The Mist

[number8]

Is one of the best horror movies in a very long time.

I love you, Frank Darabont.

[Qrazy]

How similar if at all... on a purely narrative/thematic sense... is it to Carpenter's The Fog?

[number8]

Zero similarities.

[Mal]

I dunno... Thomas Jane is hot... but $9 on a movie I don't want to see anyway? Eh.

[Boner M]

You should add ratings to your sig directly after viewings, 8. This change will improve your lives as much as ours.

[Bosco B Thug]

Oh yeah. This is what I like to hear.

Have you checked out the mixed critical reviews over at RT, though? They're a bummer.

[number8]

You should add ratings to your sig directly after viewings, 8. This change will improve your lives as much as ours.

I consider that false advertising. :twisted:

Anyways, review: http://www.justpressplay.net/movies/the-mist/review/

[Cult]

I was handed a free screening pass to this when I saw No Country, but I'm working on the night of it. Too bad, sounds intriguing.

[DavidSeven]

I dunno... Thomas Jane is hot... but $9 on a movie I don't want to see anyway? Eh.

Even if it was free, why would you bother watching a movie you don't want to see?

[Ezee E]

Even if it was free, why would you bother watching a movie you don't want to see?
Indeed. Although I try it sometimes on DVD if I hear good things.

What is The Mist all about anyway? I never heard anything until a few weeks ago.

[megladon8]

How was Thomas Jane, anyways?

I really like him. He's got great charisma, and talent to boot.

He's not Johnny Depp, but I really like the guy.

Also incredible to see how far he has come - he was homeless, living out of garbage cans at one point.

[Rowland]

Also incredible to see how far he has come - he was homeless, living out of garbage cans at one point.For real? And he still did that guest spot on Arrested Development. Huh.

[Mal]

Even if it was free, why would you bother watching a movie you don't want to see?

What didn't you understand about that sentence ::

Thomas Jane is hotttttt.

[megladon8]

For real? And he still did that guest spot on Arrested Development. Huh.


I think that was the point of the joke.

He always wanted to be an actor, and he ended up moving to Hollywood hoping that, on an off chance, someone would hire him.

He used up all his cash, couldn't get a job, and lived on a park bench and ate out of a garbage can.

I don't know what his first acting job was, but he got something, made some connections, and it wasn't too long after that he started to get pretty good roles.

It's cool he's remained very humble and "average joe"-like. He's said one of the things he absolutely hates the most about acting is the working out. When he was doing The Punisher, he would actually refuse to do his workout on paydays until he actually had the check in his hand, because he hated it so much.

[MadMan]

This film actually has a pretty solid cast, and looks interesting. The trailer featured what appared to be some silly moments, but anything taken out of context can be a bit odd or silly. I will probably see it, hopefully during X-Mas break in a couple of weeks.

[Bosco B Thug]

WHY isn't everyone rushing to the theater to see this??? I am judging you all!

<-- hasn't seen it yet. Tomorrow.


I hope it makes money. Doesn't seem like it's been marketed very well. :(

[D_Davis]

This movie is awesome. Awesome. Awesome. Awesome.

Man - what a kick ass ride. Hopefully I'll have a full review tomorrow.

Darabont + King = gold in my book.

Darabont just knows how to get the best out of a King story, and how to adapt his stories to the screen.

And Jane was really good.

[D_Davis]

Oh yeah, and the almost complete lack of a score? Brilliant. I love the lack of music in this film. It is used for punctuation and not saturation, which is a major problem with most modern horror.

[megladon8]

Sounds awesome, D. I know you're a fan of King, so I imagine you went in with high expectations - or at least higher than usual.

I can't wait to see this.

I noticed in the trailer that the moment when they are outside and see something absolutely enormous walk over them is in the movie - it's described as so big they can't even see the top of it. I am anxious to see how that is on the big screen.

[D_Davis]

Sounds awesome, D. I know you're a fan of King, so I imagine you went in with high expectations - or at least higher than usual.


Actually, as a fan of King I always approach his adaptations with the lowest of expectations. I try to leave my feelings for his written work at home, and I try to enjoy the film for what it is. I have not read The Mist, so I did not have any preconceived notions about the source material. What did give me hope though was the director's pedigree, especially when he is working with King.

It's just a really good horror film. It is a AAA B-movie.

[megladon8]

Actually, as a fan of King I always approach his adaptations with the lowest of expectations. I try to leave my feelings for his written work at home, and I try to enjoy the film for what it is. I have not read The Mist, so I did not have any preconceived notions about the source material. What did give me hope though was the director's pedigree, especially when he is working with King.

It's just a really good horror film. It is a AAA B-movie.


Interesting...that must make it easier on you when the movies suck :P

I always loved the Stephen King manages to tell two (sometimes even more) stories at once. His stories can be taken as straight-on horrors, or as surprisingly poignant (often family-related) dramas. "'Salem's Lot" is a great story about a child seeing ultimate evil, "The Shining" is about a man struggling with alcoholism, etc.

Is there any of that in the film? Or is it a straight up monster movie?

Either way is fine with me :D

[D_Davis]

There is something innately mysterious and frightening about a dense fog, while at the same time it can birth intensely romantic moments. In a thick fog, it feels as if the inner world has become small and incredibly close, while the outer world has grown to an almost unfathomable size; things near become more intimate, while things in the distance seem worlds away. There is something almost supernatural about fog and mist, phantasmagoric natural occurrences that trigger within us feelings of instinctual fear and wonder. The Mist, directed by Frank Darabont, based on the novella by Stephen King, expertly captures all of these atmospheric elements.

A strange, unearthly mist envelopes a small town, and a group of strangers and acquaintances find themselves trapped in a grocery store fighting for their lives and sanity against a terrible onslaught of creepy-crawlies. Darabont and King have teamed up before with spectacular results, but this film marks their first excursion together into the realms of true horror; at its core, The Mist is a superior monster movie, an midnight-style genre film filtered through A-class execution.

Most of the film feels small and modest, but at certain points vistas are revealed and we are allowed a glimpse into the great and wild unknown. During these moments, the film opens a window into a Lovecraftian world. While I have yet to read King's original story, I wouldn't be surprised to find it dedicated to the great master of murky, unnameable horror - did I see Cthulhu? These shifting moments, from small and personal to grand and spectacular, are handled with great skill. To strengthen the intensity of the intimate and personal moments, Darabont uses documentary-style techniques that lend a television news-like appearance to the situations, and, conversely, when the moments become bigger and more epic, he relaxes the camera and lets things happen within the frame with little manipulation.

Many lesser examples in the genre rely upon the film's ability to manipulate the audience. All too often we know exactly what to feel because of the pervasive music. But in a stroke of brilliance, The Mist is almost totally devoid of a soundtrack. Yes there are a few musical cues. However, these moments are used as punctuation, and are not used to dictate emotions in an over-saturation of choral cacophony. The sparse music lends the film an eerie and natural organic atmosphere.

Also adding to this natural atmosphere are the actors. Rather than use larger-than-life stars to fill the roles, The Mist's cast is made up of bit-players and character actors; a lack of big names limits the amount of security given to the characters. Thomas Jane is excellent as David Drayton, the film's “hero,” and Andre Braugher is equally impressive as Brent Norton, Drayton's somewhat hard-headed neighbor. My two favorite performances are given by Toby Jones and Marcia Gay Harden. Jones plays the lovable grocery store clerk, Ollie, and utilizes his awkwardness to great effect. Harden plays Mrs. Carmody, a religious zealot taking advantage of the rampant fear and using it to to lure people into her psychosis. It is so rare to mention great actors and characters when discussing a horror film, and The Mist only makes me realize how terrible most of the others are in this department.

The Mist is gross, and feels wet and sticky; the humidity of the lingering moisture can almost be felt, and the nastiness of the twisted invasion is pervasive and unrelenting. It truly is a superior horror film and deftly captures the things that make Stephen King's stories so endearing. King's horror almost always works on two levels - the physical and the spiritual - and here we get to see both in expert fashion. The decent into hell is both frightening and strangely compelling, and as I was drawn into the murky midst, I couldn't help but feel a sense of wonder, even while I cringed at the horrible situations, and experienced true empathy for the characters and their plight. The Mist is a gripping experience, and thanks to its brave ending, it is one that will not quickly be forgotten.

[megladon8]

Excellent review, D.

Awesome that you picked up on the Lovecraft stuff - it's very much a Lovecraft story, told through the eyes of Stephen King.

It's great that the cast of B-listers was effective...I think it would have only weakened the movie if they had gone with someone like Tom Cruise for the lead.

[eternity]

That ending. :eek:

[Bosco B Thug]

That ending. :eek:
Hahahahahahahahaha. Just watched it too.

The ending worked in a strange way. The incrementally overextended, self-inflated nature of the coda made it less emotionally devastating than you'd imagine it being, and instead transmorphed it into something cruelly deserved - they didn't go through that apocalyptic journey to not let themselves take the higher ground and transcend petty earthly things like conflict and military men with flamethrowers. Hmm, that might not make sense, but I think the ending succeeded in making it the appropriate big thematic joke of the whole affair: the world works in dichotomies - proving yourself or being afraid, being level-headed or fanatical or humanistic, being noble civilians suffering in solidarity against the institutions of the world vs. ummm the institutions in the world - and the 5 passengers fulfilled more than enough their role.

