What's with "The Fog" remake?

[Neville]

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?

[ulthar]

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.

[Neville]

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.

[Mr. Hockstatter]

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.

[Dunners]

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.

[Neville]

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.

[Ash]

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)

[SaintMort]

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

[Dutchman]

 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

[Shadowphile]

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?

[Gerry]

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.

[Shadowphile]

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

[LilCerberus]

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.

[Dunners]

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

[Mr. Hockstatter]

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