The Fog (2005 remake) Review

Disclaimer: Contains spoilers!

Plot Summary: Ghosts...in the fog...want revenge or something...it really doesn't matter.

Review: This might not be the worst remake of all time, but it sure as hell was pointless and shitacular. I'll give them a tiny bit of credit for attempting to correct the gripes I had with the original, but they failed monumentally in every other regard. The ending, in particular, is irredeemably moronic--one of the dumbest endings you could imagine honestly. There was easily room to improve over the original yet by the time that "sex" scene rolls around you are already losing interest. I'd go as far as to say no one bothered to watch the original or something. Gone is the atmosphere and creepy wraiths--in its place are shit CGI and teenybopper-esque drama. What the fuck were they thinking?! I remember wasting my money to see this in the theater...I fully apologize for that.

So let's go over the changes. When will Hollywood learn that CGI is not scary?! The ghosts look like absolute fucking garbage! You cannot even begin to compare the original effects to this; it's no contest. My main problems with the original revolved around a shallow story weakened further by one-dimensional characters. Here, these same problems persist and have been amplified! Who the fuck are any of these losers--fucking Clark Kent, really? The ghosts have no logic or reason to their actions either. Wow, some stupid sack of shit at the bottom of the ocean opens up and that triggers the ghosts?! What's with the beach bum too? The girlfriend is a reincarnated ghost...whaaaaat?! If she was able to be reincarnated then why the hell is the rest of the crew ghosts still?! ARRRGH! Oh, yeah, sure, they made it so the victims are actually connected to the betrayal of the ghosts this time--big whoop. One gold star for you, assholes. And actually...how are this many people related to those four guys? Town full of inbred freaks. Whose idea was it to lengthen the running time over the original? Someone realistically believed they needed more time to tell this--this--tale?! That's adorable. Going back to Clark Kent, was he supposed to be our hero? He didn't do anything except cheat and look confused. What a hero. Now that I think about it...every character is significantly dumber and more irrelevant than their counterpart from the original; the worst offender is probably that bratty kid. Okay, time to end this...now I'm just sitting here shaking my head and laughing while trying to think up retarded things that happened.

I really want to lower the score more, but I must maintain consistency. After all, this is nowhere near as horrific as the "Halloween" remake. Though...that did have my dear Danielle in it...hmm. Anyway, the film is competently put together from a technical standpoint, sans the CGI, of course; if I'm being objective, most aspects lean more toward bland than outright terrible. I can mildly appreciate the effort to explain a few loose ends from the original, but you can't simultaneously create a debacle in the process. More to the point, this film cannot come close to competing with the original in any form of film making. It does not replicate the atmosphere or sense of dread yet feebly copies scenes from the original without rhyme or reason. I'd also go one step further and say this is an insult to the original and the crew could not hold a candle to Carpenter's version despite the shortcomings of the original. Finally, I want to reiterate that the perpetual stream of inferior remakes really needs to stop!

Notable Moment: When Elizabeth goes outside in the cold. She takes the time to put on a sweater but not pants? Okaaay...I guess you gotta add a little sex appeal for that precious, PG-13 crowd.

Final Rating: 4/10

The Fog (1980 original) Review

Disclaimer: Contains spoilers!

Plot Summary: A small town is terrorized by a supernatural fog that contains a crew of vengeful spirits.

Review: I really do like this movie, but it's arguably the weakest entry from John Carpenter during the '80s. There are plenty of positives like the use of atmosphere, the simplistic yet creepy design of the ghosts, and the implementation of the fog itself. However, the story lacks any conceivable depth, we know nothing about the characters, and the pacing feels off. Learning this underwent heavy editing and re-shoots definitely explains a lot, but that doesn't make the problems subside.

My main problem with the story is the half-assed nature of everything. We do understand why the ghosts are doing what they're doing, but I feel like they're late to the party. Why wait a hundred years to seek revenge? All the people they want to kill are long since dead. I guess you could assume that the people they kill are descendants of the people that betrayed the ghosts...but that's a huge ass stretch of the imagination given the indecisive nature of how the fog seeks victims. Meaning, if the ghosts want to kill specific people, why do we see them pursuing so many people they don't even kill who are not related to one another? This kind of leads me to the pointless nature of Jamie Lee Curtis' character. She's such a useless addition and has no twist that connects her to anything. I think what would have cleared everything up is if the fog was kind of an urban legend that, once every 100 years, it's said a mysterious fog rolls in and people disappear. You could keep everything the same except change it so that the curse has been going on for longer. I think this would add another layer of creepiness since the ghosts would not be satiated--like, they're doomed for eternity. My other gripe is toward the uneven pacing. I did not like that there's a lull in the action. The ghosts should have attacked the town all in one night...it only makes sense this way. Then the drama with the three guys at sea? Eh...such filler.

