I've always had a soft spot in my heart for horror movies. Which is kind of a weird thing to say I guess, but there you have it. Long after my friends (and some would say most sane individuals) gave up on the genre, I was still in the trenches, a wad of cash in my hand to spend on the latest schlock-fest, always willing to hope that this time it's gonna be another The Exorcist. And while nothing has come close in the past twenty years, I've never given up hope. But with this film my rose-colored glasses are starting to dull, and I started thinking the unthinkable; sticking to the classics for a good scare.
This film is a re-do of John Carpenter's 1980 film of the same name. Cad-about-town Nick Castle (played well enough by Smallville Superman Tom Welling) and his back-in-town girlfriend Elizabeth (Lost's Maggie Grace) find out that things aren't exactly peachy in their hometown of Antonio Island, Oregon. Local DJ Stevie Wayne (a not-given-enough-screen-time Selma Blair) also buys a clue. Along with a handful of other townies, they discover that the evil presence rolling into town may be thanks to some home-grown dastardly deeds from years gone by. At 100 minutes, the new film is 11 minutes longer than the original. But it's not as satisfying. What was John able do that Rupert Wainwright didn't seem to accomplish?
Not tying this story into the huge trove of sailing lore would be one reason. The original movie had the premise of villagers luring a ship to its doom front-and-center, story-wise. Tales of land pirates like the ones on Fire Island, New York and Nags Head, North Carolina, are easy enough to find and play with. The original uses those type of tales to good effect; the town of Antonio Bay established itself thanks to blood money from villagers turned land pirates, and the doom settles thick and fast once the modern-day characters begin to figure it out. The new film has Antonio Island set itself up with blood money too, but it feels like an afterthought, something that comes into play as a possible reason in the last minutes of the film. The first 75 minutes or so are spent showing off choreographed car crashes and overly dark Pirates of the Caribbean-ripoff CGI effects. Which don’t mean anything without a backstory that makes viewers care about what happens to the characters.
Not playing the revenge angle for what it was worth would be another reason. Morality tales can be found everywhere, with the wicked getting what's coming to them or poor folks getting a dose of payback thanks to their ancestor's misdeeds. It may be a routine ride, but it's almost always a satisfying one. In the original version, you saw revenge aplenty, along with an amazing bit of character development as Father Malone, a scion of the founding fathers, comes to understand and accept his probable fate. In the new version, the ending narration lets viewers know that they can never be sure exactly why things happened, and payback isn't as strongly stressed as the ghosts simply coming back for what is theirs. Which waters things down a bit, and leaves a rather bland taste in your mouth. But I guess when you have every single main character related in some way to the evil-doers of the past, the revenge angle would have all of them dying horribly. Except for the Token Black Dude™, who has the good sense to be from Chicago.
Hey, I wasn't expecting a shot-for-shot remake of the original. Anyone can watch Gus Van Sant's remake of Psycho and see that that's no real fun. But even when they've got a decent angle, the makers of this film either drop it like it's hot or just don't even consider it. Nick and Stevie have a little discussion in town after Elizabeth returns home; while the scene is played with a healthy dash of sexual tension, the possibility that the two of them had been close once is never mentioned again. In fact, it's never addressed in the first place. There's also a great way to bring in a sort of The Sixth Sense twist ending to the film, but instead the ending is just dumped into our lap with no explanation. Time's up, all done now! (Thanks, is the movie over yet? Good.)
It's not that The Fog is bad. It's just not very good. This movie can be summarized as follows: here it comes, here it comes, big letdown, repeat. The director seems to have glossed over huge chunks of story for the quick payoff of sudden shocks. But shocking people and scaring 'em are two different things. It's a sad day when I start re-writing the script in my head when I haven't even left the theater yet. As a reviewer, it's my job to consider the film's positive and negative attributes. But when I start thinking about stepping out and doing someone else’s job for him, that's trouble, right here in River City.
Well, the fog is starting to lift from my horror-movie outlook, and I'm starting to feel hopful again. Time, distance and all that. Though I think that people would be better served watching the far superior original to this remake, new horror movies are back in my good graces, at least for now. So I guess I'll still be out there giving the new guys a chance to wow me. Its just a pity that this one didn't.
