User reviews

It's bad enough that Hollywood has finally run out of original movie ideas, that they have resort to making either A) sequels to successful past movies that don't come close to the original, B) movies based on successful books/video games that don't come close to the original, or C) remakes of successful movies that don't come close to the original. This version of John Carpenter's subtle masterpiece "The Fog" falls into Category C. I was worried when I heard they were remaking this, and I wasn't disappointed (I should get a job predicting movie success/failures--no one believes me, but I'm right at LEAST 90% of the time). I was hoping it would stay true to the original, but so many liberties were taken to "make it so that modern audiences could relate to it" that it became a totally different film, and I don't mean that as a compliment. I mean, I can understand the modern music at the radio station and the up-to-date equipment. But why the gratuitous sex scene? Why the hoochy-koochy-dancers on the boat? And why make Elizabeth and Stevie related to the Founding Fathers (the FF's last names are never given in the original, except for Malone)? Also, there was never any logical REASON for the "attack"--at least in the first movie, it was the 100th anniversary of the crime that brought on the revenge (the crime took place in 1880; the movie was made in 1980). This crime took place in 1871, and the revenge took place in 2005?? 134 years?? That made less than no sense. And that ending?? Talk about anti-climactic. At least in the original, it ended the way it should have--it followed the plot line, it was the REASONABLE conclusion. This one--I only stayed with it to see how it played out, and it was completely unreasonable. I won't give it away, but it made NO sense to the plot. The special effects weren't even enough to redeem this sad excuse for a remake--I kept making jokes about "Pirates of the Caribbean" throughout the whole thing! I couldn't help it--I had to salvage this film somehow! That was the part that was so GOOD about the original, that you never really SAW the faces of the ghosts or graphic details of what they did--think "Blair Witch", people--less is MORE. The human imagination is the best scare tactic on the planet! Once you put a face on the fear, you can deal with it. It's the fear you CAN'T see that messes you up for days on end! All in all, another wasted rental from Blockbuster.

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 horrible.

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.

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!

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.

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.

seriously. what the hell? this movie was a complete waste of time. my husband and i ended up just making fun of the entire movie and enjoying it that way. it seems as though the entire movie was written up on a weekend. the continuity in this movie was horrible. it couldn't get in a freezer but it could get in through a kitchen sink? it had trouble with a door but not a car vent? what was with the ghost holding the woman's ankle and then releasing her?

was it ghosts or fog? make up your mind. was it for a selective massacre or a search for a blonde wife?

this movie had absolutely no structure. the acting was a complete sham and the script... oh holy god. i can respect a fun movie with ghosts and bad acting, but it has to have SOMETHING going for it.

the fog had to be one of the worst movies I've seen in a long time.

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.

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.

OK, I should have known better before paying money to go see the 2005 remake of The Fog starring TOM WELLING and rated PG-13!! For me, the Fog, was a cult classic I used to love when I was a kid. The scary, eerie small town with a dark secret, the ghostly figures in the fog and the brutal way the townspeople got slayed in, contributed to a great ghost/horror story that was both exciting and enjoyable. Unfortunately we live in the "era of the remake" and naturally they had go screw this flick up as well. The small eerie town is replaced with a totally un-scary town, the fog looked like something pulled out of "the perfect storm" w/ George Clooney or "the day after tomorrow" (which is no surprise since it was the same company who handled the FX on "Day after..."), Selma Blair was trying to hard to fill out the role of Stevie Wayne and it seemed awfully fake at times. One thing that really got me cracking was the black guy/comic relief. I couldn't really figure out what the hell a black dude was doing in a small (all white) fishing town anyway? (if U ask me he was totally misplaced in the movie).

In overall they actually managed to turn, what could have been a great horror movie into a teen/slasher/ring-knockoff!!

The same goes for the moody "Carpenter music" that was replaced with the standard PG-13 b*llsh*t pop-rock soundtrack, it basically stripped the movie from having any tense atmosphere.

The script was horrible, there where no scares and no mood at all, instead of cooking up a better "FOG" they actually made it worse, I find it incredible that despite having the technology to make some visually nice horror flicks today and correct some of the flaws that were caused by lack of money or technology back then, the studios are still spitting out nothing but trash... PEOPLE what makes a movie is a good story and HEART not Special FX (a principle Carpenter used to work with back then when the funds were limited...even still the man still made some of the most memorable horror movies in my lifetime).

