Badmovies.org Forum

I saw the trailer some weeks ago and it looked quite promising. The blue-ish cinematography seemed a good translation of Dean Cundey's original work in Carpenter's film, and you could almost smell the fog.

But a quick visit to http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/fog/ shows some of the worst reviews I've ever read. Has anybody seen it and can comment on what's worng (and right9 with the movie?

I haven't seen it, but last night I was talking with some folks who had.  They said it was terrible.  The said the only scary part in the whole movie was when the girl who worked in the theatre opened the back door, thereby making them wonder if someone was going to sneak up behind them or something.

I did not get any specifics, and they had not seen Carpenter's original to make a comparison.

The original, as it happens with most of the stuff Carpenter has made over the years, relied more in atmosphere and mood than in gore or easy frights, so I'm starting to worry that they may have added plenty of both and thus dumbified the story.

I haven't seen it, but the trailers look good.  But, if you think about it, it must be incredibly easy to make a great trailer for even the most rancid film.  I mean, if you watch a 90 minute movie, surely there must be 5 seconds of a scene here, and 5 seconds of a different scene there that look pretty good in isolation.  And maybe a single line of dialogue that, if taken completely out of context, sounds pretty cool.  If you can repeat that twice, you've got a 30 second TV spot.

Only seen a little bit of Carpenters original  which was creepy, this on the other hand looks like wattered down teeny bopper trash and a complete waste of time.

Its not the fact that its another PG-13 horror movie that p**ses me off so much as its the fact it should be a hard film that was neautered by p***y execs and made into what looks to be a 'WB' movie of the week.

the more films I see remade, the more I appriciate the originals.

It's a pity, because Carpenter could use a bunch of succesful remakes, like it has happened to Tobe Hoper or George A. Romero.

Sure, there's an "Assault of police precint 13" remake, and I found it quite enjoyable, but it seemed to fail in drawing too many viewers.

I watched Ebert & Roeper this last weekend and Ebert stated that they would've reviewed it but the studio would not screen it for anyone.

Whenever a studio refuses to screen a film, it's usually for one reason: because the film sucks and they know it.
They don't want the critics ripping it to shreds before it hits the theaters.
That way, they make more money from it.

Ebert gave it "The Wagging Finger Of Shame".

I'll probably rent it later on down the road when it goes to DVD.



Post Edited (10-20-05 12:39)

That Shining Trailer Parody is a prime example how you can change a film with good editing.

 I was surprised at how much I liked it(low expectations always help out a movie like this)...not nearly as good as the original, and the ending was quite possibly the worst ever, but up until then it wasn't too bad at all

The book the original was based on is better than the original.   Of course you get more information with a book and the pictures you create yourself.

I found the end of the original to be very cheesy but otherwise it was a well done, suspenseful film.  Of course a remake is going to screw that up as they try to 'improve the story'.  Look at what they did to Psycho.

More often than not the remake blows chunks.  Incidentally, as far as I am aware,  Assault on Precinct 13 is a remake of Rio Bravo, a John Wayne western that features Ricky Nelson, Dean Martin, Angie Dickinson and Claude Akins as the Beaver.. I mean the bad guy.

Can anyone think of a case where the remake was better than the original?

Shadowphile wrote:

> More often than not the remake blows chunks.  Incidentally, as
> far as I am aware,  Assault on Precinct 13 is a remake of Rio
> Bravo, a John Wayne western that features Ricky Nelson, Dean
> Martin, Angie Dickinson and Claude Akins as the Beaver.. I mean
> the bad guy.

Howard Hawks remade RIO BRAVO twice himself, as EL DORADO (1966) and RIO LOBO (1970).  All three are great!

> Can anyone think of a case where the remake was better than the
> original?

Sure, there are some:

THE WIZARD OF OZ (1939) is better than THE WIZARD OF OZ (1921)

THE HUNCHBACK OF NOTRE DAME (1939) iwith Charles Laughton is better than the 1923 version with Lon Chaney.

A lot of people prefer Carpenter's THE THING over the 1951 version. (I think they're both great).

The 1959 version of BEN-HUR is better than the 1925 version.

The 1981 BBC version of DAY OF THE TRIFFIDS is superior to the 1962 film.

DR. JEKYLL AND MR. HYDE (1931) is considered the best version, though it had been made 4 times previously.  Most agree that the Spencer Tracy version from 1941 isn't as good though.

I prefer the Liz Hurly BEDAZZLED to the original.

INVASION OF THE BODY SNATCHER (1978) is every bit as good as the 1956 version.  Better in some ways IMO.

Peter Jackson's LORD OF THE RINGS shouldn't even be spoken of in the same breath as the Ralph Bakshi version.

I could keep going, but that'll do for now.

In some of those cases you are comparing silent film to talkies.  Not a fair comparison.

Shadowphile wrote:

>
> Can anyone think of a case where the remake was better than the
> original?

Uhh... The Cat People?
Eh... Well, six of one, half dozen the other.
The 1942 version made a lot more sense (although I really didn't buy that creepy stuck-up psychiatrist), but then again, Simone Simon only got naked once.

1981 day of the triffids? hmm will have to IMDB that.

I always liked the Hammer version of The Mummy (1959) better than the Universal version (1932).

Shadowphile wrote:

> In some of those cases you are comparing silent film to
> talkies.  Not a fair comparison.

I see your point (though I disagree that addition of sound would have automatically made the 1925 BEN-HUR better than the 59 version, for example).

