THE FOG: And the composer is...

[scorehead]

Looks like Graeme Revell is the composer of choice when it comes to John Carpenter Remakes - http://www.musicfromthemovies.com/article.asp?ID=550 . It'd be nice if there was some references to Carpenters score, which was fun, propulsive, spooky and a great effort for his developing style of scoring at the time. Still, it's one of my favorites of Carpenters before he started running out of ideas and getting other composers to contribute to his films. Wouldn't it just be a hoot if the marquee for the film read: "Music by: Graeme Revell in association with Alan Howarth?"



Scorehead

[andy b]

I to would love to see more of a Carpenter connection.

I know he stated that he had no problem with remakes as movie companies have been doing the same thing for years. Plus I suppose it pays him more for an old project & fair play to the man, Hollywood studios have never given him the respect he deserves.

But I just love to see or hear a reference to the original when it comes to remakes.

It was great to see the names or actors in the Dawn of the Dead remake appear, just gave it that extra nod to the original.

A few bars of the Terminator score at the end of T3.

Just gives a little respect to the past orginals.

[Eric W.]

The last Revell score that did anything for me was the second Crow film.

At best, I'm indifferent to this news.

[scorehead]

I totally agree with you on your indifference, Eric. While I do like Revell's work, the CROW films seem to be the starting and stopping point for him in terms of his developing a true voice that one could recognize. He now seems to have become a composer that I refer to as "One of the Reliable," in that you know what you're going to get and it will functional at best. And although John Debney is more Williamseque in his approach, he to belongs in this category. How the hell he got that oscar nomination is... well, an act of God. (Did you see that? "Hell" and "God" in the same sentence... that wasn't even planed.)

And Yes, Andy... a nod to the original would not only be nice, but appropriate. I loved Carpenter's theme for THE FOG and it would be great if they could at least incorporate this style; solo piano and strings, synths and percussion. Gee... come to think of it, why didn't they just hire Carpenter to do an updated version of his score for this remake? That would have been a really nice "Nod" to the original.

Best,

Scorehead

[AndyDursin]

Alas, THE FOG is being released without the benefit of any critic screenings. Not that it's the total kiss of death -- EXORCIST THE BEGINNING wasn't nearly as bad as its rep would lead you to believe -- but it can't be a sign of confidence either.

Then again, they probably figure between Tom Welling, the PG-13 rating, and a built-in audience, why even bother with them...

[MikeSkerritt]

I'm more turned off by the PG-13 rating than anything else. I know there are a lot of Carpenter purists out there, but THE FOG, IMHO one of his lesser films, could use an update. But not one of these WB, slicker-than-snot "family" horror films. We need a real, honest to goodness frightfest, man!

Revell I don't mind so much. He's like composer purgatory to me - nothing spectacular, nothing awful. Since THE CROW, I did like THE SAINT (gorgeous love theme) and THE NEGOTIATOR, though.

[AndyDursin]

I'm more turned off by the PG-13 rating than anything else. I know there are a lot of Carpenter purists out there, but THE FOG, IMHO one of his lesser films, could use an update. But not one of these WB, slicker-than-snot "family" horror films. We need a real, honest to goodness frightfest, man!

Revell I don't mind so much. He's like composer purgatory to me - nothing spectacular, nothing awful. Since THE CROW, I did like THE SAINT (gorgeous love theme) and THE NEGOTIATOR, though.

THE SAINT is a great, highly underrated score -- beautiful love theme, in fact...but alas, he hasn't written anything since to rival it (or even come close).

[Monterey Jack]

I'm more turned off by the PG-13 rating than anything else.

Y'know, I keep hearing horror geeks bitching about the PG-13 rating on the Fog remake, yet I didn't find the original film to be that violent. There's a surprising lack of gore (particularly from the director of The Thing ), no nudity, and not even much noticable profanity. Carpenter's film would probably slide by on a PG-13 by today's ridiculously lenient MPAA standards (can you believe the second Austin Powers movie got a PG-13? ).

