Every now and then, a really good horror film comes out. Halloween, A Nightmare on Elm Street, The Ring, 28 Days Later, etc. This is not a really good horror film. i did like it though, and i don't know why everyone is saying how horrible this is. i mean, i watched the unrated version, maybe that made a big difference, i don't know. Most horror films suck. thats just a fact. this one was not really scary or anything, but i didn't feel cheated out of my hour and a half like others are saying. Yes, the special effects are much more advanced than in the first, and i usually don't like a lot of CGI, but the CGI in this was pretty good i thought. they didn't over due it like in a lot of films today. yes, Tom Welling is much better looking than the original Nick Castle, yes, Selma Blair is better looking than the original Stevie, and well neither Maggie Grace or Jaime Lee Curtis do much for me, but I don't having younger, more attractive actors hurt this film. I will say it, i liked this one better than the original. people can actually do that from time to time. the original "Fog" was okay, this one was decent, which is better than okay. It was a fun movie to watch, the acting was not spectacular, but aside from just a few moments from Maggie Grace, i thought it was alright. People who love the original version of films like them for certain reasons, so when a remake comes out with better looking effects and actors and a bit of a different story, they want to hate it. but if a remake is the exact same, what the hell is the point of remaking it. if anything, more people will go back and watch the original because of seeing this one, because most people have not seen the original. I think if you just go into this film not trying to compare every detail to the original, and not expecting it to suck, and just watch it to watch and enjoy a movie, you might be pleasantly surprised, or you might think it sucks, but it certainly is no worse than 95% of the horror films that come out
Review of The Fog