The ending is such a double-edged sword in the simultaneous

SPOILERS
good news and bad news (good feelings and bad feelings) it brings in the military actually saving the world and civilization - against all the romantic, "We'll go to a better place" thoughts that filled the car passenger's heads in those final moments. Not to mention against that overbearing, apocalyptic choral music (which is strangely, I wonder if intentionally, incongruous in its foreign, exotic-sounding tones).

More thoughts hopefully later! I liked it! Superior stuff!

[megladon8]

I have to ask...the scene I mentioned before, where the enormous "thing" walks over top of them...does it show it, or leave it to the audience to imagine how freaking enormous it is?

[[ETM]]

At last... Braugher in a decent film.

[Bosco B Thug]

I have to ask...the scene I mentioned before, where the enormous "thing" walks over top of them...does it show it, or leave it to the audience to imagine how freaking enormous it is?
Oooh, ok. Though I wouldn't recommend reading the spoiler, just go see the movie! :)

They show it, but its only the shape of the gigantic creature enshrouded in fog. I think they show'd a little too much, and I wish they'd mixed up the creature designs a little bit, but it's a very effective moment.

[number8]

;8989']At last... Braugher in a decent film.

Tell me about it. He was on his game in this. I was embarrassed for him in Silver Surfer.

[Sxottlan]

Tell me about it. He was on his game in this. I was embarrassed for him in Silver Surfer.

Let's not forget Poseidon.

Actually, on second thought, let's.

[MadMan]

After reading Ebert's review I've come to the conclusion that he's not a fan of horror movies. That's not to say he hasn't praised some of them (I have read his **** review of Dawn of the Dead(1978) but I still can't help but get that feeling especially after his review for The Mist. Or many of those horror films he reviewed actually sucked.....heh.

[megladon8]

It ended up coming out in Ottawa afterall - I couldn't be happier, because this movie kicked my ass.

[megladon8]

The Mist

a review by Braden Adam


Every few years there’s a horror movie that comes along and becomes an instant classic. Probably 1 in 5 of those then moves up the ranks once again, to become a horror movie that people will remember for years to come. Fathers and uncles will secretly pass down the recommendation to their sons and nephews, who will sneak off to Blockbuster and rent this old, worn out copy of the movie they were told was “really scary” back in 2007. I know this will happen because it’s how I came across so many of the classic horror films I did as a kid. My uncle and dad would talk about movies with me and discreetly hint (“oh, The Exorcist is on TV - that’s a really scary movie”) different titles I should look for the next time I’m out.

And when looking back at the films that are remembered so fondly, it’s true that fear of the unknown must be our greatest fear, because that’s the theme that unites a lot of these movies. In Robert Wise’s The Haunting, a building sense of dread is created without showing any ghosts or goblins - we are terrified by the idea of what could be there. Similarly, in the still-frightening films of Alfred Hitchcock, it’s the fact that we don’t see tons of blood, guts and gore that scares us so much. So why is it that Frank Darabont has been able to achieve a pitch-perfect blend between subtlety, and “showing the monster”?

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v496/megladon8/mist2.jpg

It’s funny to be writing all of this after recently having a discussion with some friends about Cloverfield, and the rumors regarding the possibility that the gigantic...um...whatever will never be shown, and whether that is going to work or not. Some say that because the nature of human fear resides so strongly around the unknown and unexplained - therefore making the more minimalist approach of not showing the monster more effective - that it should remain a mystery. Others, however, just want to be shown the monster, and be blown away by a gargantuan beast causing death and destruction. But, again, why is it that Darabont has managed to create a movie that appeals to both the lovers of psychological horror, and of seeing monsters kill and be killed?

Darabont obviously has a knack for storytelling. He knows how to make people mad, how to tug at their heartstrings without feeling preachy or manipulative, and has now shown that he knows how to scare us. With The Mist, a story is being told - in typical Stephen King fashion - within a story. Amidst the world’s end, a “Lord of the Flies” type scenario occurs, as some people go mad and others show incredible compassion. Some seem born to follow in the footsteps of whoever offers the easiest solution, and others feel they must do what they see as being morally right and just. As the monsters on the outside get bigger, so do the monsters on the inside of this microscopic society in a grocery store.

The film contains many signature Stephen King moments - scenes that are so utterly depressing or so morbid and violent that the audience’s reaction may be to laugh. Some people at my showing laughed, yet at the end those very same people walked out saying how much they loved it, and how scared they were. When a film pushes you so far that you don’t know whether to laugh or scream, that’s really saying something. The ending will no doubt be polarizing - perhaps even more so than that of another of this year’s controversial releases, Gone Baby Gone. And that’s not a hyperbolic statement at all...the ending to this film will no doubt cause some to despise the rest of the film. But they’ll never forget it, and so they too will probably end up recommending The Mist to one of their children, exclaiming how “that movie was great, up until the ending.”

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v496/megladon8/mist1.jpg

If you’re a fan of Stephen King. If you’re a fan of horror movies. If you’re a fan of H. P. Lovecraft. If you just want to see a very good movie that will also scare you silly, do yourself a favor and see The Mist. It’s going to be a classic - you can count on that. And you can be the one telling people in years to come that you saw it in the theatre, and “that’s when they made really scary movies.”

[Morris Schæffer]

Ugh. March 19th for us Belgians. :sad:

[jenniferofthejungle]

Great review, Braden. I love your long ones. I'll get to this one as soon as I can.

Morris, that is one hell of a wait. I'm sorry.

[megladon8]

Great review, Braden. I love your long ones. I'll get to this one as soon as I can.

Morris, that is one hell of a wait. I'm sorry.


Thanks, Jen :)

Once again, I feel like my attempt at creating something a little more in-depth than "this is what the movie was about, and this is why I liked it" failed miserably.

But hey, I guess I'm still experimenting. Glad you liked it :)


And yeh, Morris, I'm sorry about the wait. Where do you live, anyways? I thought you were in the US.

I am really glad it ended up coming to Ottawa in the end...it really freaked me out when the theatres said they weren't getting it.

[Wryan]

;8989']At last... Braugher in a decent film.

Double bill of Glory and Get On the Bus.

Mist was pretty good. Maybe a 3/4 for me.

[D_Davis]

Cool review Meg. I'm glad you liked it. I can't wait to see this again.

[[ETM]]

Double bill of Glory and Get On the Bus.

Haven't seen Passing Glory, but he was great in Get on the Bus... I was thinking major productions where more people can witness his talent.

[Lucky]

I'm seeing this in 30 min. Looking forward to it, haven't seen a movie in theaters since Stardust.

[Wryan]

;9590']Haven't seen Passing Glory, but he was great in Get on the Bus... I was thinking major productions where more people can witness his talent.

Glory's not a major production? Denzel? Matthew Broderick?

[[ETM]]

Glory's not a major production? Denzel? Matthew Broderick?

I never said "Glory". I missed it on the IMDB page. I never saw that either.

[Watashi]

Fucking amazing film.

Jane better get some recognization for his performance. It was fan-fucking-tastic.

[Watashi]

Oh, and fuck the marketers of this film. Fuck them to hell. They show the ENTIRE ending in the recent TV spots. I mean... they show the entire military base cruising past Drayton with him breaking down and everything

The marketers of this film should be fired. I was so angry that I knew how the film would turn out.

[Ezee E]

Guess I should check this out then.

[Bosco B Thug]

Guess I should check this out then.

Yes, please, everyone should check this out. It's the best horror film since... well, this past summer. What can I say, it's been a great year for horror, imo, and everyone should go and support the good ones!

I'm glad you loved it so much, Watashi! And I agree, I saw nothing wrong with Jane's performance.

Although in the tentacle attack scene (an unfortunately terrible scene in an otherwise great film), I felt thrown off by the lack of "OMFG THERE ARE GIANT EFFIN TENTACLES ATTACKING US!!!!" expressed verbally.

[megladon8]

Fucking amazing film.

Jane better get some recognization for his performance. It was fan-fucking-tastic.


I agree...and again, I think a huge-name start would have detracted from it. He's not that big (yet) and it was nice that there really wasn't anyone in the film that was too distracting.

[Watashi]

I agree...and again, I think a huge-name start would have detracted from it. He's not that big (yet) and it was nice that there really wasn't anyone in the film that was too distracting.

I can't believe some of these reviews stating how Jane's breakdown is laughable. He just fucking shot his own son. How else he is going to react? Some of these critics must be through these pressure-situations all the time to know how a man should react.

[megladon8]

I can't believe some of these reviews stating how Jane's breakdown is laughable. He just fucking shot his own son. How else he is going to react? Some of these critics must be through these pressure-situations all the time to know how a man should react.


I saw absolutely nothing laughable at all...I actually cried quite a bit.

