I don't have anything against remakes… but they should at least be done right! I watched John Carpenter’s _The Fog_ some years ago, and I still recall how enjoyable it was. The original film didn’t feature any fake blood; it wasn’t the kind of extremely graphic movie we've become accustomed to in recent years, with spurts of blood and chunks of flesh flying around. Carpenter created a clean film, without those jum…

I find it disappointing overall, though I do appreciate the premise. The Fog has been heavily criticized on Letterboxd, with an average rating of just 1.6, which is pretty bad. I don’t believe it's quite as terrible as that score suggests, but I can see why people dislike it; for me, it squanders a promising idea. I wasn’t particularly bothered by the special effects—they aren’t spectacular, but they didn’t let…

I really have to say, this was terrible. It truly was a remarkably poor experience. A small part of me worries that revisiting the source material might be unpleasant, but I’m mostly confident it couldn't possibly be any worse than what I just witnessed... I mean, there's no way it could be, is there? ...Is there? _Final rating:★ - Of no value. Avoid at all costs._

It felt like something I really needed to experience !!!! Can people who love the original John Carpenter film truly be impartial when considering this remake? Can a contemporary audience, accustomed to Gorno and Slasher horror, offer an unbiased perspective either? I believe that as someone in middle age, I’m capable of being quite objective and giving it a fair rating. Keeping that in mind, I freely acknowled…