John Carpenter's, The Fog out Oct. 4th. (1 Viewer)

[Dave Mack]

Well just read the tomato-meter reading at Rotten Tomatoes of the remake, currently at 9%.

Bet those smarmy comments from those young'uns about the old one being dated seem kinda foolish to have said now.

 

[Chris Tedesco]

Wow, 9% is god awful...almost Gigli awful. However, it's weird because it really only is showing a handful of reviews. So the percentage is......oh I gotta stop making excuses...this thing was a turd!

 

[Edward Schatz]

They probably didn't screen the movie to critics for that very reason.

 

[WillG]

Number One at the Box Office for the weekend. It only made something like $12 million, but it was enough for this weekend.

 

[Chris Tedesco]

did anyone see this thing?

 

[Lyle_JP]

I saw a clip from the remake during last week's Smallville. It was the rescue of Andy, with Tom Welling playing Tom Atkins' original role.

It looked like what happens when you take a classic horror film and completely strip it of any of the original creepy atmosphere, suspense, and pacing.

In other words, it looked like the Psycho remake.

-Lyle J.P.

 

[JoshB]

Pass this one up. It is no where near the quality of the original. If they went for a Psycho approach, and completely did a carbon copy of the Carpenter film, it would be an infinitely better film than this new one. Bland writing and acting, CGI that takes the viewer out the film and lackluster suspense, and a cast of unproven box offie potential. At least the original had a director on a hot streak, and actors who had a very diverse range to offer and fit there roles perfectly.

In a way, this one reminds me of The Haunting, which went for over the top production designs, CGI and sound to make up for poor directing and scares that arent going to scare if there is no suspense amid the noise.

I will say that I much anticipated this one, but after seeing some of the previews and the CGI effects, I was more and more turned off by it. The original was not always scary, but had some suspense because you did not always see what was happening or know who the villains were. the CGI just didnt worked, and seeing the villains in that particular way took the atmosphere away.

Save yourself some time and money and just view the original, and if you dont have it yet, buy either of the two version that were released by MGM. The new one is the exact same, audio video and extras except it has the new trailer. Hell, you can buy the old one for the same price as admission to the new film. A much much better bargain if you ask me.

 

[Kevin M]

Hey, at least we have the Halloween remake to look forward to............yeah.......

 

[Daryl L]

Just so others don't get confused, this thread was about a new release of the original and not the new remake.

 

[Tony J Case]

Just the other night I theater-hopped into it after I saw Land of the Dead. It was a horror movie for people who have ADD. It was dreadful! Bad actors, no atmosphere, and crappy FX that get in your face when they need to be subtle.

It was a waste of 2 hours of my life that I will NEVER get back.

 

[Dave Mack]

ok, last tangent for me. I hope the remake really tanks and they give up the idea of remaking any more Carpenter films. My fiancee and I watched Escape From N.Y. with it's humble little budget and had a ball. We were thinking, "Gee, when will THIS be remade?" And are they really remaking Halloween? eesh...


BTW, I just watched the real "Fog" the other nite and the reason it still works is ATMOSPHERE. Learn it, young'uns...

 

[TravisR]

I saw The Fog remake and it's as bad as they say. Call me crazy but I thought the trailer and commercials looked OK so I had some hope for it. Alot of horror movie fans (and internet nerds) just say that everything sucks without actually seeing the movie first. Well, I gave it a chance and I would have been happy to say "Hey, this was much better than I thought it would be." but it was just flat out terrible. I almost feel bad saying how bad it was because everyone involved with it must be embarassed by it. Saying it's bad just kicks people when they're down.

Anyways, I would imagine that word of mouth will drop this movie way out of the number one spot. Look for the unrated DVD with the version that couldn't be shown in theaters! Ugh.




Realistically, every Halloween sequel is a remake ('cept III).

 

[Greg_S_H]

Hopefully, Escape From LA will be the only time. And that was horrible.

 

[Kevin M]

From what I recall Carpenter himself said in a recent interview that they are indeed going ahead with a Halloween remake.......why? I don't know...I mean I "know" why, but....I don't know why.



One of the reasons I like III, it actually tried something different as far as sequels go.

 

[Dave Mack]

Well, I wouldn't put ANYTHING past Hollywood.
But really, a remake of "Halloween" with a "hip, young WB cast?" UGH... And maybe a CGI Myers because they old one is "dated" and moves too slow. And PG-13 too to get the teens in beacuse god knows they never went to the old "R" rated horror films in the past.

heh heh....

 

[TravisR]

Have no doubt that the Halloween remake (if it really happens) will be rated PG-13. *Insert sobbing here*

Seriously though, I love the Halloween series and I think the only difference between another sequel and a remake will be that they ditch (what's left of any) continuity with the other movies. As Dave said, they'll have a WB cast (which the sequels have already had) and it won't be suspenseful like most of the sequels. I guess what I'm saying is that Halloween can't be any more watered down by a remake than most of the sequels have already watered it down.

 

[Kevin M]

What kills me is that one of the reasons the original Halloween is a respected classic is because it didn't have a huge budget yet it succeeded anyway on shear talent and panache, it is a small film but it never needed to be bigger than that to be good. It works IMO because of it's low budget nature...."wow, look at what they were able to do with a love of film and a good cast, a good director and little else".

I dislike remakes in general but a remake of this film in particular is utterly pointless.

 

[WillG]

Yeah, unlike "The Fog" where the story does potentially leave room for some reimagination, the original Halloween is way too bare bones of a story for a remake to breathe any new life into. What are they going to do, use a CGI Michael Myers?

I'm sure, if they do remake it, they will screw it up by establishing a motive for M.M. They might even let us know right off the bat that the lead girl is M.M.'s sister.

 

[BrettGallman]

Well, at this point, it looks like they're going ahead with "Halloween 9" not being a remake.

However, the producers have already said that depending on how that one does at the box office, they'll consider a remake for the 10th installment.

As messed up as the Halloween franchise has become, I'd rather see it just end definatively than have the original be remade.

 

[GeorgePaul]

Hasn't the original already been remade ONCE in the seemingly endless series of "Halloween" sequels?

I thought for sure Part 4 or 5 was a paint-by-numbers remake of the original.