The part I laughed at briefly was when the mist cleared and the army came in, but it wasn't a "haha, that's hilarious!" laugh, it was a "that is so incredibly depressing and morbid, I can't help but laugh".

Jane did a wonderful job of playing the character without seeming like too much of a hero or turning Drayton into some buff action star. Making him a muscular badass would have killed the movie.

[Wryan]

;9617']I never said "Glory". I missed it on the IMDB page. I never saw that either.

K either I'm confused or you are. I said Glory first. In your post after that, which seemed to reference mine, you said Passing Glory and I thought that meant you misread my post and was confused, so then I tried to clear the air by re-stating that Glory was a good Braugher film.

I think we got lost on the way to grandma's house. I don't know any film named Passing Glory.

:)

[Silencio]

It's not the breakdown itself that was laughable, it's Jane's performance. Honestly, he was fine for most of the film, but that just wasn't convincing. He had this annoying habit of screaming loudly, messing up his face, and then calming down for a second before getting back to it. It screamed amateur to me.

[Wryan]

It's not the breakdown itself that was laughable, it's Jane's performance. Honestly, he was fine for most of the film, but that just wasn't convincing. He had this annoying habit of screaming loudly, messing up his face, and then calming down for a second before getting back to it. It screamed amateur to me.

The problem is that the scenario is so completely and utterly outside the realm of normal, expected human capacity for empathy and comprehension that it's kind of impossible to tell what anyone would do nor tell how anyone would react. I don't know how I could be convincing, any more or less than him, if I was in his place.

[megladon8]

It's not the breakdown itself that was laughable, it's Jane's performance. Honestly, he was fine for most of the film, but that just wasn't convincing. He had this annoying habit of screaming loudly, messing up his face, and then calming down for a second before getting back to it. It screamed amateur to me.


I guess I just disagree with you here.

I thought it was fantastic.

[Bosco B Thug]

His bout of almost-having-to-puke in the loading dock scene impressed me. :D

[megladon8]

His bout of almost-having-to-puke in the loading dock scene impressed me. :D


Yes, definitely.

[Lucky]

I was pretty disappointed by this one. Save two scenes, it was completely void of suspsense. I was more affected by the insect battle sequence in Jackson's King Kong than any scene in this movie. The truly jarring moments relied on visual gore effects, but I will applaud the film like others already have here for leaving out the manipulative score horror staple. Even if a horror film doesn't quite grip me at the subdermal level, I can still enjoy a well-told story. Unfortunately, I was left wanting more in that department as well. While Marcia Gay Harden's character preaches constantly about the animalistic nature of human beings, the situations that play out in the final act of the film are truly taken one step over the edge. Throughout the movie I was constantly reminded of Spielberg's War of the Worlds and how much more effectively he depicted the carnal side of the human psyche during times of fear and desperation. The performances were the high point of the experience for me. Jane has charisma to spare as a leading man and Harden, in a dangerous role that could have easily been a caricature in the hands of a lesser actress, carefully tightropes the line between wicked sincerity and the blind faith of 'duty.'

I wasn't scared. I wasn't truly engaged. The chuckles the film offers mostly rely on the overused stint of a well-timed curse word. Although a clearly better effort than 1408, this is the second disappointing Stephen King adaptation of the year.

[megladon8]

Lucky, it's great to have your differing opinion because (I think) everyone on MatchCut has liked it so far.

Did you simply find the entire situation devoid of scares - the idea of the mist and the monsters just aren't frightening to you? Or was the execution flawed for you?

[Lucky]

Did you simply find the entire situation devoid of scares - the idea of the mist and the monsters just aren't frightening to you? Or was the execution flawed for you?

Definitely the execution. I wish they would have had more moments like when Jane first explores the generator room where we weren't quite sure what was out there, because the onscreen monsters were technically lackluster. Not only technically, but the personalities of the monsters weren't very savage, more animalistic. Most of them were just trying to find food or a way to reproduce and the victims just happened to get in the way. Larger than life animals/insects don't really scare me, I guess. To be honest, I actually felt bad for the second pterodactyl-like creature that was shot and left writhing on the floor before it was put out of its misery.

[megladon8]

Definitely the execution. I wish they would have had more moments like when Jane first explores the generator room where we weren't quite sure what was out there, because the onscreen monsters were technically lackluster. Not only technically, but the personalities of the monsters weren't very savage, more animalistic. Most of them were just trying to find food or a way to reproduce and the victims just happened to get in the way. Larger than life animals/insects don't really scare me, I guess. To be honest, I actually felt bad for the second pterodactyl-like creature that was shot and left writhing on the floor before it was put out of its misery.


I suppose my experience with Lovecraft may have made the meaning a little more clear, but I do not think the creatures were meant to be seen as animalistic or simply fighting for survival.

These beings are pretty much "evil". The tentacles that reached under the door in the storage room are never shown as attached to anything in particular, but knowing Lovecraft ahead of time, it's safe to say that they could very well be attached to Cthulhu/Dagon/one of these horrible monsters.

But, I suppose it could be said that it is then a flaw in the film that it did not communicate this clearly enough.

I can see how taking the animalistic view of the creatures into account could make the film seem like a minimalized Jurassic Park.

[Watashi]

I didn't find the film "scary" in regards of jump scares or shock value, but I was morbidly disturbed by the character's actions and the climax than any of the monsters in the mist (which is of course Darabont and King's point).

This is really one of the most ballsiest films released in quite awhile. The ending especially:

For most of the entire film run, we are sided with Drayton, Ollie, and the few others while clearly opposed to Mrs. Carmody and her outnumbering posse. We root for Drayton and cheer when Ollie puts a bullet in Carmody's head thinking the good guys have finally "won". Yet when they exit the store and journey further into the mist, we begin to realize how thin Drayton's skin is. He tries to heroic, but everytime he tries to play the hero, he fails miserably (his decision to go to the pharmacy resulted in many unnecessary deaths including of the burnt victim he was trying to save). This is why the ending is such a punch to the gut, because when his tank is empty, he turns his back and turns to suicide as the only answer, which is a cowardice act on him. This only proves Mrs. Carmody's point further and makes her the "right" one at the end (after all, the mist disappeared right after the boy was shot, which was foretold by Carmody). Even though the mist is cleared, it is still ambiguous to how much has been destroyed and how many those Lovecraftian behemoths are still roaming the earth.

[Lucky]

Here's what I saw during the three main attacks that make me stand by my statement, and I'll spoiler this post.

1) Tentacles in the stock room - Aside from Norm who initially attracts them, they ignore all of the other people in the room and go for the dog food.

2) Mosquitoes/Pterodactyls during first night - The Mosquitoes are natrually attracted to the light, and the pterodactyls eat the mosquitoes. They hunt their prey while the only man who is injured is in the way. They never truly seek out the people.

3) The spiders at the pharmacy - This is probably the one that seems the most savage, but it's made apparent that the spiders need a host to effectively reproduce. The scene played out like survival of the fittest for me, not a savage beast attack.

I don't know, maybe my scientific mindset threw me off on a bias. That's why I believe the scenes we DIDN'T see -- the initial trip to the stock room and the rope sequence -- were more effective.

[megladon8]

Here's what I saw during the three main attacks that make me stand by my statement, and I'll spoiler this post.

1) Tentacles in the stock room - Aside from Norm who initially attracts them, they ignore all of the other people in the room and go for the dog food.

2) Mosquitoes/Pterodactyls during first night - The Mosquitoes are natrually attracted to the light, and the pterodactyls eat the mosquitoes. They hunt their prey while the only man who is injured is in the way. They never truly seek out the people.

3) The spiders at the pharmacy - This is probably the one that seems the most savage, but it's made apparent that the spiders need a host to effectively reproduce. The scene played out like survival of the fittest for me, not a savage beast attack.

I don't know, maybe my scientific mindset threw me off on a bias. That's why I believe the scenes we DIDN'T see -- the initial trip to the stock room and the rope sequence -- were more effective.


But aren't you also kind of ignoring the fact that just about anyone/anything that steps out into the mist gets torn apart?

Look at the "biker dude" who had the rope tied around his waist...he got torn in half, but obviously he wasn't eaten, since his body was left on the ground there in front of the doors

[Lucky]

That's what I meant by the offscreen stuff is more effective. It implies something very evil and unforgiving is out there. It's unfortunate we never get the same effect when the monsters actually do appear onscreen, except for maybe the final break to the car.

[Bosco B Thug]

The pterodactyl/mosquito scene was my favorite part. I could've done without the spunky old woman character, too.


I didn't find the film "scary" in regards of jump scares or shock value, but I was morbidly disturbed by the character's actions and the climax than any of the monsters in the mist (which is of course Darabont and King's point).