The ghost looked like something out of Pirates of the Caribbean and the only moment I thought "hmm...that's actually cool" was when you could see the big ship and the crew's ghostly figures standing in the fog, kindda made me remember back to the original, unfortunately things only went (even more) downhill from there...I mean WTF is up with the ending!?!?! I thought it was supposed to be a horror flick?

In overall: If U are a fan of the original Carpenter movie, DO not see this cr*p, almost no gore, no feeling with the characters (actually you couldn't care less if they all got killed...), no mood, no eerie music, bad CGI, and the list just goes on and on... my advice: Rent it on DVD or even better wait for it to be aired on TV!

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.....

This is a film that's not concerned with characters, not concerned with story, not concerned with atmosphere, and I'd even go so far as to say it's not concerned with even formula. It's focus is one thing, and one thing alone: spectacle. After all, this isn't the small independently financed ghost story from 1980 – oh no, it can afford explosions, flashy CG effects, and bodies flying through windows every chance it gets. It wants to show you the flashy screen distractions it purchased with its larger budget.

Yes, this is the Mission Impossible of cinematic horror remakes. But apparently the new Fog could not afford the "horror" as in "horror movie" as in "why am I watching this counterintuitive genre film?" Early in the film, the fog first appears out of nowhere overtaking a small fishing ship where two guys and two girls would be doing something naughty except for the tiny detail that they live in a PG13 film. So, instead, the girls are dancing and the black guy has a video camera. Right. Not that I have anything against PG13 horror (the 3 good ones), but when every inch of the celluloid is screaming for an R rating, don't water it down.

Moving on: after the fog mysteriously materializes out of nowhere, making all the boat's equipment go haywire, the party's over. The girls are inside the ship's bridge, the guys are out on deck where an old sailing vessel came out of the fog and vanished. The fog gets the girls first and, are you ready for this, throws their bodies through a window. Ghosts in the fog go through the trouble of throwing bodies through windows.

It's a thing called subtlety. This film does not have it.

Wait, I'm not through – it's not enough for a man to burn to death. Oh no, his smoldering skeleton has to fly through a door, across an entire room, and crash into equipment. And the film's climax? Lots of shattered glass. Flying CG glass. An old man thrown through yet another window, magically pushed across a street, and into a cemetery. Not to mention more fire.

Did it occur to anyone on this film that "hey, maybe we should pull back a tad before this reaches ridiculous levels?" Or, I dunno, "Maybe our effects shouldn't be exponentially more developed than every other aspect of this film." Yes, the effects are the Fog's strong point. I'll skip the story criticism out of pity, and simply say that the Fog brings nothing new to the overused flashback device. It's not bad, just mediocre. And sadly, juxtapose to the two leading performances in the film, I wanted to stick with the flashbacks and forget about the characters in the current time line. The acting, wow, to quote Colonel Kurtz, "the horror, the horror." Tom Welling and Maggie Grace, our leads, demonstrate their knowledge about acting, and curiously made me question whether or not they actually know how to act (I'll reserve my judgment for now.) They know to look left, to look up, to look sad, to look happy, to make eye contact, and yet they never emote. Through the entire film the audience never sees the characters Nick Castle and Elizabeth Williams. We see Tom Welling and Maggie Grace making semi-appropriate faces and gestures to match the mood and scenarios they find themselves in. And I use the phrase "semi-appropriate" deliberately because throughout the performances both actors are clearly suppressing smiles even in their most horror strickened, soul tearing, depressing moments. You know, like the type of acting you'd expect from TV commercial actors? Like Jason Ritter from Freddy Vs Jason.

Maybe they didn't care. Maybe they didn't try. Considering the roles handed to them (and everyone else on the film) I can't say I'd blame them were that the case. Nick is supposed to be something of a renegade stoic youth, his own man with his own business, unbound by the history books or silly traditions. Elizabeth is supposed to be the girlfriend looking for the answer to her nightmares, looking for her place in the world. Spooner is the goofy token black guy. Stop me when this sounds familiar.

Truthfully, I found myself longing for the film to explore the role of the torn alcoholic Father Malone (one of the background character) than spend any more time with Nick and Elizabeth. Or perhaps even his dad, city official Tom Malone. Unlike the two lead characters, these men showcase a few hints at psychological depth – even if those hints were nothing more than an overused writing device. At the very least the actors playing them display a conviction in their parts.

Perhaps the most intriguing character in the film, also the most underused, comes in the form of Stevie Wayne played by Selma Blair. Who, interestingly, plays the character of a jaded disc jockey. Yes, an actress playing an unenthused woman is the highlight, the inspiration, and arguably the most vibrant performance in the entire movie simply because there within lies an actual character.