[AndyDursin]

I'm more turned off by the PG-13 rating than anything else.

Y'know, I keep hearing horror geeks bitching about the PG-13 rating on the Fog remake, yet I didn't find the original film to be that violent. There's a surprising lack of gore (particularly from the director of The Thing ), no nudity, and not even much noticable profanity. Carpenter's film would probably slide by on a PG-13 by today's ridiculously lenient MPAA standards (can you believe the second Austin Powers movie got a PG-13? ).

Jack, you are dead on about that. I was thinking that the other day as well -- if Carpenter's THE FOG had opened today it could possibly nab a PG-13.

To me, horror doesn't need an R rating to be scary. There are, however, "gore hounds" who like their buckets of blood and become annoyed when something isn't R. I even saw Bruce Campbell on TV the other night complaining about that very fact. That doesn't bother me in the slightest, particularly because there are so many fine supernatural films in the PG genre.

Growing up I was far more disturbed by POLTERGEIST than much of anything else. I remember renting THE EXORCIST in 8th grade or so, and being disappointed not by the movie so much as how little I was scared during it! (This after years of hearing my cousins tell me how scared I'd be...I guess after all that build up I anticipated something creepier!).

[romanD]

anyone seen it now? some reviewers really like it, some hate it. Especially the aicn freak harry, but his opinion is the last you should ever listen to, no matter what movie (and especially for KING KONG... this guy loves it now already so much, he didn't even get really worried by Shore's offing...).
He complaint for example that the famous lighthouse roof scene isn't it this version at all... so what? Of course, that's one of the best scenes Ive ever seen in a horror movie, but when you can't op that, why should you recreate it in the remake? I don't mind that it is not in it... I rather wonder what's going to happen next when the girl leaves the lighthouse instead on climbing on the roof... otherwise I just watch the original. So to complain about that is stupid in my opinion.

anyhow... Andy go see it! I have to wait 6 months until it gets released in Germany... (((

[AndyDursin]

Roman, I might check it out. Most of the reviews were horrible, but most of the criticisms seemed to indicate they were pre-disposed to disliking it because it was a genre film. Pretty modest weekend box-office intake though, like most everything that's out there (thankfully it didn't cost much to produce).

[mkaroly]

I'm more turned off by the PG-13 rating than anything else.

Y'know, I keep hearing horror geeks bitching about the PG-13 rating on the Fog remake, yet I didn't find the original film to be that violent. There's a surprising lack of gore (particularly from the director of The Thing ), no nudity, and not even much noticable profanity. Carpenter's film would probably slide by on a PG-13 by today's ridiculously lenient MPAA standards (can you believe the second Austin Powers movie got a PG-13? ).

To me, horror doesn't need an R rating to be scary. There are, however, "gore hounds" who like their buckets of blood and become annoyed when something isn't R. I even saw Bruce Campbell on TV the other night complaining about that very fact. That doesn't bother me in the slightest, particularly because there are so many fine supernatural films in the PG genre.

Growing up I was far more disturbed by POLTERGEIST than much of anything else. I remember renting THE EXORCIST in 8th grade or so, and being disappointed not by the movie so much as how little I was scared during it! (This after years of hearing my cousins tell me how scared I'd be...I guess after all that build up I anticipated something creepier!).

I love gore, but as time goes on I find I like films that show less and go more for the "horror" or what you don't see- leave it up to the imagination. I think I said this before on another thread, but one genre of horror film that can be great without gore is the ghost film.

The clown in POLTERGEIST gave me sleepless nights. And HALLOWEEN had very little gore in it but delivers the goods. Recently, THE RING had some gore but that opening sequence made me jump- I hvaen't jumped like that in years, and they used every trick in the book! Still, it was well done.

Stuff like EVIL DEAD films and gory slasher films can be fun with lots of blood and guts- but I find myself paying more attention to the make-up and thinking "how did they do that?" rather than being scared by the story! I definitely felt that way for the first two HELLRAISER films. I saw DEAD ALIVE and that one film (a LONG time ago) about the dude who kills all those college girls and sews their body parts together and wants to put his mom's head on top- was that PIECES?? Does anyone consider SE7EN gory? I think that found a balance- it had enough gore to make you squeamish without taking away from the horror of what you were witnessing. When either type is done right, it's good and scary, but I suppose that's overstating the obvious.