This is really one of the most ballsiest films released in quite awhile. The ending especially:

For most of the entire film run, we are sided with Drayton, Ollie, and the few others while clearly opposed to Mrs. Carmody and her outnumbering posse. We root for Drayton and cheer when Ollie puts a bullet in Carmody's head thinking the good guys have finally "won". Yet when they exit the store and journey further into the mist, we begin to realize how thin Drayton's skin is. He tries to heroic, but everytime he tries to play the hero, he fails miserably (his decision to go to the pharmacy resulted in many unnecessary deaths including of the burnt victim he was trying to save). This is why the ending is such a punch to the gut, because when his tank is empty, he turns his back and turns to suicide as the only answer, which is a cowardice act on him. This only proves Mrs. Carmody's point further and makes her the "right" one at the end (after all, the mist disappeared right after the boy was shot, which was foretold by Carmody). Even though the mist is cleared, it is still ambiguous to how much has been destroyed and how many those Lovecraftian behemoths are still roaming the earth. I don't see any cowardice on the part of Drayton in any of his acts, especially his final one. He and his group are the ultimate societal good, the practical minded people who are not swayed by fear into fundamentalism or denial.

They are JUST the type of people not to count on institutions like the military to save them, which is what makes the ending so delightfully ironic.

[number8]

Oh, and fuck the marketers of this film. Fuck them to hell. They show the ENTIRE ending in the recent TV spots. I mean... they show the entire military base cruising past Drayton with him breaking down and everything

The marketers of this film should be fired. I was so angry that I knew how the film would turn out.

I saw that spot. Unbelievable.

[[ETM]]

I don't know any film named Passing Glory.

:)

Heh, he did both. Passing Glory is about basketball. A simple misunderstanding, I thought you meant that one. Back to serious reviews of the film in 3, 2, 1...

[Wryan]

;9767']Heh, he did both. Passing Glory is about basketball. A simple misunderstanding, I thought you meant that one. Back to serious reviews of the film in 3, 2, 1...

Had never heard of it. Ah well.

[lovejuice]

great movie.

as wat mentioned, it's very ironic. the ending is a big slap in audiences' face. the whole movie's simply a trap that lead us to root for a "wrong" guy.

my two complains

1) a minor one. i am not sure what's with the hot chick and the young soldier. it doesn't lead anywhere. if she's going to be killed in the next scene, at least give us some flesh! the movie's R, anyway, isn't it? besides gratuitous nudity always gives a nice touch in a B monster movie.

2) a major one. i don't think they pressure the main characters enough for us to see suicide as the only answer. i mean, they bust their ass just to get there and shoot themselves? It's not like it's any worse to be killed by a bug. (except for a spider, of course.) seem like a buncha things can still be done at that point.


all in all, a very very solid entertainment. i enjoy it immensely.

[Wryan]

Btw...

During the pinnacle of shrillness in the film -- Harden's rant that leads to the soldier's "murder" -- did anyone feel the need to shout out their own addition? "And splitting His atoms! And...and STEM CELL RESEARCH...and, uh, ABORTIONS!" ... "And I-pods!" ... "And The View!" and ...

Seriously, that scene was ready-made for SNL. Too risible.

[Lucky]

I completely agree with your major complaint and yours as well Wryan. I guess they just bothered me more, because I really didn't feel like the film merited its two climactic moments. Both scenes felt out of place with the latter over the top.

[lemon]

Liked it a lot.


I thought the suicide in the end fit the overall theme of the flawed nature of man. A stretch might be the that the ironic nature of the suicide fit into God's punishment for Drayton's hubris.

I liked the way they killed off Mrs. Carmody. It was very effective in that the death was very anti-climatic, which was the opposite of what she and her followers wanted. I expected her to get torn up in a grisly death by a bunch of aliens.

Why do you think the survivors at the end (in the military convoy) were following the soldiers back into the Mist? It seemed as if the mist had cleared behind them, common sense would say that they would be going away form the mist... not back into the depths of it.

[Ezee E]

And just like that, The Mist will be gone from theaters on Friday. I will probably not get to see it.

[megladon8]

Yeh...it opened at #9.

That's really depressing.

[Bosco B Thug]

Yeh...it opened at #9.

That's really depressing.
Very depressing!

[megladon8]

Very depressing!


It's sad that two great, mainstream films are doing so poorly.

Either the ad campaigns really needed to be heightened, or people really can't tell quality when it comes along.

I like to believe it's the first one, because I am not pessimistic to believe in the whole "most of society is borderline retarded" thing, but at the same time, every year my hope in people dwindles.

[Raiders]

Wow, it did dissipate quickly. People sure didn't storm to the theaters for this one. The box office dried up way too fast...

I got more.

[lemon]

The audience at the showing I went to seemed very into the move (clapping, cheering, laughing). I also heard a few people who, at the end of the movie, said something along the lines of, "wow, that was very good".

As I was walking out of the theater I thought to myself, "this will be a sleeper hit once people get the word out." I guess not.

[megladon8]

I think something that makes this film effective is the writing, and the fact that while it does show monsters and gore, it's more about the ideas, the dialogue, the characters, and the actual screenplay than anything.

And I think a lot of it comes down to Frank Darabont's stance on horror films, which I really appreciate - he said in an interview that he just hates how horror films are all about teenagers doing stupid things. He wanted to make a horror film about real people - and sure, some are stupid and are complete lemmings, but there are people like that in society. He also had smart, realistically heroic characters, who felt like people you may actually know.

I just really appreciate someone taking the time to write a good horror film, acknowledging that a well written horror can be just as effective as a well-written drama.

[Sxottlan]

the personalities of the monsters weren't very savage, more animalistic. Most of them were just trying to find food or a way to reproduce and the victims just happened to get in the way. Larger than life animals/insects don't really scare me, I guess.

The thing is, I think it was quite intentional to make them clearly just animals.. albeit ugly vicious animals from another dimension (a consistent appearance to the creatures, with exception of the tentacles, implies a whole ecosystem came through).

It's half of what was so unsettling about the Alien films. Sure, they were scary looking, but it was the fact that they were so driven by just a need. A need to feed. A need to reproduce. It makes them a horrifying mirror to our basest nature. Trying to give them a choice and they all choose to invade and kill because they're bad would seem actually cliche to me.

By the time they see the colossus, it was both awe-inspiring and bleak because really, if that sort of thing is walking around, humanity is back to scrounging around at the bottom of the food chain again.

It also speaks to the ending, where I realized that, Oh yeah. Since they are just animals with no particularly obvious intelligence, I guess the military would have eventually gotten a handle on the situation and eradicate them.

[megladon8]

So almost my entire class went and saw this last night, and today they were talking about it.

In a mind-boggling display, the general consensus by my classmates was that the ending was "too Hollywood".

I don't get that at all.

[KK2.0]

Damn it! i've been anticipating this for a long time, but it still has no release date in my country and this box office disappointment will probably shove the film to a direct to DVD release. :frustrated:

[megladon8]

Saw this again today, as well - again, with Jen.

It's moved up to being my favorite film of the year. And I really can't complain about anything in the film, even the occasionally lackluster CGI. It still scared me upon a repeat viewing, and I cared so much about the characters that, even though I knew the ending, I hoped and prayed that it would all turn out differently.

Thomas Jane is absolutely wonderful. It's so sad to know that this movie will totally go under the radar of awards ceremonies due to its genre and poor performance at the box office. Jane really deserves some recognition for this.

There's one line that absolutely crushed me this time, and I don't know why. It is in the loading dock scene, after the tentacles have left, and Jane is yelling at William Sadler about getting the kid killed, and he screams "and I've got his fucking blood on me!" There was something about that delivery that really, really hit me this time, and I cried.

This movie just pulled me in completely. I felt like I was there, and these things were really happening. When I left the theatre and looked out the window to see that it was snowing so hard it almost looked like a white-out, I nearly panicked. That's how much this movie affected me, on a second viewing!

My favorite film of the year.

[megladon8]

Oh and did anyone else notice in the opening scene when Jane is painting, that the poster on the very left side of the screen is Pan's Labyrinth?

[Rowland]

I'm mixed on the ending. Otherwise, this is pretty impressive stuff.

[megladon8]

I'm mixed on the ending. Otherwise, this is pretty impressive stuff.


YES!! I'm so glad you enjoyed it, Rowland. I was afraid you'd be one of the dissenters.

I thought the ending was wonderfully twisted. As someone on a board (maybe it was here) said, it's like something out of The Twilight Zone.

I was also reading something interesting earlier today (though I'll be damned if I can find the article again :frustrated:) about the original plans for the film.

Apparently, it was originally not going to feature any monsters at all, but instead be the story of these people stuck in a grocery store surrounded by mist, and terrified to leave the store for fear of what might be in the mist.

The religious zealot character would frighten everyone into believing it was God's wrath on Earth and that He was just waiting for people to go into the mist so he could take them.

The end would be similar to the end of the film with Drayton shooting his son and others to keep the mist from getting them, and then Drayton would leave the store and find that it was actually just mist, with nothing in it.

Seems more like a Shyamalan movie, to me. Plus this actualy concept has so many holes in it to begin with it would never have worked.

[Rowland]

My problem with the ending is that it comes across as too pat and conveniently ironic. Did the mist really need to immediately clear along with a "Pay It Forward shot" of Army vehicles in a procession as far as the eye can see? I recognize that the movie may be faulting them for giving up and resorting to suicide, but I'm not sure if this is earned. It works as a devastating sucker-punch, but it ultimately sends mixed messages that I'm having some difficulty reconciling.