Because when Selma Blair looks up from behind her mic and sighs, the audience actually gets the sensation that that's what the character, Stevie Wayne, would do. Tom Welling and Maggie Grace, they look up at a cued time because that's what the director has told them to do. They are actors acting, but Stevie Wayne is real.

One of the few genuine characters in the film.

I went to see The Fog last night. My brother was a crew member on the movie and dragged me along. I really never had any urge to see this movie, the trailer seemed scary, but that kind of thing doesn't really interest me. I didn't realize it was based on an original movie, so the idea that there's a fog that kills people seemed so stupid. Anyway, I went to this screening last night and was definitely surprised by the movie. I didn't know who half the actors were, which usually makes me think twice about a movie, but I recognized Tom Welling! Yes, I'm a fan of Smallville and yes, I have a school-girl crush on him. Must stop hyperventilating...

I am not a great judge of movies like this, but the special effects were really good. I mean, the fog itself was creepy and the "things" that you've seen on the poster and trailer were really well-done. I thought that the music used in this movie was great, although I gotta say; I got really annoyed when I screamed after EVERY loud noise! Every time the fog rolled in, a loud banging would sound – like someone (or something) was banging on the door – and I jumped every time. That definitely got annoying. The movie was so loud that I never felt comfortable relaxing in any scene. Scary...but it got a little old.

The thing I was most surprised about was how smart this movie was. I always think of these supernatural, sci-fi, horror movies to be mindless scares with even dumber characters. But The Fog definitely uses this subplot of a pirate ship that builds until the end to explain a lot of the mystery and confusion that surrounds everything. I really thought that certain scenes were really well-done, especially with the use of the fog, specifically with the Selma Blair-car stalling scene and this intense part with the little kid (Selma Blair's kid, yeah right) in the movie. Anyway, walking out of this film I was definitely surprised by how much I enjoyed it.

Some people might consider me a complete moron now, but I find this a pretty entertaining horror film.

The fog isn't a movie where you have to think and stay focused the whole time, like the ring. It's more a no-brainer, you rent for a day, like the later Friday the 13th movies. This kind of movies don't need to be scary, you just need to enjoy the killing. The special effects are nicely done. The computer generated fog looks pretty neat, but in some scenes you can see they just used plain smoke. The acting wasn't great, but not the worst acting in a horror movie.

I don't think this movie is a complete disaster, I rated it a 6, because it was entertaining, but not scary and that are most horror films these days. You just need to learn to like these new kind of horror movies and not expect it to be scary, but entertaining. I also didn't see the original, so I didn't compare it or something.

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.

The grave robbers of Hollywood, completely devoid of new ideas, have taken to the graveyard once again to dig up classic movies of various directors to help their sagging box office.

This year's director of choice is John Carpenter. We've seen a bad remake of "Assault On Precient 13" already and now comes "The Fog". Originally, it was a well crafted tale of suspense, horror and shock with a minimal amount of blood and gore, relying on the talent of Carpenter and his usual team of actors such as then wife Adreinne Barbeau, Tom Atkins, Jamie Lee Curtis and mom Janet Leigh, et al and spun a great ghost story.

Along comes the remake squad with the latest in teen idols like "Smallville"'s Tom Welling, a load of digital effects and generous amounts of blood, gore and bad acting to deliver a hot steaming plate of manure shoved down our throats between handfuls of stale, overpriced popcorn.

Message to Hollywood. There's a reason that your profits are tanking. Leave the classics alone unless you've got something better to do with it. So far, you're failing miserably!!!

I tried; I REALLY tried to act like I had never seen the John Carpenter masterful ghost story.

I tried to look for any bright spots in this remake. Really.

*Here there May Be Spoilers*

It tried...once. To expand on the original story of the Ill-fated ELIZABETH DANE, the clipper ship of lepers that was trying to establish an isolated community on some prime Oregon (originally California) Real Estate. We got about ten minutes of sporadic flashbacks to Captain Blake and his doomed maritime colony...gratuitous flashes of potentially leprous individuals...many absurd off-camera killings. In short, it COULD have shown, using the technology Carpenter didn't have, leprous-ghosts seeking revenge; a flashback story behind Captain Blake, his wife and colony and the greedy, frightened '4' ancestors... But it didn't. And what in the heck was with the ending???

What it did do, was take what was originally a well-fleshed story, with characters in peril...and turn it into a diseased, pustulant, rotting corpse that didn't even have the nerve to bombard us with gore, FX, or nudity to camouflage the dung-heap it was. I saw it on a Free Cinemax Preview...and still wanted my money back.

