Unfairly Bashed


Come on, it's not as bad as people make out it is. I've noticed on here that many people see a film getting slated and merely jump on the bandwagon.

Of course the film is flawed, and yeah it's nowhere near as good as the original, but the effects are good and the whole film has a nice, creepy undertone throughout.

Ropey acting and implausible plotlines are commonplace in the horror genre so why single this film out for so much criticism?

3.2/10 is unfair. I'd give it 7/10. Sorry but I enjoyed it.

If you've still to see it, ignore the bashings and see it for yourself. Then you can make your mind up whether it's crap or not...

See You At The Derry

reply

I liked it too. I never seen the original (Oh God, I'll be eaten alive for this!). But I did like this one, for reasons I don't know. =P

http://www.imdb.com/mymovies/list?l=23234581

reply

I liked a lot actually. The first was good and this was good. I agree 7/10 is about right. I never pay too much attention to the negativity here. It seems that some people thrive on being negative or they just want attention.

reply

I also liked the movie and don't understand why everyone is criticizing it so much! I have both DVD's - the original and the re-make. I watched them both yesterday with the subtitles on and it helps in understanding a lot of peoples questions I've seen posted.
Oh well, everyone has a right to their opinions.

reply

Because it really is that bad!!!

Also I hate it cause the original is my all time favourite horror film and making this is an insult.

reply

I don't think this movie is unfairly bashed..I thought it was terrible.

"Wether you think you can or you think you can't - you're right"

reply

Your opinion. Nobody cares about it.

reply

This remake was good enough, most haters just voted 1 because they are morons and they actually didn't watch this.

reply

Spoken like a true nitwit, foo. People simply don't like the movie. People I know who have never heard of the old one hated this one. It's plain and simply a bad movie. It has no suspense, bad acting, illogical scenes, and terrible use of extremely unscary CGI fog with lame-ass sound effects to make sure the dumb audience knows it is evil. The film is just not at all scary...nor even one bit creepy.

- - - - - - -
Whose idea was it for the word "Lisp" to have an "S" in it?

reply

No, it's not unfairly bashed.

They did have a few nice ideas, but the movie was utterly terrible.

Doug Roberts: What do they call it when you kill people?
The Towering Inferno

reply

Having seen both versions I must say this one deserves every bad review it gets.
I had high hopes for it since I'm a fan of both Tom Welling and the original fog movie; but not even superman could save this turkey.
Even for a horror movie the story was insane.
Showgirls had a more indepth and better constructed script.

I have come here to chew bubble gum and kick ass....and I'm all out of bubble gum

reply

7/10? Are you a meth head? This movie is doo doo!

My rating: 1/10

-L31

reply

[deleted]

People who enjoyed this film obviously have never seen it. Cause the movie I saw was worthy of about 80 razzie awards..I cant believe this catastrophe made it to theaters...

reply

Poor troll...don't you have any friends? What a pitiful moron you are.

reply

Personally I think The Fog was that bad.

I'm a big fan of the original, but I was actually looking foward to the remake. The original I still enjoy, but in some areas it is very dated.

I didn't think the remake would be better, but I thought it might be one of those remakes or like some sequels while not as good can stand proud next to the original.

I read all the bad reviews and I thought well maybe due to all the remakes this one is getting bashed for that, but no it was really that bad.

I tried doing that once, making every minute count. It gave me a headache- Adrian Monk

reply

I can actually take this movie as it is with not comparing it to the original.
It just the story was inconsistant all over the place. Things just seemed to happen to move the story even if it made no sense and had no real resolution.
Not everything has to make sense since it was a movie, but it was just badly executed. Possibly the script made more sense than what was there and they edited out any explaination.

Maybe I wasn't watching it close enough and paying attention.

Except to show of the CGI the Aunt getting attacked by the fog through the sink was not scary. Her struggling with the hand was just goofy looking.
The same when the shards of glass killed the priest. All that glass flying around and only one shard was used to kill him.

The dead body walks over to Elizabeth and no one even tries to explain anything. Then her boyfriend doesn't believe a thing she says then all of a sudden believes her.

Then did I miss it or did Stevie's friend at the weather station just come out of nowhere? Was he just some guy she knew?

Then the whole ending. Yeah I got it that she was Blake's wife reincarnated.
She was just turned into the girl for no reason? When the ghosts appear the wife's ghost isn't shown... ok. Then was Elizabeth a ghost? Wow was that confusing.



reply

I agree i like this film, It's been bashed because it is a remake of a John Carpenter film the same thing happening with HALLOWEEN but i think HALLOWEEN will be great.

reply

Rob's version of the original Halloween was very disappointing, but I admit not as bad as this sewage.

Connect With Fans Of UP ALL NIGHT
http://drop.io/usaupallnight

reply

Noo, it really IS as bad as everyone say's it is.

"I never knew magic crazy as this"
Nick Drake
19/06/1948 – 25/11/1974
RIP

reply

It is NOT unfairly bashed. Every copy deserves to be burned and the ashes tossed into hell. It's an INSULT to the original, is what it is.

And all the stupid decisions the characters make, don't get me started.

"Here, this is evidence proving my friend is free and we're right. GO AND HIDE IT." What the blue fu ck kind of logic does this movie have?

"Oh, I think I'll walk across a pit of sewage water and sh*t on a 4-inch wide piece of slippery wood while holding the only evidence proving my friend innocent." And she falls in. BIG surprise. Who struggles that much in 4 FEET OF WATER!?

Completely ridiculous.

Forgiveness is between them and God. It's my job to arrange the meeting

reply

what about this: DON'T look at this movie as a remake, but as a separate movie that has no connection to 1980 John Carpenter's The Fog whatsoever.
DON'T compare acting of these guys to acting in 1980 John Carpenter's The Fog.
DON'T think of the 1980 movie at all while watching this one.
as a movie on it's own, i found it quite enjoyable and believe me, i've seen all kinds of bad movies in my (though short) life. if you want an example of a horrible movie, watch Alone in the Dark or Doom....
this Fog is at worst a mediocre movie. i voted 5

Me? I'm dishonest, and a dishonest man you can always trust to be dishonest. Honestly.

reply

Sorry, but the 2005 version fails on most all levels whether you care about the original or not. It just isn't a good film, and no amount of spinning it is going to make it better. It was decently scripted, not perfect, but decent, and the director failed to bring anything to the table as far as suspense, pulling decent performances from his actors, adding atmosphere, etc. The movie simply is not good.

- - - - - - -
Whose idea was it for the word "Lisp" to have an "S" in it?

reply

Everyone doesn't say it is bad. That is just your lively imagination. Did you just escape from a psychic ward?

reply

7 out of 10 is an insane score for this movie.

I enjoy horror movies as a general rule. I even enjoy BAD horror movies on a certain level. This was just so terrible that there was nothing redeeming about it. You think 3.2 is unfair? Well I gave it a 1. That's what I honestly feel that it deserves. My black sidekick that helps me run my charter boat company agrees with me. As does my girlfriend that just showed up back in town.

reply

I gave it a 10. Just for retards like you.
You are welcome :-)

reply