[megladon8]

My problem with the ending is that it comes across as too pat and conveniently ironic. Did the mist really need to immediately clear along with a "Pay It Forward shot" of Army vehicles in a procession as far as the eye can see? I recognize that the movie may be faulting them for giving up and resorting to suicide, but I'm not sure if this is earned. It works as a devastating sucker-punch, but it ultimately sends mixed messages that I'm having some difficulty reconciling.

I don't understand what you mean by a "Pay it Forward shot"...can you explain?

And I don't think the film was faulting them for giving up. David had previously given his son "his best promise" that he wouldn't ever let the monsters get him. He was fulfilling his promise. Plus, they heard the monsters all around them, so as far as they knew, they could end up like the man in the Pharmacy, filled with spider eggs and going through pain so unimaginable they would end up thinking "gee, I wish I had killed myself when I had the chance"

But aside from that, what did you think of Thomas Jane? I really, really liked him.

The scene in the loading dock hit me especially hard on my second viewing. That line "You got that kid killed...and I've got his fucking blood on me!" was delivered so perfectly and desperately.

[Rowland]

I don't understand what you mean by a "Pay it Forward shot"...can you explain?

And I don't think the film was faulting them for giving up. David had previously given his son "his best promise" that he wouldn't ever let the monsters get him. He was fulfilling his promise. Plus, they heard the monsters all around them, so as far as they knew, they could end up like the man in the Pharmacy, filled with spider eggs and going through pain so unimaginable they would end up thinking "gee, I wish I had killed myself when I had the chance"If you haven't seen Pay It Forward, it ends with a wide shot of vehicles in a procession extending as far as the eye can see. Whenever I see similar shots now in a climactic context, I consider them Pay It Forward shots.

You're right about the promise Jane made to his son, good point. I just don't see how the ending harmonizes with the rest of the film into a consistent, coherent moral vision. It seems to take too much delight in being morbidly ironic purely for the sake of it, when I think a better ending may have just been Jane being dragged off by an unseen monster (which reminds me that the special effects needed some more work, especially for the tentacles).

But aside from that, what did you think of Thomas Jane? I really, really liked him.He gave an empathetic performance.

[Rowland]

So, those of you who have seen this, what was Darabont trying to convey with the ending? All I can come up with it that the movie is a parable about the importance of hope, but I dunno... that seems kinda naive to me, at least as it's illustrated here.

[megladon8]

So, those of you who have seen this, what was Darabont trying to convey with the ending? All I can come up with it that the movie is a parable about the importance of hope, but I dunno... that seems kinda naive to me, at least as it's illustrated here.


I thought it may have just been a bit of irony, in how Jane's selfless actions eventually led to his own punishment.

Remember, the film makes a point of showing the woman who he refused to help at the beginning of the movie, and how she and her children survived. This isn't just an "oh shit, he would have survived if he went with her!" moment - if they wanted to do that, they could have also shown Andre Braugher, whose demise we never see. Jane refused to help this woman, instead opting to save himself and his boy. Then his final act of complete selflessness (saving his boy from the monsters and the others in the car from a potentially horrible fate), led to his own survival, and the glaring eyes of the woman and her children rubbing salt in the wound.

[megladon8]

I understand the irony. I just want to know why Darabont wrote it like that. What is he hoping to reveal? Irony for the mere sake of irony is lame, he is obviously trying to say something with the ending. The more I think about it however, the more wishy-washy it is.


Hmm...I honestly don't know.

Maybe it makes a shallow movie-goer, but while a meaning is nice and if you come across something I'd love to know about it, I don't feel I need to know to fully appreciate the movie. I still adore it.

I think I mentioned this before, but someone once said to me the ending seemed like something out of The Twilight Zone. I think that's an appropriate description. Maybe Darabont was just trying to out-King Stephen King's story? :)

[Rowland]

Selfishness vs. selflessness... that's getting somewhere, but it still strikes me as terribly wishy-washy, especially as you parse the movie through that thematic scheme. The use of the military is too striking to ignore as well, though that seems to carry some sort of sociopolitical relevance. Bah, it's so frustrating.

[Rowland]

Hmm...I honestly don't know.

Maybe it makes a shallow movie-goer, but while a meaning is nice and if you come across something I'd love to know about it, I don't feel I need to know to fully appreciate the movie. I still adore it.

I think I mentioned this before, but someone once said to me the ending seemed like something out of The Twilight Zone. I think that's an appropriate description. Maybe Darabont was just trying to out-King Stephen King's story? :)You're a quick one. I thought I deleted that quickly. :lol:

In any case, the comparison to The Twilight Zone is apt to an extent, but the twists in those shows usually meant something, at least the best ones.

[number8]

Earlier in the movie, Mrs. Carmody said that if you sacrifice the boy's blood, the storm will pass.

That's what the ending meant to me.

[Rowland]

Earlier in the movie, Mrs. Carmody said that if you sacrifice the boy's blood, the storm will pass.

That's what the ending meant to me.Okay... but that doesn't mean anything.

[megladon8]

Earlier in the movie, Mrs. Carmody said that if you sacrifice the boy's blood, the storm will pass.

That's what the ending meant to me.


So...in the end, the religious extremist was in the right all along?

Or it's just coincidence?

[Bosco B Thug]

The film works wonderfully as a milieu. Its very timely story details the failure of institutions, and their exploitation in the face of fear of the unknown. We have sheep, a tiny love affair, a prideful [black] (stretching? I remember seeing a number of black patrons following him out... or I could be making things up) man feeling ostracized, then of course the military suits and the Crusaders. All we need is property disputes in there and we'd have been good to go.

As for the ending, my post on page 3 covers why I think it's perfect. I'll add... while the story works of course as a microcosm, it also puts us, the educated, socially and intellectually sophisticated "culture-goers" smack dab in the middle. Our stand-in is of course the protagonist Thomas Jane, an artist (who does movie posters, no less), and his crew of rational-minded people who see the world working in the situation they are in, just as we see the machinations of the world in microcosm in many films we watch and analyze.

The ending is purposefully "aggrandized" with its New Age-y music and its reel of "world-gone-to-hell" spectacle, like it's some TIME magazine photojournal on some conflict's ground zero. The irony is that the romanticized sad awareness of our heroes, wanting to leave the world with their principles and full detachment from its decay, is still the big loser in its shrewdness.

The ending is so effective because it makes us feel like losers.

In its obscured, genre-trapped way, it perfectly encompasses the social-political zeitgeist of today.

[number8]

Okay... but that doesn't mean anything.

But what do you mean by that?

If you listen to Mrs. Carmody's preachings throughout the movie, her predictions always come true, and whatever she suggests end up being the right thing. She gets ignored, things go bad, then whatever she suggested happens anyway, and things go back to status quo. Case in point the flying creatures attacking after she warned it would happen, and she also said something about the clerk girl dying. Even her batshit accusation that it's the military's doing ends up being the case. A crucial point in the film is when that mutant fly lands on Carmody's chest, and leaves without stinging her -- it's foreshadowing that she's the correct one. Heck, she even dies in the Jesus pose and ends up saving her cult followers.

To me, that's the point. Darabont knew that the audience would side with Jane and make Carmody the villain, but the twist is that she was right all along. Jane's camp (and the audience) is so sure that logic is the way to deal with the situation that they dismiss Carmody completely. The point is there's always a mist in front of us, and we don't know what's behind it, so it's better to always keep an open mind for answers.

[Rowland]

If you listen to Mrs. Carmody's preachings throughout the movie, her predictions always come true, and whatever she suggests end up being the right thing. She gets ignored, things go bad, then whatever she suggested happens anyway, and things go back to status quo. Case in point the flying creatures attacking after she warned it would happen, and she also said something about the clerk girl dying. Even her batshit accusation that it's the military's doing ends up being the case. A crucial point in the film is when that mutant fly lands on Carmody's chest, and leaves without stinging her -- it's foreshadowing that she's the correct one. Heck, she even dies in the Jesus pose and ends up saving her cult followers.

To me, that's the point. Darabont knew that the audience would side with Jane and make Carmody the villain, but the twist is that she was right all along. Jane's camp (and the audience) is so sure that logic is the way to deal with the situation that they dismiss Carmody completely. The point is there's always a mist in front of us, and we don't know what's behind it, so it's better to always keep an open mind for answers.Yeah, I noticed all that. I just figured that Darabont was poking and prodding the audience to get a rise out of us, a sort of nightmarish "what if" provocation. I don't think we are supposed to literally take the message to be that we should give an open ear to nutcases like the Westboro church or whatever.

[megladon8]

DVD scheduled for March 18.

[megladon8]

DVD release date moved back to March 25th, but it is now a 2-disc edition.

Sweet.

[Eleven]

Good show, Darabont, Jane, Harden, et al.

B pulp premise, A execution.

[Dukefrukem]

DVD release date moved back to March 25th, but it is now a 2-disc edition.