In Antonio Island, Oregon, the dwellers are celebrating the anniversary of the foundation of the seaside town and the mayor has built the statues of the founders: Wayne, Castle, Williams and Malone. The descendant Nick Castle (Tom Welling) owns the Castle & Son, a fishing charter company, using his vessel Seagrass for tourism in the Antonio Bay. When his girlfriend Elizabeth Williams (Maggie Grace) returns to the island, coincidently a huge fog appears with weird noises and killing locals. When Elizabeth slips in Nick's boathouse and falls in the sea, she finds an 1871 journal written by a man called Blake, who bought half the island for his leper people to build a town for them to live. While sailing in the clipper ship Elizabeth Dane, bringing his community to Antonio Island, Blake is betrayed by Wayne, Castle, Williams and Malone. The quartet locks Blake and his friends in the vessel, steals their money and possessions and fires the ship, killing them. In the present days, the ghosts of Blake and his crew are seeking for revenge on the descendants of the criminals.

1981 "The Fog" is a dark ghost story of the master of horror John Carpenter, with great cinematography and special effects, giving a scary atmosphere without the need of gore. The screenplay builds the horror in a low pace, but increasing the tension.

I decided to see this remake just because of the names of Tom "Clark Kent" Welling, Maggie "Shannon Rutherford" Grace and Selma Blair. In spite of my wish of liking this movie, unfortunately it is terrible. The story is basically the same, but the modifications in the original screenplay are awful and confused. The edition never reaches the tension, and for example, I have not understood why Elizabeth leaves Antonio Bay (and Nicholas Castle) with the ghosts, or the modification in the statue of the angel in the cemetery. The songs that the DJ Stevie Wayne presents in her station are the best this movie offers to the viewers. My vote is four.

Title (Brazil): "A Névoa" ("The Fog")

It has been said by other moviegoers, so what more can I say? This movie was very dull, to say the least. If you want to see a scary flick, this one is not for you. If you want to see likable characters, again this is not for you. If you want to toss out some money and waste 90 minutes of your life, go for it. It is best to just stick to the 1980 original. This version did not build up any suspense or leave you rooting for anybody. A very flat movie, indeed, which had very little fog in it. The fact that this was filmed close to my home community does not add any stars to my rating. In fact, I am ashamed to say that my community would have anything to do with this boring garbage.

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!

The Fog is a nice collection of "BOO!" scares that doesn't really try to be more than it is: hot young people in trouble. While the story isn't all that mindblowing ("There's something IN the fog!!!"), it had enough shocks to keep us Premiere-crashers giddy.

Tom Welling plays Tom Welling, a thick fisherman stud with blue eyes, with his buddy played by a guy who sounds like Chris Tucker Jr., who gets off all the (intentionally) funny lines.

Welling's girlfriend is played by Maggie "no, the other hot girl from LOST" Grace. She enjoys showing off her underwear often, which never hurts. Maggie has returned from Manhattan to her hometown island because of terrible dreams she's been having involving drowning lepers in pirate costumes, and she needs Welling's help.

Welling, however, fails to mention about the affair he's been having with MILFy (Selma Blair). Selma plays Milfy very well, and she manages to be simultaneously likable as a single-mom and lustable as a perpetually hungover DJ.

Oh, yeah...the plot: It seems that The Fog (and the angry spirits that "are IN the fog!") have come to get revenge on the residents of the island for the sins of their fathers a hundred years back. That's all we really care about, right? Just establish the excuses to rack up the body count.

It's obviously a PG-13 film, since there's not buckets of blood and intestines dripping everywhere. But as I said before, the numerous "BOO!" shock moments as people get stabbed, cooked and squashed are pretty nice.

The real litmus test of this came 5 minutes into the screening when the projectionist messed up the sound, and they had to start the film over. So when they replayed the first scene, the audience jumped at the Teaser Big Death just as much the second time as they did the first.

It was REFRESHING to see a horror film that wasn't all self-aware and meta. This is anti- Kevin Williamson. Aside from maybe one crack about Chris Tucker Jr. not waiting around to be the next one killed, there is a nice lack of self-awareness with the characters. Maybe they just don't get horror movies very often in their secluded island village, but no one ever gives the old wink/nod to the audience that they knew…that we knew…that they were acting in a horror film.

It was also nice it was to see a horror/suspense film to NOT have a crazy, last second TWIST ENDING that causes the audience to grumble to themselves as they shuffle out. I'm not spoiling anything by saying that. The film is nice and scary right up until the end, but they managed to resist the temptation to go for a silly M. Night Shyamalan ending. In the end, it was a good time for a teenage Halloween film.