[scorehead]

I must say that by turns, this was one of the worst films that I have ever seen. I wish that I had the time, or the interest, to go into detail, but this film does no justice at all to the original. In short: the pacing is bad, the acting outside of Tom Welling is atrocious (that's a stretch, I know), the story is choppy and incoherent, the effects look bad, even if they were intended for television, and even the score, although respectfully similar in tone with Carpenters efforts, is uneven and too "turned on high" for it's, or the movies, own good. More over, the "enhancements" made to the original films story line, that now connects the current residents to the atrocities of Antonio Islands founding fathers, is useless fluff and marks this movie more as an reinterpretation than a remake. And what's up with that scene of the ol' coot (there's always at least one) voluntarily getting all tangled up in the ships mooring rope that he finds exposed on the beach and leading out into the ocean and, inevitably, into the fog? The only thing that I found moderetly amusing was that they got one of Hollywoods most well know flat chested actresses (Selma Blair) to play the part that was originally so rambunctiously brought to life by an actresses (Adrienne Barbeau) that was more known for her "lung capacity" than her acting. Seriously, did anyone else notice that they fitted/stuffed Selma's bra with enough soft tissues to choke a large flea? Sadley, like a mouth full of sand, this reless effort rates a BIG THUMBS DOWN. Your better off saving up your money for that next big trip to the proctologist. I'm sure that it will be more probing, and have more depth than this theatrical blunder.

Best,

Scorehead

[romanD]

that sounds too bad. I really want to like this remake... well, still have to wait a couple weeks until its release over here... I guess they just didn't give the whole thing enough time, the shot and finished this movie in what? 7 months?

Well... still I have hopes that it can't be worse than FLIGHTPLAN (an astounding cure for insomnia, even if you suspend all disbelief) and AMITYVILLE HORROR (which I just saw yesterday and couldn't believe how dreadful that was), can it?

[AndyDursin]

I must say that by turns, this was one of the worst films that I have ever seen. I wish that I had the time, or the interest, to go into detail, but this film does no justice at all to the original. In short: the pacing is bad, the acting outside of Tom Welling is atrocious (that's a stretch, I know), the story is choppy and incoherent, the effects look bad, even if they were intended for television, and even the score, although respectfully similar in tone with Carpenters efforts, is uneven and too "turned on high" for it's, or the movies, own good. More over, the "enhancements" made to the original films story line, that now connects the current residents to the atrocities of Antonio Islands founding fathers, is useless fluff and marks this movie more as an reinterpretation than a remake. And what's up with that scene of the ol' coot (there's always at least one) voluntarily getting all tangled up in the ships mooring rope that he finds exposed on the beach and leading out into the ocean and, inevitably, into the fog? The only thing that I found moderetly amusing was that they got one of Hollywoods most well know flat chested actresses (Selma Blair) to play the part that was originally so rambunctiously brought to life by an actresses (Adrienne Barbeau) that was more known for her "lung capacity" than her acting. Seriously, did anyone else notice that they fitted/stuffed Selma's bra with enough soft tissues to choke a large flea? Sadley, like a mouth full of sand, this reless effort rates a BIG THUMBS DOWN. Your better off saving up your money for that next big trip to the proctologist. I'm sure that it will be more probing, and have more depth than this theatrical blunder.

Best,

Scorehead

Scorehead, I appreciate the comments. I'm just not motivated enough to spend $10 on a lot of movies these days, knowing I can review the DVD for nothing in about 2-3 months.

Don't be embarrased by Welling, either -- quite honestly he does a superb, unheralded job on SMALLVILLE (which is off to a fantastic start this year, with revitalized ratings to match). Something tells me I'll be missing him in Bryan Singer's SUPERMAN RETURNS, but we'll see...