Sweet.

what about on Blu-ray? :)

[megladon8]

what about on Blu-ray? :)


Hmmm...I'm not sure.

If it is being released on Blu-Ray, I imagine it'd be on the same day.

[Dead & Messed Up]

I took the ending to be an darkly ironic way of saying "never give up hope." Which is what, step by step, happened to nearly every character in the story.

Oh, and Meg - I just watched The Call of Cthulhu. Genius flick. Brilliant. I remembered that you recommended it a while back, so I wanted to say thanks.

[megladon8]

I took the ending to be an darkly ironic way of saying "never give up hope." Which is what, step by step, happened to nearly every character in the story.

Oh, and Meg - I just watched The Call of Cthulhu. Genius flick. Brilliant. I remembered that you recommended it a while back, so I wanted to say thanks.


So glad to find another fan of this - I thought it was, like you said, brilliant. I loved the use of a blanket to simulate the ocean, and the stop-motion Cthulhu rocked.

I think it probably captures the spirit of H. P. Lovecraft's stories the best of any other film based on his work.

Right on! :)

[Skitch]

Interesting thought 8. I never thought of that stuff that way. As a religious person, I hated Carmedy with a burning passion, as she represented every single thing I hate about religion.

Hmmm...now I have to think about this movie more.

Still a damn depressing ending.

[Dead & Messed Up]

So glad to find another fan of this - I thought it was, like you said, brilliant. I loved the use of a blanket to simulate the ocean, and the stop-motion Cthulhu rocked.

Definitely. It was fake as hell, but that's part of the fun.

[megladon8]

Wow, some interesting news regarding the DVD, from DVDActive (http://www.dvdactive.com/news/releases/the-mist.html)...


Genius Products and The Weinstein company has announced single ($29.95) and double-disc ($32.95) collector's editions of The Mist which stars Thomas Jane and Marcia Gay Harden. The Frank Darabont directed horror/thriller will be available to own the 25th March. According to those good chaps at Fangoria.com, the single-disc will include an audio commentary by writer/director Frank Darabont, eight deleted scenes with optional commentary, and A Conversation With Stephen King and Frank Darabont featurette. The two-disc edition will include all that, along with an exclusive black-and-white presentation of the film (as well as the colour version), and five featurettes (When Darkness Came: The Making of The Mist, Taming the Beast: Shooting Scene 35, Monsters Among Us: A Look at the Creature FX, The Horror of It All: The Visual FX of The Mist, and Drew Struzan: Appreciation of an Artist). Stay tuned for the artwork.


That black-and-white thing sounds really cool.

I know Darabont said around the time of the film's release that he was going for the look of Ray Harryhausen's monsters, and he was greatly influenced by those old black-and-white monster movies. It'll be cool to see the film in that light.

[Winston*]

Couldn't you get the same effect by turning down the colour on your TV?

[megladon8]

Couldn't you get the same effect by turning down the colour on your TV?


Well sure...but why do that when you can pay to have it done for you??

:P

[D_Davis]

For $49.95 you can get the 3-disc Misty Edition that includes a version without sound!

[Sycophant]

In all likelihood, they've done more to the picture than just desaturated or removed the colors. They've probably played with black levels and contrast levels. You all realize this, of course, I'm sure. But I'm not in a paritcularly facetious mood.

[megladon8]

In all likelihood, they've done more to the picture than just desaturated or removed the colors. They've probably played with black levels and contrast levels. You all realize this, of course, I'm sure. But I'm not in a paritcularly facetious mood.


It'd be cool if they've actually made it look like an older movie.

I wonder how the black-and-white effects will look? I know lots of people had gripes with the effects as is - perhaps this is an attempt to pull a "hey, this is how it was meat to be seen!"

[D_Davis]

In all likelihood, they've done more to the picture than just desaturated or removed the colors. They've probably played with black levels and contrast levels. You all realize this, of course, I'm sure. But I'm not in a paritcularly facetious mood.

Well, on the silent version they enhance the intensity of the quietness to optimize the haunting qualities of solitude.

:P

[Ivan Drago]

Seeing all the praise this has gotten makes me regret not seeing it in theaters.

[megladon8]

Seeing all the praise this has gotten makes me regret not seeing it in theaters.


I hope you like it when you get around to seeing it.

While monsters are present in the film, they found a wonderful middle-ground between having monsters and gore, and great psychological tension.

The actual monster scenes are sparse, which works to the film's advantage, because almost every time you see a monster, you're seeing that particular being for the first time, so none of them ever feel "ordinary" by the end of the film.

Between this and No Country For Old Men, filmmakers should be taking notes on how to adapt books to film.

[D_Davis]

Seeing all the praise this has gotten makes me regret not seeing it in theaters.

A lot of people didn't see this in the theatre.

[megladon8]

A lot of people didn't see this in the theatre.


And what a shame that is.

It was quite an experience seeing it opening night, having no idea of what was to come - especially that ending, which I happen to think fit the movie perfectly.

[Sycophant]

A lot of people didn't see this in the theatre.
I'm sorry! Okay? I'm fucking sorry!

I'll send Frank Darabont a cookie bouquet.

[megladon8]

I'm sorry! Okay? I'm fucking sorry!

I'll send Frank Darabont a cookie bouquet.


There are cookie bouquets?

I'm having a hard time imagining how that would work - are they massive cookies? Or are they all on big sticks like lollipops, to make the bouquet-look work?

Or is it just a basket of cookies, and you falsely attach the name "bouquet" to it, because you didn't have the money for roses and porn?

[Sycophant]

I'm having a hard time imagining how that would work - are they massive cookies? Or are they all on big sticks like lollipops, to make the bouquet-look work?Yes. And the quick Google Image Search I did confirmed that they are actually quite hideous/horrifying.

[Winston*]

I see The Mist's poor performance as Frank Darabont's karmic repercussion for inflicting The Majestic on me and others like me.

[Dead & Messed Up]

I see The Mist's poor performance as Frank Darabont's karmic repercussion for inflicting The Majestic on me and others like me.

I enjoyed The Majestic. For some reason, its Capra foundation struck me as charming, rather than cloying (as it did for many). However, this also occurred for me and The Terminal, so maybe I just have an unbridled love for Frank Capra.

[megladon8]

Hmmm...I would argue that this DVD artwork is kinda spoilerific...

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v496/megladon8/themist2discr1artworkpic.jpg


...plus there's a bit of a "WTF??" to it too, with the images of skyscrapers on fire and whatnot.

Because we all know the movie took place in a metropolitan area.

[megladon8]

The 2-disc DVD is gorgeous.

I strongly encourage anyone who enjoyed the movie to make the purchase.

It's the first time in a long time that I've gotten a non-Criterion DVD with a BOOKLET.

Not just an insert (which the DVD producers seem too cheap to make nowadays), but an actual, nicely bound booklet.

[Skitch]

Agreed meg. I picked it up yesterday, it's lovely. I can't wait to watch it with Franks commentary, and the B&W.

[Scar]

It'll show up either today or tomorrow from Blockbuster. It'll probably be added to the purchase list.

[Scar]

The movie was great. It'll definately end up in my collection some day.

As soon as that crazy lady started quoting scriptures, I said it would be a very good idea to seperate her head from her body with a shovel. But did the movie listen? Nooooooooooo.....

[Rowland]

Yeah, this one hasn't settled too well for me. I'm increasingly convinced that its reputation around here is undeserved. It's not bad, but it kinda squanders the premise, and the execution isn't too inspired. And I still seriously dislike the sadistic sub-Twilight Zone irony of the ending.

[megladon8]

It's frickin' awesome in black and white, to anyone interested.

A lot of the effects looks better, too.


And the extras on the 2-disc are great. Frank Darabont's a cool guy.

[KK2.0]

this never got released in my country whaaaaaaa :confused: :cry: :frustrated:

[megladon8]

this never got released in my country whaaaaaaa :confused: :cry: :frustrated:


What?

Never?

That's terrible.

I don't like how little promotion this film got. It deserved so much better.

[Rowland]

I think I've finally come to terms with why I hated the ending so much. That was exactly the response Darabont was going for with someone like me, because when you boil the movie's politics down, it's vindicating the U.S. right-wing ideology, essentially rendering the movie a liberal's nightmare scenario. I realized this almost immediately when the movie ended, which may be why it was such a blow, and yet I've been trying to deny it ever since. I'm not sure what exactly Darabont accomplishes with this approach, but I can't ignore the gut impact it had.

I'm going to rent this soon.

[Qrazy]

It's frickin' awesome in black and white, to anyone interested.


Which is better, the color or black and white cut? I haven't seen the film yet.

[megladon8]

Which is better, the color or black and white cut? I haven't seen the film yet.


Well, there's no difference whatsoever in the content - it's simply the style.

And despite what I thought many weeks ago, it is not aged or done in sepia to make it look "old" - it's a crystal clear cut of the film, but in black and white.

Neither one is "better" per se. Some of the effects definitely look more convincing in the black and white cut, but I also find the colour cut had some very lush colours and the mist itself felt "stickier".