I admit it i hated this movie when i first watched it on dvd way back in 2005 & now after 15 years i decided give it another try out of pure curiosity again, as John Carpenters The Fog (1980) is probably my favourite Horror movie of all time & i have recently been watching alot of Aquatic water-based Horror Thriller's lately such as the Jaws franchise & Piranha & Anaconda & Humanoids from the Deep & Lake Placid & Crawl among others & i remembered the Fog remake from 2005.

It's weird because i hated this remake & even tossed the dvd in the bin but now after such a long period of time & with fresh & more mature eyes lol i really enjoyed this & take it for what it is now, a modern version of a Horror CLASSIC & it was never going to be better or as good as the first film.

This Fog is a polished version with some gorgeous scenes. What i now enjoyed about this flick is it's slow-paced & relaxing flow of it & it's quiet & creepy atmosphere. This is a relaxing movie that is more a Supernatural Thriller than a Dark Horror like the original & there in its tone it's supposed to be a new vision of the old story & i can except that now. The music is creepy & atmospheric but obviously not on the same genius level as the legendary John Carpenter but it's still a solid creepy score. The look & cinematography is actually really good here too with an overall creepy & moody look & some really nice shots of the Antonio Bay town & nice lovely night time scenes. The cast is no where near as good as John Carpenters original obviously but here they're fine in that early 2000's Slasher flick casting type of way. I did get nice vibes of "I Know What You Did Last Summer" in this film too with little fishing town & imagery. Back to the little cast of typical pretty faces like the new Nick Castle played by "SmallVilles" Tom Welling, he's not too bad as the local fisherman that was originally played by the legendary Tom Atkins, but he's ok as the typical good-looking lead hero type & Maggie Grace (Taken Trilogy) is actually pretty good here as Elizabeth, a girl who comes back to the small town just as everything gets Spooky & strange. Elizabeth does alot of investigating into the past history of the town which is a nice added bit of detail & her character is much more fleshed out than that of Jamie lee Curtis was im the original, some really nice looking scenes of her in the old museum checking it all out. We also get a good performance from Selma Blair (HellBoy 1&2) as the lighthouse DJ radio host Stevie Wayne, it's a fine part & the worst role goes to the "Funny Black Guy" played by Deray Davis as Spooner the friend of Nick, he's the typical wannabe funny black guy that was in all those Slasher flicks back in the day but he doesn't ruin it as he's not a main character & not too over the top. The Supernatural killers look pretty decent for computer effects & look like actual Ghosts rather than Carpenters much scarier Zombies but this is a new "Vision" so things change even if it's not for the better. But all in all "The Fog" from 2005 is actually a decent little supernatural Thriller with an ok little cast for a relaxing little low-key popcorn flick. There's actually a nice quiet & lonely feel to this flick which i really liked & some really good spooky scenes but it's definitely not scary like the first film but that adds to it's nice calm & old school early 2000's feel. It's definitely a product of it's time like all films but something nice & slow about it's thrills & chills & nothing is over the top or crazy like most Horror's or Supernatural films today, the pacing is nice here. This isn't totally the same & that's whats good as it follows similar beats but done differently & that makes it not a carbon copy & is in away it's own thing just following the old story slightly but also making changes & also adding much more depth to everything especially the History of the town & Mythology.

I'm glad i gave this another watch after 15 years!!! It's not the Classic first film but it's very good little atmospheric Supernatural Thriller in it's own right & a nice late night flick.

Remakes are the fashion nowadays, and The Fog was a good candidate. Not because the original is bad, but because it was so good that it's strong story could likely stand the test of updating. Unfortunately, the remake turned out not to be much of a test.

To make this short, the only good things in this movie are Selma Blair and some sweeping shots across the island and surrounding water. Tom Welling is ineffectual in the lead role, and - on this evidence - Maggie Grace simply cannot act. She comes across as a Paris Hilton type - someone famous for being something else, who tries their hand at acting and fails miserably. The ineptness of her performance is such that it really detracts and takes the viewer out of the movie.

Some things get changed around from the original, not for any great benefit. With the journal in Grace's hands, we get the backstory piecemeal and in a more confusing way than in the original movie. For a horror movie, there is virtually nothing to get scared by. The ghosts are about as scary as the ones from Pirates of the Caribbean.

In all, this film is actually a testament to the skill of the makers of the original movie, which is superior in every respect. Twenty years later, with far more technology at their disposal, the result is an abject failure on every level.