I'm probably making it sound like I hate this movie, but it is still good for what it is. The way the fog works is especially cool--the ghosts kind of materialize within it and look quite freaky. Of course the best looking is the leader with his glowing red eyes. When you factor in yet another great score from Mr. Carpenter, the utilization of the fog creates this moody atmosphere. This is where the film truly shines as a horror, and I applaud that effort. The fake out and subsequent zinger ending does appear tacked on, but, I don't know, I kind of like the darker tone it creates; in one respect the ghosts are almost sympathetic, but the fact that they still kill the last victim demonstrates that they're definitely evil. Other than that, the technical aspects are all done extremely well considering this was another low-budget outing for Mr. Carpenter.

Overall, this is a decent horror film, but it lacks the kind of imagination and depth of John Carpenter's other classics like "They Live" or "Prince of Darkness." There is an eerie tone to the film, but it is boggled down by shallow characters and a huge lull during the second act. While the positives more than outweigh the negatives, I don't hold this in as high regard the way I do something as underrated as the aforementioned "Prince of Darkness." This is still worth checking out for newbies, but god help you if you end up watching the remake...

Notable Moment: When that one dude, sweeping up at the beginning, decides to take a sip of orange juice and put it back on the shelf. You asshole.

Final Rating: 6/10

Ant-Man Review

Disclaimer: Contains spoilers!

Plot Summary: A former thief must take on the role of a superhero and prevent a madman from recreating a dangerous technology.

Review: This was another instance where I thought things looked like shit. I mean, Paul Rudd...really? Thankfully, I was wrong on this one. Marvel has been such a hit or miss that I didn't want to take a chance, but, after seeing how Ant-Man was presented in the awesome "Captain America: Civil War," I figured it couldn't be as bad as I was imagining. Sure enough, Paul Rudd worked surprisingly well in the role, and the film, as a whole, spiced things up with a heist theme. I was most worried about the lighthearted nature of the story, but this aspect turned out to be complementary instead. Come to think of it, a lot of things were so cheesy--in a good way--that this felt like the formula for an '80s movie.

If you're burning out on all of these superhero movies then I think you might appreciate "Ant-Man" all the more. Although it's still technically an origin film, the pacing takes us through these formalities quickly enough. We get a seamless blending of the training to be Ant-Man fused into the buildup to the pivotal heist. As such, the film follows a heist structure more accurately which helps relieve the burnout from tired superhero cliches. Paul Rudd's sarcastic tone works better than I'd hope given the crazy situation he's been thrust into; it just feels apropos. In fact, the comedic tone throughout had a certain charm to it. I really liked Michael Douglas here--I didn't think he'd ever do a superhero movie, but he was a natural for the role; in fact, I wanted to see more adventures from his days as Ant-Man especially with the apparent death of the original Wasp. The peripheral characters are at that edge of entertaining and plain stupid, but they kind of won me over with the little things like Stan Lee's cameo. Hell, I even cared when Ant-Man's main, ant friend, Anthony, got killed. NO! The highlight moment is definitely when they're fighting near Ant-Man's daughter's Thomas train. It was such a fun combination with the cops wondering what the hell is happening and how Ant-Man and the villain, Yellowjacket, kept forgetting that it's not a real train. I wouldn't go as far as to say the film itself was a comedy, but there was a lot of successful genre-mixing at work.

While I was pleasantly surprised with this movie for the most part, there were still plenty of shenanigans afoot. For instance, the one-dimensional villain, Yellowjacket, was not fleshed out properly. And, even though I don't know much about the Ant-Man comics, I at least knew the real Yellowjacket was supposed to be a persona of Hank Pym...so that was a disappointing change. As I alluded to, some jokes and characters are outright moronic. I get that a huge draw for these films are the kiddies, but something like "Iron Man" balanced the comedy/action more substantially; this idiocy just wreaks of Disney's slimy hands. My last gripe is simply in regard to the simplistic nature of the plot: a stereotypical criminal with a heart of gold becomes a reluctant superhero against an over the top, evil villain who doesn't appear to even have a motive? Seriously, what did Yellowjacket hope to accomplish? To make more money despite being a successful, corporate CEO?! This cartoonish plot does feel '80s-ish, which I like, but that wasn't the vibe they were going for so it's more incidental than anything. So, in this case, it's a situation where a plot aspect can be both a positive and a negative.

This may not be anywhere close to the best superhero film out there, but it's better than you'd think at a glance. Having a heist plot line helped considerably to keep things fresh in, what's becoming, an oversaturated market. The comedic aspects are done well, but jokes lean heavily toward the PG crowd. A huge positive is the quick pacing which carries the audience through the running time unaware. There are noticeable flaws spread throughout that are compounded by the heaps of superhero tropes, but nothing really drags down the experience. "Ant-Man" was intended to be viewed before seeing "CA: Civil War," but, if you were like me and passed on it, I'd highly recommend going back and checking it out. I'm now actually excited about the sequel and seeing what the new Wasp is capable of doing.

Notable Moment: When Ant-Man and Yellowjacket fight near the Thomas train set. It may have been part pandering or shameless product placement, but it was handled hilariously nonetheless.

Final Rating: 7/10