I say just go with your gut and watch whichever one you feel like seeing, because either way, you're seeing the same movie.

[megladon8]

I think I've finally come to terms with why I hated the ending so much. That was exactly the response Darabont was going for with someone like me, because when you boil the movie's politics down, it's vindicating the U.S. right-wing ideology, essentially rendering the movie a liberal's nightmare scenario. I realized this almost immediately when the movie ended, which may be why it was such a blow, and yet I've been trying to deny it ever since. I'm not sure what exactly Darabont accomplishes with this approach, but I can't ignore the gut impact it had.

I'm going to rent this soon.


At the risk of sounding like a complete dolt...

I'm really not "down" with politics to any extent. Would you mind explaining this to me?

[Rowland]

At the risk of sounding like a complete dolt...

I'm really not "down" with politics to any extent. Would you mind explaining this to me?Well, I'm talking social politics, the culture war... politics in the same way that Romero movies are political.

I'm watching this again tonight, so I'll try to explain my thoughts after that.

[number8]

Heh, I rewatched it last night and noticed something I didn't the first time. It changed my entire outlook on the film.

[Watashi]

Heh, I rewatched it last night and noticed something I didn't the first time. It changed my entire outlook on the film.

And that would be...?

[Morris Schæffer]

Still not released in Belgium. Soon.

[number8]

And that would be...?

First time I saw it, I was too caught up with the irony of the ending to notice that the woman from the beginning and her two kids were on the rescue jeep. That spins the movie up to that point upside the head. We were led to believe that David Drayton is the hero, when in fact he's doomed from the beginning, right when he told the woman in distress "Lady, I got my own kid to worry about." I noted in my original review that the whole movie is a metaphor for society and its altruism, but I didn't extend that notion far enough. That lady is the true hero of the film, because she was the very first person to risk her own life to save someone else, while Drayton pussyfooted and only gained his courage later on, after the tentacles incident. It took a tragedy for him to realize that society has to work with one another, and that's a little too late. I believe this is also why they gave him Andre Braugher's character, to show that he is not neighborly.

So what happens in the film to people who hold beliefs? Secularism = Dead. Religious zealotry = Dead. Drayton, who we can say is agnostic because he's in the middle of the two, doomed to suffer alone around death. I think this is important. Basically the film paints every selfish, cynical socio-political view as a dead end, and the only triumphant one is the one who's willing to step away from the system and believe that she can proactively save others. Drayton? He didn't go and save his wife because he's too afraid of the unknown. There's a brilliant moment before the shit hits the fan that hints at Drayton being unqualified to be "the hero", when he shares a flirtatious look with the other chick while waiting in line for the registers, when he's supposed to be married.

Honestly, I'm kicking myself for not noticing that one detail the first time, because that's extremely crucial to what Darabont is essentially saying with the film. I fail.

[Scar]

Tsk Tsk, Mr. 8. I'm surprised you missed it! It was definately a gut punch when I saw her and her kids.

[megladon8]

Watched it again tonight.

I have to monumentally disagree with some of the assessments I've seen which paint Drayton as a "coward".

I really don't like this, and it infers that one cannot simply be an everyday guy type hero. Instead there are only two extremes: superhuman, never makes a mistake hero...or coward.

I thought Darabont did a great job of portraying Drayton as an everyday guy with a good sense of leadership. He is not Superman, but surely we cannot dismiss him because he is not faultless?

I'm not attacking your write-up, number8, so don't think that. But your point about the look-exchange between David and Amanda when they're standing in line reminded me of something I wanted to add to my argument.

Why does this "adulterous" look have to make him less of a hero? Must a hero be a robot? Men and women find each other attractive, and whether you're married, in a relationship, whatever - is a hero expected to never look at someone of the opposite sex and be attracted to them? In King's original novella, the two actual have a full-blown affair in the store. In the movie they look at each other once. That's all.

I just don't think it's a fair criticism to say Drayton was not heroic enough, when the film was trying to show a representation of real people in society - and there are no flawless supermen in reality.


EDIT: Also (and I'm sorry to keep picking on your post, 8), I don't get why the lady at the beginning is somehow more heroic than him.

She went out into the mist to save her children. Drayton was staying inside the store to take care of his.

Doesn't that make them fundamentally the same?

Of course he could have gone to save his wife, but would that really be the smartest thing to do? I think that would just be blind recklessness.

He does have a boy to take care of, and it would not be a smart decision to take the boy out into the mist - especially since, at that point, they have no idea what it is. It could very well have been a poison gas cloud.

I think he was just trying to be a responsible father, and we cannot fault him for that.

[Sven]

Just watched it. It was okay, up to its monumentally terrible ending.

[ledfloyd]

is the black and white cut on the first disc or the second disc? i'm trying to figure out which disc to netflix.

[megladon8]

is the black and white cut on the first disc or the second disc? i'm trying to figure out which disc to netflix.


It's on the second.

[Bosco B Thug]

So what happens in the film to people who hold beliefs? Secularism = Dead. Religious zealotry = Dead. Drayton, who we can say is agnostic because he's in the middle of the two, doomed to suffer alone around death. I think this is important. Basically the film paints every selfish, cynical socio-political view as a dead end, and the only triumphant one is the one who's willing to step away from the system and believe that she can proactively save others. I like and agree with this part of your argument. This is a much better way to put the "Drayton, an inadequate hero" or "He needed to have more hope" argument. But I agree with megladon8 that the film isn't naive enough to paint him as weak just because he expects the worse. The message I see the film as trying to communicate is that "expecting the worse" is the understandable way of things now, yet even then, the world can still throw you for a loop.


Just watched it. It was okay, up to its monumentally terrible ending. Aww. But I'm sort of afraid to re-watch this film myself, because it was one of those movies where I exited the theater not totally "in love" with it, but had to foster my appreciation of it through further retrospection.

But I'm pretty sure I really really like it... I think I picked up a nice structural thing about the film: big horror scene that ends with a gentle fade out, what follows is a lull where factions whisper to each other in quiet voices, then that repeats with another break-out of action.

[Sven]

Aww. But I'm sort of afraid to re-watch this film myself, because it was one of those movies where I exited the theater not totally "in love" with it, but had to foster my appreciation of it through further retrospection.

It's just so stupid. It doesn't say anything that a more cathartic approach couldn't've also said. It's nasty just for the sake of being nasty. None of that is to even mention how ridiculously unsatisfying it is to create a situation where the military strays into an unknown territory (read: Iraq), then to solve the situation with tanks and flamethrowers. The best way to solve a military flub is with more military intervention. Great. In this way and several others (Harden's Christ-like death and the safety of her "parishioners" and the confirmation of her prophecies, the decay of family value--ie, the quick murder of his son, the all-white heroism, etc), Rowland is absolutely right, that this film is selling a pretty hardcore right wing model while at the same time trying to eat that cake too (making us cheer for the execution of Harden, etc). It's pretty lame.

It reeks of a Twilight Zone irony, but when you actually consider the implications (not to mention the unbelievable immediacy of Jane's desperation, after having proven himself resilient), the ending is simply cheap and unfair.

Ending aside, I thought the movie was okay to occasionally pretty good. I did like Jane's performance--it was probably the film's best asset. Toby Jones also makes great a potentially irritating character. All the zealous religious conversion nonsense was too didactic, too microcosmic, too shorthand to be entirely believable. And the dialogue in certain places was a total groan: "that's why man invented politics and religion". Right, way to condescend, movie.

[lovejuice]

It's just so stupid. It doesn't say anything that a more cathartic approach couldn't've also said. It's nasty just for the sake of being nasty. None of that is to even mention how ridiculously unsatisfying it is to create a situation where the military strays into an unknown territory (read: Iraq), then to solve the situation with tanks and flamethrowers. The best way to solve a military flub is with more military intervention. Great. In this way and several others (Harden's Christ-like death and the safety of her "parishioners" and the confirmation of her prophecies, the decay of family value--ie, the quick murder of his son, the all-white heroism, etc), Rowland is absolutely right, that this film is selling a pretty hardcore right wing model while at the same time trying to eat that cake too (making us cheer for the execution of Harden, etc). It's pretty lame.


i agree with all your analysis here, but that's why i like the movie. you sound offended. i'll say, it's actually the movie's intention to offend its audience.

[Bosco B Thug]

It's just so stupid. It doesn't say anything that a more cathartic approach couldn't've also said. It's nasty just for the sake of being nasty. None of that is to even mention how ridiculously unsatisfying it is to create a situation where the military strays into an unknown territory (read: Iraq), then to solve the situation with tanks and flamethrowers. The best way to solve a military flub is with more military intervention. Great. In this way and several others (Harden's Christ-like death and the safety of her "parishioners" and the confirmation of her prophecies, the decay of family value--ie, the quick murder of his son, the all-white heroism, etc), Rowland is absolutely right, that this film is selling a pretty hardcore right wing model while at the same time trying to eat that cake too (making us cheer for the execution of Harden, etc). It's pretty lame.

