MovieChat Forums > The Fog (2005) Discussion > Movies are Relative to the Year they're ...

Movies are Relative to the Year they're made

posted 12 years ago by enjoyprog
2 replies | jump to latest

I'm 50 and I've been a movie buff for as long as I've been old enough to see movies. Movies are such a personal thing. The movies we love are usually the ones we see when we are young.

Remakes will always be made and I used to turn my nose up at them. But now that I'm older, I've relaxed by perspective on remakes.

I think movies are relative to the time they are made. "A Star Is Born" with Janet Gaynor is relative to the year that it's made, as opposed to the remake with Barbara Streisand.

Same with "The Fog." It's not that it's a bad movie; it's just made with a different take on the original. Beyond that, it's merely a matter of taste. Me personally, I thought it was a bit over-done.

But that's just me.

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] TheSolarSailor 12 years ago

I disagree. The script was decent and could have been tweaked to be something really good. The director is solely to blame as his bland style, over-reliance on CGI, inability to stage one single scary scene, inability to coax a performance of decent quality out of his actors, and lack of understanding the importance of slowly setting the mood and building the terror is what doomed this movie to hell. A good director could have turned this script into a pretty good film.

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