teuthis
Joined Apr 1999
Welcome to the new profile
We're still working on updating some profile features. To see the badges, ratings breakdowns, and polls for this profile, please go to the previous version.
Reviews51
teuthis's rating
The 2005 version of "The Fog" is no classic, but it is not the total dump that everyone is claiming. I perceive it as no more flawed than any of the modern "horror" genre. In fact, I found it to be overall, eerie, poignant, haunting and visually effective.
The cast all performed very well; no weak links. The production values were excellent. It was updated to current culture, and aimed at a youth market. I enjoyed the original "The Fog", and I thought this version traveled well with time.
The director made a concerted attempt to create a haunting atmosphere in the film, and I believe he succeeded overall. There were good moments of fright, even if the development of the story was somewhat uneven. I thought that the focus of the tale on the tormented Elizabeth Williams was clever. It anchored the otherwise naturally- rambling story line. The actress carried the part exceedingly well. I was much impressed. There were other excellent and eerie visual efforts that worked too. I would have liked more immediately visible "ghosts", but cannot argue with the overall effect.
As to what some were commenting on about the actors being too beautiful and "consistent"; the leading women in Hollywood have always been beautiful. The difference is that in recent times, women have found their métier in physical fitness. Female stars of yore had uniformly lovely faces, but their figures often did not match so well. I think the faces are still beautiful, but fitness endows one and all with a similarity of form. I thought each of the principle actresses in the film had unique looks, and excellent acting abilities. I had no trouble at all telling them apart.
One element of many modern films is the similarity of wardrobe. Ours is now a casual culture, and in films everyone seems to dress alike. I think this mistake, more than any other, is the principle cause of a seeming similarity of actors. In the past, actors were given distinct "looks" with wardrobe. Today that important point is often neglected.
When viewing any remake, I think it is important to not sit back and compare it scene for scene with the original, having a predetermined negative bias. Let the film stand on its own. Sure, there have been some pretty awful remakes in the past few years. But I have seen much worse films than "The Fog" in the genre praised highly on IMDb. This one is not bad at all. It is certainly worth a look if you are a fan.
The cast all performed very well; no weak links. The production values were excellent. It was updated to current culture, and aimed at a youth market. I enjoyed the original "The Fog", and I thought this version traveled well with time.
The director made a concerted attempt to create a haunting atmosphere in the film, and I believe he succeeded overall. There were good moments of fright, even if the development of the story was somewhat uneven. I thought that the focus of the tale on the tormented Elizabeth Williams was clever. It anchored the otherwise naturally- rambling story line. The actress carried the part exceedingly well. I was much impressed. There were other excellent and eerie visual efforts that worked too. I would have liked more immediately visible "ghosts", but cannot argue with the overall effect.
As to what some were commenting on about the actors being too beautiful and "consistent"; the leading women in Hollywood have always been beautiful. The difference is that in recent times, women have found their métier in physical fitness. Female stars of yore had uniformly lovely faces, but their figures often did not match so well. I think the faces are still beautiful, but fitness endows one and all with a similarity of form. I thought each of the principle actresses in the film had unique looks, and excellent acting abilities. I had no trouble at all telling them apart.
One element of many modern films is the similarity of wardrobe. Ours is now a casual culture, and in films everyone seems to dress alike. I think this mistake, more than any other, is the principle cause of a seeming similarity of actors. In the past, actors were given distinct "looks" with wardrobe. Today that important point is often neglected.
When viewing any remake, I think it is important to not sit back and compare it scene for scene with the original, having a predetermined negative bias. Let the film stand on its own. Sure, there have been some pretty awful remakes in the past few years. But I have seen much worse films than "The Fog" in the genre praised highly on IMDb. This one is not bad at all. It is certainly worth a look if you are a fan.
Snake movies are the worst. And this one is the equal of any. A King Cobra/Rattlesnake hybrid has escaped from a lab wrecked by two of the most insane scientists in film history. The scene was brief, but possibly the most entertaining in the film. The monstrous mutation has claimed a small, rural town as its territory. Of course they are about to have a festival a beer fest no less! And will the Mayor cancel the festival because a couple of people are killed? What do you think?
The acting in King Cobra is remedial at best. Even Pat Morita cannot make is role entertaining. The stoic Casey Fallo was a pretty good reason to keep viewing. She was nice to watch in what little she was given to do. Everyone else was just not in attendance.
