an atmospheric, imaginative, horror
production like the original.
The original Fog deserves to be a cult classic and is a great film, but I thought it could have used a couple of improvements. It was not John Carpenter's best effort, but it still was an 8 out of 10 movie. This remake had potential because it could have corrected some of the plot holes from the original. Not surprisingly, the modernized Fog created new loopholes in the story and in addition had a terrible script.
The characters here were clichéd. The naive young girl who sees "horrible things" happening and who is befriended by her "hot ex-boyfriend". There is even a token black guy who serves as the "comic relief" for the film. Why can't they have black heroes in horror movies? Every character is seen in some state of undress, including Stevie Wayne, a mother of a young teenage boy named Andy, who struts around in panties in front of her son (I thought that was funny). I'm surprised Andy's old nanny wasn't shown strutting around in her undies while cleaning the dishes.
The leper colony ghosts were not scary. They were all see through, and instead of a giant fishing hook, Father Blake carried a cane (WTF??), not for support while walking, but for a scene near the end of the film where flying glass shards contribute to the death of a character. Also, the fog in this film is all CGI, and is not nearly as menacing as the one in the original was.Father Malone's character in the original was a major contributor to the story, because he represented the sins of the founding fathers. In this one, he's just a stupid old drunk who has a minimal impact on the story and plays more like the typical "old lady who can see the future" kind of character. Also, why aim for a PG-13? It's obvious the filmmakers wanted to put some gore in this, and they did, because there were many deaths that involved people being maimed and/or set on fire, not necessarily in that order. Only a few more drops of blood and it would be R.
There are two good things though. There is one pretty shocking death scene that was cool and there were some cool cinematography shots. The eerie image of the sailors on their ship in the fog gave me the chills. There was also a really creepy ghost who was only shown in shadows (you never saw his face) and who wore a top hat. It would have been interesting if they showed that ghost more, but alas, they shied away from it.
And don't get me started on the ending. It's supposed to be a shocker, but it's extremely predictable. It also makes everything that preceded it make little sense. What was the point of that? Stevie Wayne's cheesy closing monologue was even cheesier than the concluding monologue in House of the Dead.
Overall, this dreadful remake ran shy of where it could have won the race.
100 out of 140 people found the following review useful:
This movie ROCKED.......me to sleep., 25 October 2005
Author: firehawk-ws6 from Raleigh, North Carolina
After having read a few of the comments that have already been left, it wouldn't make much sense for me to add much more than has already been said. You've been warned: This is an hour and a half of your life that you will never, ever recover....and you will be irritated for it. ZERO chemistry between characters, sub-par acting at best, no story continuity, and, most importantly, NO SCARE FACTOR. I actually found myself chuckling through a few scenes that were supposed to be suspenseful. Terrible. With the technology available today, this had some serious promise to be an improvement over the original, but it failed miserably. Watch the original Fog.....
112 out of 175 people found the following review useful:
Lousy in every way..., 16 October 2005
Author: Tatiana Salazar from Canada
The Plot?...completely lousy The acting?...HORRIFIC. The main actress was truly getting on my nerves... WE did not get to identify with any of the characters as many of them were completely pointless throughout the movie...I was actually hoping they would all die. Nothing really made sense and everything just happened so fast yet it seemed like it was never going to end. The ending was almost ridiculous and completely senseless (more so than the rest of the movie) I have never seen the first movie but if it's as bad as this one, I am glad I did not waste my time. This was dreadful and painful to watch... by far the worst movie I have seen so far. I've never seen so many people walk out of a movie theater. This movie should have not been released in theaters...or DVD for that matter... What a waste!
58 out of 78 people found the following review useful:
Watch the news-it's scarier, 27 October 2005
Author: thisisshe (email@example.com) from United States
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.
47 out of 73 people found the following review useful:
God, I hated this movie!, 16 October 2005
Author: jayrandall883 from United States
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
I always hold out hope for remakes because I actually like a couple of
them. I liked the remake of TCM and Amityville, and for the most part I
like the Japenese horror movie remakes (but lets all forget about the
god awfulness that was The Ring 2). When I saw that they were remaking
this into a PG-13 movie I wasn't that thrilled (however, I am not apart
of the bandwagon that says all horror movies should be rated R and not
PG-13. I think there are some great PG-13 horror movies out there).
Even when I saw the first preview I was not excited about it. But I still held out hope because the original The Fog is one of the scariest movies I've ever seen, and not to mention, in my opinion, John Carpenters best movie (Halloween is a little to slow for me). Even if the movie would be bad, I figured that Selma Blair could at least carry some of it.
Opening night I was there to watch and I was so shocked because, for the second time ever in a movie (the first was The Talented Mr. Ripley), I was dying to get the hell out of there. The movie was painful to watch and doesn't even hold a candle to the great original. I am not kidding people when I say that this movie was bad bad bad. Horribly bad. Its like the filmmakers just wrote down all the good things about the original and then threw them out.
First of all, I don't really need lots of blood and gore, and the original didn't have an excessive amount (but it still scared the hell out of me). But this was just PG-13 ridiculousness. We rarely saw any blood or gore (or did we see any at all, it was kind of hard for me to stay awake), the guys in the fog weren't even actors in scary makeup but was instead really bad CGI that wasn't scary at all. I wasn't expecting much from the actors (minus Blair) to begin with but, OMG, Golden Rasberry Awards should be given to all who were involved. Even Blair couldn't' do anything with what she was given.
***And what was up with the nanny (or aunt or whatever) getting choked by the hand through the GARBAGE DISPOSAL. Oh my GOD, yes ladies and gentleman we have stepped into the bad clichés that we often find in Friday the 13th or the later Nightmare on Elm Streets. There was nothing scary about that scene!!! We laughed at it and there should be no laughing in The Fog.
And then, do I even need to bring up the STUPID love story as a subplot. That was just a god-awful addition to a bad enough movie. At the end when whatsherface goes and kisses the old ghost and then becomes one??? what the hell was that? It was like I was watching a bad scary movie only with Moulin Rouge type camera work (I'm referring to the 360 degree view we get of the kiss for those of you who have seen the movie).
Shame on the people that had anything to do with this film. This could have been good. The filmmakers could have taken the original, fixed the rough spots that Carpenter had in the film and maybe tweak a few small things, and they could have had Grade A movie. But no they had to go and modernize it and have it primed and ready for the high school crowd who probably don't even know this is a remake. I've seen the box office results for the weekend and they are not pretty so maybe Hollywood will finally catch on that we actually want good "scary" movies and not cheap knockoffs.
|Page 1 of 43:||          |
|External reviews||Parents Guide||Plot keywords|
|Main details||Your user reviews||Your vote history|