My point was that remaking movies has been done forever and will continue to be done forever.  Just as there will continue to be new adaptations of popular stories (WAR OF THE WORLDS for example).  A good movie is a good movie regardless of its source or inspiration.  A bad movie is likewise a bad movie no matter what the original material was like.  The new FOG is a bad movie, because nobody cared to put enough effort into it to make a good movie.  They were more interested in making money.  As long as money is the driving force behind a remake, the likelihood of it being any good is chancy at best.  When someone sincerely desires to make a good film and puts their heart and soul into making the very best one they can, we have a much better chance of getting a solid end product.

After everything has been said, is there anything more to be said? Well . . . actually . . . alot. Thus (Koff! Koff!) my laundry list of remakes and originals.

Anna and the King of Siam (1946)
The King and I (1956) Better?

Non-musical version. Musical version. Having seen them both, I like them both equally well. Call it a tie, for me.

Dracula (1931)
Dracula (1931) (Spanish version) Better?

While Lugosi's best known role is Dracula, I actually prefer the Spanish version to  the English language version.

The Fall of the Roman Empire (1964)
Gladiator (2000) Better?

"Gladiator" is basically a remake of "The Fall of the Roman Empire." While some prefer the remake, I like the original better. Better acting, action, cinematography, lighting, spectacle, etc.

The Jazz Singer (1927)
The Jazz Singer (1953) Better?

Silent version. Sound version. I can't comment on this one. Never seen the sound version.

Maltese Falcon (1931) Better?
Satan Met a Lady (1936) Good?
Maltese Falcon (1941)  Best?

I haven't seen the first two, but it would seem to be hard to beat what is a classic.

Mighty Joe Young (1949)
Mighty Joe Young ((1998) Better?

I know some people prefer the remake to the original. Having seen them both and liked them both, call it another tie.

Mystery of the Wax Museum (1933)
House of Wax (1953) Better?

I agree with this one.

Mutiny on the Bounty (1935) Best
Mutiny on the Bounty (1962) Better
The Bounty (1984) Good

I disagree with this one. I actually prefer the two remakes to the original and like the second remake better then the first one.

Prisoner of Zenda (1937) Better?
Prisoner of Zenda (1952)

Another disagreement from me. Stewart Granger and James Mason have it over Ronald Colman and Douglas Fairbanks, jr. anytime, for me. Actually, both are a remake of the silent film version.

Romeo and Juliet (1936)
Romeo and Juliet (1968) Better?

Agreed. While Leslie Howard and Norman Shearer may be better actors then Lenard Whiting and Olivia Hussey, youths should be played by youths, and not supernumerated adults.

A Star Is Born (1937)
A Star Is Born (1954) Better?

Can't comment again. Haven't seen neither one.

Tarzan of the Apes (1918)
Tarzan of the Apes (1932) Better?

Silent version. Sound version. Again agreed.

Ten Commandments (1923)
Ten Commandments (1956) Better?

Silent version. Sound version. Can't comment again. Never seen the silent version.

The Thief of Bagdad (1924)
The Thief of Bagdad (1940) Better?

Silent version. Sound version. Another agreement.

Titanic (1953) Good?
A Night to Remember (1958) Better?
Titanic (1997) Best?

Disagreement. I think the original and the first remake are far superior to the second remake.

War and Peace (1956)
War and Peace (1967) Better?

American version. Russian version. Seen both. Liked both. Call it another tie, for me.

As for comparing sound films to silent films, a film to me is a film, whether silent or sound. And if all sound film remakes are better then the silent originals, then see the silent "Seven Chances" w/ Buster Keaton, which is far superior to the sound remake "The Bachelor" w/ Chris O'Donnell.

One thing I did notice is that all of the cast is under 35 (and probably no more than 30-32). That really, really bothers me, even though I'm in my late 20s. Not because of the ages, but because of the characters they are portraying. You know?

I have to agree that if money is the motivating factor ina remake (or a sequel for that matter) then it is very likely to be bad.  Look at the Blair Witch sequel.  The original movie was brilliantly done psychological horror.  The sequel was a run of the mill slasher film, because Hollywood panders to the lowest common denominator.  If they bothered increasing the intelligence of the movies they made, they might begin to get a higher opinion of the intelligence of the general public.  Not everyone requires spoon feeding.



Too much money gets spent on special effects for there to be enough left for a decent script.

You know what the really sad part is?  These people ARE doing the very best they can.  I can almost guarantee you that when this comes out on DVD, the commentary track will be full of people absolutely fawning over their marvelous creation.  They'll be incredibly proud of ever single aspect of it.  Nobody will say "Yeah, it sucked big time, but I'm driving a Ferrari Testarossa now".



Post Edited (10-22-05 08:31)

Mr. Hockstatter wrote:

> These people ARE doing
> the very best they can.  I can almost guarantee you that when
> this comes out on DVD, the commentary track will be full of
> people absolutely fawning over their marvelous creation.
> They'll be incredibly proud of ever single aspect of it.
>

Yes, because it is the movie they wished to make.  It will have hit all the points that they think make a good "film."

How much of this is due to the box office success defining the 'goodness' of a release?  If you look at many of the "successful" movies of the past ten or so years, they are junk and highly forgettable junk at that.  But, they ROI'd like they were supposed to, and moviemaking is a business.

So, to many of these film makers, good art is not even a considered goal.  Within the framework of that mindset, yes, they will be proud of it.