Trapped within an eerie mist, the residents of Antonio Bay have become the unwitting victims of a horrifying vengeance. One hundred years earlier, a ship carrying lepers was purposely lured onto the rocky coastline and sank, drowning all aboard. Now they're back – long-dead mariners who've waited a century for their revenge.
It was like an itch I had to scratch !!!!
Is it possible for fans of the John Carpenter original to be objective with this remake? Is it possible for a modern audience fed on Gorno and Slice Dice horror genres to be objective also?
Well I like to think that as a man in middle age I can be very objective and rate the film accordingly, so with that in mind I happily admit to being a member of both the above groups I have mentioned. This smacked of a bad idea when it was first mooted but it came as no surprise to anyone who can see that mainstream cinema had at this time in film history simply run out of great ideas for movies. This is real bad and I avoided it for so long, but the fact that his royal highness John Carpenter was lending his name to the project always kept me interested, it was the itch I was destined to scratch at some point.
It's poorly directed, badly acted, in fact there is a scene with four people on a boat (two of each sex) that is so badly acted you would be surprised if these actors ever work again! The pic is devoid of suspense, jump shocks and worst of all, an ending that is as dreary as it is insulting. I give it 2/10 for the sound mix only. An awful abomination.
Oh man this was so bad. Like this was **so** bad. Part of me is afraid to go back and check out the original now, but the rest of me feels safe in the knowledge that it couldn't possibly be worse... I mean it couldn't, right? ...Right?
Final rating:★ - Of no value. Avoid at all costs.
r96sk
Oct 16, 2020
5/10
Poor overall, I do like the idea though.
<em>'The Fog'</em> has been absolutely obliterated on Letterboxd, 1.6 average rating is major yikes. I, honestly, don't think it's quite that awful but I fully understand the dislike this has. For me, it wastes a good concept.
I actually don't mind the special effects, sure they aren't anything amazing but I never really felt let down by them; the only times it bothered me, in truth, was when there's a huge bundle of fog. For the "natives", though, I thought they looked fairly neat.
The film definitely goes on for too long, while the ending is terrible. Acting wise I think it's OK. Tom Welling (Nick) and Maggie Grace (Elizabeth) are passable, the rest of the cast give pretty lame performances granted.
Bad, but not *that* bad in my opinion. Remakes always tend to make people more annoyed, especially when they've seen the original. I haven't, so I guess that plays a part.
FilipeManuelNeto
Jul 6, 2022
1/10
**I have nothing against remakes… but at least try to do them well!**
I've seen John Carpenter's film The Fog a few years ago, but I remember it well and how pleasant it was to see it. The original film didn't shed a drop of fake blood, it wasn't the kind of extremely visual film we've grown used to in recent years, with blood spurting everywhere and chunks of flesh flying towards us. Carpenter made a clean film, without the jumps that made us fall out of our chairs, but tense, very tense and full of mystery. And ultimately, that's really what made the film work so well… and that's what this film lacks, precisely!
The remake maintains, in essence, the script of its predecessor: Antonio Bay is an American coastal city that is about to celebrate the centenary of its foundation when mysterious occurrences and macabre deaths begin to happen, always related to a strange-looking fog, quite dense and somewhat greenish. However, the discovery of an old diary, written by one of the city's founders, finally brings some clarifications: after all, the entire city was founded at the cost of dozens of innocently killed human lives, and now, a hundred years later, his souls are returning from the sea, desirous of revenge.
I confess that I expected more from this film. The truth is, if I didn't really know what happens in this movie (thanks to Carpenter's movie) I don't know if I would understand what's going on here. Terribly poorly written, the script fails to convey the whole story to us, and new audiences run the risk of not understanding everything. It's a messy story, with flaws and missing parts. On the other hand, the film lacks any kind of tension, suspense or functional mystery. It has some good things, it tries to involve more characters, to take the focus away from that isolated broadcaster at the lighthouse, but the truth is that I don't know if this was really a good idea, since the film was much less clear and understandable than its predecessor and none of the characters manages to engage us, or capture our sympathy and interest.
Directed by Rupert Wainwright, it was the last feature film of his career, and although John Carpenter lent his name to the film, he has publicly stated that he was not involved in the project. The cast has several names and actors, but none particularly sounding name, and none of the actors was able to shine or really give us a work worthy of being fully appreciated, in a positive way.
On a technical level, the film has a fairly regular cinematography and makes good use of all the filming locations used. The visual effects and CGI work quite well, and the fog is truly impressive and even beautiful. But the film's redeeming qualities end here. I would like, as a historian, to highlight in particular my repudiation and disgust for the way they recreated the boat scenes, where we see Blake and his traveling companions. As the event takes place at the end of the 19th century, it is inconceivable and unacceptable that the production decided to use clothing, props and even a ship style from the late 18th century, that is, from a period one hundred years prior to the one intended to be retracted. This is mocking with history, and a sign of utter negligence on the part of the producers and the technical team.
