While it doesn't seem proper to say this remake is better than the 1980 version, since it's a re-imagining of the original and therefore not original, I feel it's at least as good and arguably superior in some ways, as far as a viewing experience goes. Here's my list of reasons why, as well as some negatives (from my review):
- The fog is arguably more menacing. In fact, the F/X in general are all-around superior, in particular the various leprous ghosts that appear in the fog. I love the visual where the fog forms a creepy face.
- The story isn't fast-paced by any means, but it's not as slow as the original.
- The eerie ambiance is still there even though lovers of the original say it isn't. There are a few jump scares, like the original, but both films aren't meant to be uber-scary or gorey, they're haunting mood pieces.
- The scenic locations are at least as good as well. It was filmed on Bowen Island and Cowhichan Bay (Vancouver Island), British Columbia, both not far from Vancouver.
- The scenic and mysterious visuals are awe-inspiring.
- The score is on a par with the original with the exception of the end-credits piece, which was absolutely stellar in Carpenter's film (a variation of this piece appears only once in the proper film).
- The historic events of the leper ship colony are different than the original and are actually depicted in flashback, unlike the original where they're conveyed by word via an old journal. The changes in the backstory make for some spectacular visuals (e.g. the burning clipper ship, etc.)
- The brief zombie scene is scarier and just all-around better done.
- This is purely a matter of taste, but curvy Maggie Grace is superior to Adrienne Barbeau and Jamie Lee Curtis, at least as far as the filmmakers highlighting her curvy beauty (and I don't mean nudity 'cuz there isn't any).
On the downside, Selma Blair is so over-the-top hip as the DJ it's actually annoying, but this is a minor criticism; she's fine otherwise. Speaking of excessive, some of the death scenes are so overdone they'll strike some people as more funny than creepy, e.g. Aunt Connie.
but I just hated how it gave the film a "teen" angle,
More like young adult or college-age, which the original had as well with Curtis' character.
and the scene on the party boat was kind of ridiculous (as well as the black guy being found in the freezer).
Isn't a boat party, as portrayed, something youths would do to have fun on the desolate coast of Oregon? And isn't this whole sequence more interesting and effective than the one with the three sailor-drunks in the original? I think so.
As far as the freezer goes, the dude's only recourse was to seek succor in the freezer and, apparently, there was just enough air to keep him alive till the next morning. What's so ridiculous? Besides, it appears like he's dead and then his eyes pop open, which is effectively jolting.
and it had zero atmosphere
Zero? C'mon, you
know this isn't true. The first time I saw it I hadn't seen the original for a decade or so and one of the first things that impressed me was the haunting ambiance. Is it as good as the original in this regard? No, but it's hard to beat that 1979-80 charm. Despite this, the remake is more compelling, i.e. less draggy, even though it's 13 minutes longer.
The original also has a much better score, with the music being some of the best music ever done in a horror film (the main theme is just amazing).
The only part that's better is the amazing end-credits piece, which is (inexplicably) only used
once in the proper film (albeit a variation, when the boy finds the artifact on the coast). The rest of the score of the original is too minimal to praise and the remake's score/soundtrack is arguably as good or better, albeit no where near as notable as the aforementioned piece of the original.
I'm not saying this remake is some near-masterpiece, like the remake of "Last House on the Left" (which I guess was easier to accomplish since the original "Last House" was so lame). But this 2005 version of "The Fog" is, if nothing else, a well-done upgrading of the original; and, if we're honest, even superior in some ways.
My 150 (or so) favorite movies:
http://www.imdb.com/list/ls070122364/
reply
share
9 years ago
[deleted]
Wuchakk
9 years ago
To me, that makes the original a lot more compelling than anything the remake had in its entirety.
The ghost story at the shore was a cool opening, but it doesn't change the fact that the original film was draggy. The remake is rather slow as well, but the filmmakers clearly improved on this weakness.
Anymore, though, I don't mind the slowness of the original so much. In light of modern blockbuster dreck for the ADHD crowd I find the draggy-ness of the original kind of refreshing, lol.
I preferred Father Malone relating the story by way of journal, because it gives the audience the chance to view the story of the wreck in their own imaginations, rather than simply showing us what happened; to me that just ruins some of the mystique about the wreck; in certain films, flashbacks are ok and necessary, but in the case of The Fog, I don't believe it was.
They didn't go the verbal ghost story route with the remake for a few reasons: (1.) The backstory was changed so that the forefathers of Antonio Bay didn't just light a false fire on shore to lead the leper ship to crash on the rocks, they boarded the vessel and set it ablaze. Such an event demands to be depicted in the visual medium of cinema. (2.) Captain William Blake and his wife from the clipper ship are important characters in the story, as the ending shows (Elizabeth, obviously the reincarnation of Blake's wife, transforms into a spirit to reunite with Blake). As such, viewers needed to know who these characters were. (3.) If they didn't change the backstory and depict the burning of the ship we wouldn't have the spectacular sequences of the blazing ship and victims, which is one of the strengths of the remake. (4.) Say what you will, but the changes to the backstory and they're depiction are more interesting and exciting than an old man telling a ghost story. (5.) Film is a visual medium so
depicting the story rather than merely telling it is appropriate.
The issue of the back story brings up a possible weakness of the original film: The old journal says that the forefathers lit a false fire on shore to lead the ship into the rocks and they just so happened to be aided by a huge fog bank that rolled in. What if the fog bank hadn't come? (They had no reason to assume a fog bank would roll in). Would the lepers still have been misled by the fire? How so, if they could
see the rocks? Wouldn't the lepers have scouted out the area of settlement beforehand and known about the rocks? And why would they trust these guys to such an extent, particularly since they had all this gold on board?
I know, I'm giving it too much thought for a horror flick, but these points show some apparent weaknesses of the original backstory.
Not really; it was more comical to me than anything;
It could either be comical or creepy; it depends on the person and his/her mood (I busted out laughing at Aunt Connie's death). Regardless, the scene's purpose was to give the viewer a jolt and it does, whether humorous or scary.
the dead body of Dick Baxter falling on Elizabeth in the original? that's effective.
This reveals another weakness of the original film: The make-up on that dead body looked fake. It looked like the "corpse" had a pull-over mask on his head. But this isn't really a negative for me since I can overlook weak F/X as long as the story/mood/characters/etc. are good (after all, I'm a fan of the Original Star Trek).
Barbeau has looks and a sultry voice to boot (which makes her double attractive in my book); Jaime Lee Curtis may not be as curvy, but she has a lovely face,
They're both indeed fine examples of womanhood, but Carpenter didn't really highlight this like they did with Maggie in the remake (and a little bit with Selma Blair).
I just don't get the bashing this 2005 version has gotten; not even a little bit. Like I said, it's not a near-masterpiece like the remake of "Last House on the Left," but it's a well-done reimagining that sticks to the basic story while adding some interesting changes. If they would've stuck any closer to the original it would've been unnecessary and condemned like the remake of "Psycho."
But if you think it's a piece of sheet, that's fine with me.
My 150 (or so) favorite movies:
http://www.imdb.com/list/ls070122364/
reply
share