Perhaps the major problem for me in the film is that a snake was able to outsmart one-and-all homo sapiens throughout most of the film. And the two ton beast seemingly appeared and disappeared with all the velocity of a mako shark. He wafted through the delicate branches of trees with the grace of a ninety pound ballerina. A trained deputy is cornered against a tree by the rampaging reptile, and she panics, seemingly forgets she has a pistol in her hand, and screams for the hero; who drop-kicks the lightnening-fast saurian without even getting bitten.
One must always suspend belief to some extent in order to enjoy a monster film. However, the director created such a "super snake", and such inept humans, that King Cobra far surpassed my ability to stretch reality.This mess eventually became boring and predictable. That is the only real sin a monster film can commit. And it is terminal in King Cobra.
But it just might be that the worst faux pas of this film was the beer recipe recited by the supposed artisan brewer. If you are able to muster the gumption to watch this snake calamity, listen carefully for it. This "master brewer" is concocting a classic American mass-produced, tasteless near beer; not a sapid, artisan brew. After all, snakes are a dime a dozen, but a really good beer is sacred.
I cannot recommend this film, unless one is in traction and cannot reach the remote. However, perhaps enough good beer could make it tolerable?
The acting in King Cobra is remedial at best. Even Pat Morita cannot make is role entertaining. The stoic Casey Fallo was a pretty good reason to keep viewing. She was nice to watch in what little she was given to do. Everyone else was just not in attendance.
Perhaps the major problem for me in the film is that a snake was able to outsmart one-and-all homo sapiens throughout most of the film. And the two ton beast seemingly appeared and disappeared with all the velocity of a mako shark. He wafted through the delicate branches of trees with the grace of a ninety pound ballerina. A trained deputy is cornered against a tree by the rampaging reptile, and she panics, seemingly forgets she has a pistol in her hand, and screams for the hero; who drop-kicks the lightnening-fast saurian without even getting bitten.
One must always suspend belief to some extent in order to enjoy a monster film. However, the director created such a "super snake", and such inept humans, that King Cobra far surpassed my ability to stretch reality.This mess eventually became boring and predictable. That is the only real sin a monster film can commit. And it is terminal in King Cobra.
But it just might be that the worst faux pas of this film was the beer recipe recited by the supposed artisan brewer. If you are able to muster the gumption to watch this snake calamity, listen carefully for it. This "master brewer" is concocting a classic American mass-produced, tasteless near beer; not a sapid, artisan brew. After all, snakes are a dime a dozen, but a really good beer is sacred.
I cannot recommend this film, unless one is in traction and cannot reach the remote. However, perhaps enough good beer could make it tolerable?
Those Sci Fi channel monster pictures are usually just not very good. They follow some iterative formula that seems to never really excel. Remember, they did all those awful snake movies. But this bug adventure is a winner. It has some dimension, but still focuses on the monsters that try to reinvent the food chain with people invading their underground territory. This is finally "man versus nature" that the Sci Fi folks should have been doing all along; although for me, the biggest attraction was those beautiful women, all of whom can really act too. I fell in love three times during the film; all at once.
This film has some pretty good monster bugs; an extensive, dangerous cavern; a hidden trove of gemstones worth risking life and limb to obtain; a truly insane and determined villain; a redoubtable hero; and an utterly hilarious, air-head, blonde daughter, who is just to love! Can you ask for more? Yes you can; Monica Barladeanu. And she's right there in the cave with you.
Of course the plot wanders into the arena of the ridiculous; of course the bugs are basically without personality. Those are Sci Fi channel trademarks. But the adventure of it all; the dimension gained in splitting the family into different perils and paths; the deadly struggle in the caverns; seeking the gems at all cost; and trying to escape the hordes of monster beetles; all works for me. I think it is pretty good, classic, low budget science fiction that we all know and love! It is certainly a people-chomping, bug-crunching, beauty-ogling good time for one and all.
This film has some pretty good monster bugs; an extensive, dangerous cavern; a hidden trove of gemstones worth risking life and limb to obtain; a truly insane and determined villain; a redoubtable hero; and an utterly hilarious, air-head, blonde daughter, who is just to love! Can you ask for more? Yes you can; Monica Barladeanu. And she's right there in the cave with you.
Of course the plot wanders into the arena of the ridiculous; of course the bugs are basically without personality. Those are Sci Fi channel trademarks. But the adventure of it all; the dimension gained in splitting the family into different perils and paths; the deadly struggle in the caverns; seeking the gems at all cost; and trying to escape the hordes of monster beetles; all works for me. I think it is pretty good, classic, low budget science fiction that we all know and love! It is certainly a people-chomping, bug-crunching, beauty-ogling good time for one and all.