It reeks of a Twilight Zone irony, but when you actually consider the implications (not to mention the unbelievable immediacy of Jane's desperation, after having proven himself resilient), the ending is simply cheap and unfair.

Ending aside, I thought the movie was okay to occasionally pretty good. I did like Jane's performance--it was probably the film's best asset. Toby Jones also makes great a potentially irritating character. All the zealous religious conversion nonsense was too didactic, too microcosmic, too shorthand to be entirely believable. And the dialogue in certain places was a total groan: "that's why man invented politics and religion". Right, way to condescend, movie. I can't argue with your last two paragraphs (I somewhat agree with your last 3 sentences of the last paragraph, although I think the overstatedness overall helps the film come off as that "liberal's nightmare scenario" Rowland deduced the film as, in which the moviegoers, noticers of the microcosm, have direct surrogates on the screen)...

But the movie selling a "hardcore right wing model"??? It's totally left-wing 90% of the time, and just because it upends certain hopeful ideals (I've stated this before, but I recall when Andre Braugher leaves the store, pretty much all the black constituency leaves with him - may be wrong, disregard this if I am) and throws our ideals back at us in the end with a very likely tragedy (although again, I'll concede to arguments against the exact execution, the tanks appearing RIGHT as he exits the car) doesn't mean it believes in or is happy about this harsh "losing streak" Drayton suffers through in the end.

Harden's "christ-like" death, though? Confirmation of her prophecies? Validation of military intervention? They're perhaps there (I don't really remember her death scene...), but I don't think the film is naive enough that these points are any more than flippant, matter-of-fact irony (which I think is constructive in particular cases, as here) - it doesn't want to convince us of their truth.

[Sven]

(I've stated this before, but I recall when Andre Braugher leaves the store, pretty much all the black constituency leaves with him - may be wrong, disregard this if I am)

I don't think it's so much relevant that maybe all the black people follow Braugher out into the mist, but that at the end, the survivors are white hero Jane, his white son, white blonde woman, and two elderly white people.


But the movie selling a "hardcore right wing model"??? It's totally left-wing 90% of the time, and just because it upends certain hopeful ideals and throws our ideals back at us in the end with a very likely tragedy doesn't mean it believes in or is happy about this harsh "losing streak" Drayton suffers through in the end.

It's not happy about it, but of course it believes in it. Why execute it if it doesn't believe in it? I'm not sure I know what you mean.


Harden's "christ-like" death, though?

Her body splayed in a Christ pose.


Confirmation of her prophecies?

Like number 8 said, her prophecies come true, and her followers are left alive at the end.


Validation of military intervention?

Yup. The military saves the day, does it not?


They're perhaps there (I don't really remember her death scene...), but I don't think the film is naive enough that these points are any more than flippant, matter-of-fact irony (which I think is constructive in particular cases, as here) - it doesn't want to convince us of their truth.

How do you reconcile constructive flippancy? Throw a handful of legos into a tumbler and see if you can make a helicopter.

Maybe I agree with you that the the film doesn't want to convince us of its truth. But then what good is it? If this irony doesn't mean anything, then the whole film is meaningless. The ending might justify that nihilism, and I am not "pro" the propagation of nihilism.

[lovejuice]

The ending might justify that nihilism, and I am not "pro" the propagation of nihilism.

if it's nihilism, it's nihilism of stephen king's breed. just like pet cemetery and many of his work, king like the idea of "shit happens" even with the best of attitude to the best of people, and the more we accept that idea, the better.

[Sven]

if it's nihilism, it's nihilism of stephen king's breed. just like pet cemetery and many of his work, king like the idea of "shit happens" even with the best of attitude to the best of people, and the more we accept that idea, the better.

I love King, but I don't believe he's ever been a proponent of nihilism. "Shit happens" is not nihilism. It is pessimism. Also of note is that his original Mist story does not end the same way.

[lovejuice]

I love King, but I don't believe he's ever been a proponent of nihilism. "Shit happens" is not nihilism. It is pessimism. Also of note is that his original Mist story does not end the same way.

ooo....how does it end? i'm curious since the movie ending is very kingish.

[Sven]

ooo....how does it end? i'm curious since the movie ending is very kingish.

It ends with them driving off, to an unknown future.

[lovejuice]

It ends with them driving off, to an unknown future.

do you or anyone happen to know if king approves of the movie ending?

[Sven]

do you or anyone happen to know if king approves of the movie ending?

I'm sure he does, but it wouldn't really matter to me.

Also, I disagree that the end is Kingish. It's too compact. Too on-the-nose. King loves narrative ambiguity.

[number8]

do you or anyone happen to know if king approves of the movie ending?

He does. King admitted that even he didn't know how to end the story, and left it ambiguous, and it was a problem for them when they were making the movie. Darabont then came up with the movie's end, and King thought it was the most perfect logical way to end the story, and that anything else would be wrong.

[megladon8]

I'm fucking sick of all this racial crap.

Yes, I'm so sure Darabont was making some racial remark by having a group of white people in the jeep at the end.

Jesus, this makes me want to tell people to pull their heads out of their asses.


EDIT: And with regards to the ending, I thought it was perfect. King thought so too - he said, and I quote, that he "wishes he came up with it".

[Sven]

I'm fucking sick of all this racial crap.

Yes, I'm so sure Darabont was making some racial remark by having a group of white people in the jeep at the end.

Jesus, this makes me want to tell people to pull their heads out of their asses.

What is this?

[Rowland]

EDIT: And with regards to the ending, I thought it was perfect. King thought so too - he said, and I quote, that he "wishes he came up with it".He also wrote and directed Maximum Overdrive.

[megladon8]

He also wrote and directed Maximum Overdrive.


Okay...what are you saying?

[Rowland]

If Darabont adapts The Long Walk, I hope he doesn't change the ending, because it's perfect... if perhaps too ambiguous for him.


Okay...what are you saying?You used his quote as though it was conclusive evidence that the ending works. I'm saying that his views on movies, including those based on his work, shouldn't be seen as such.

[megladon8]

You used his quote as though it was conclusive evidence that the ending works. I'm saying that his views on movies, including those based on his work, shouldn't be seen as such.


Sorry, I didn't mean it that way.

My saying that I loved the ending, and that King loved it, were two separate thoughts.

I meant it as a response to whoever it was who asked a few posts back if King liked the ending. Well, yes, he did.

[Sven]

Because message board confrontations are awesome, I'd like to go back to the part where Meg stated that he felt like telling me to remove my head from my ass for a moment:

Why would you want to close up an entire school of social perspective like that? I didn't choose to see an undertone of racial conflict in the film--I just did. And it's an interesting one. Consider, too, that the other two major Darabont/King collaborations have explicitly handled issues of race.

It is not insignificant, and your insistence that it should be ignored is far more telling of someone that should get his head out of his ass than anything I've said.

[megladon8]

But why does there have to be some hidden motive behind this?

This is what leads to the paranoid thinking that so many hate these days - everything is seen as some sort of racial remark. People pull the race card all the time these days, even when it's totally unjustified.

I do not believe in ANY way shape or form that Darabont was making some racial statement by having them all be white.

It is not me closing this realm of thought off - I am perfectly open to debates regarding race and the like. But not when there is nothing there to debate.


EDIT: And I want to apologize, iosos, for seeming rude or confrontational. But it just angers me sometimes when these things are brought up and I really feel there's no cause for it, and I think it only adds fuel to the fire of racial problems.

[Sven]

I do not believe in ANY way shape or form that Darabont was making some racial statement by having them all be white.

It is not me closing this realm of thought off - I am perfectly open to debates regarding race and the like. But not when there is nothing there to debate.

I think more than discussing a film's racial subtext, belligerent denial adds fuel to the fire of racial tension. If you were really open to debates about it, you wouldn't be so angered at the suggestion that there is a racial element at play.

[megladon8]

I think more than discussing a film's racial subtext, belligerent denial adds fuel to the fire of racial tension. If you were really open to debates about it, you wouldn't be so angered at the suggestion that there is a racial element at play.


But there's not a racial element at play, that's my point!

I think the last thing on Darabont's mind when making that last sequence was "and hey...all the people are white! Let's ponder that for a while..."

There are enough films with racial subtext out there, I don't feel the need to make stuff up for the movies without it.

[Rowland]

I think we all need to watch Obama's race speech again. ;)

[Sven]

There are enough films with racial subtext out there, I don't feel the need to make stuff up for the movies without it.

Can you show me that there's no racial subtext? Because I can show that there is.

[megladon8]

Can you show me that there's no racial subtext? Because I can show that there is.


Well then what is the evidence that there is some message behind having them all be white?

I just don't see how the colour of their skin was relevant in the end of the film at all.

[number8]

I do not believe in ANY way shape or form that Darabont was making some racial statement by having them all be white.

Why? What's wrong with that?

You're rejecting the idea for the same reason you did at my perception of Drayton as a non-hero. You're taking the film at face value. Which is fine, it's certainly a very entertaining horror film, but there's no reason why it can't be interpreted as purely metaphorical. Which makes the film much more interesting anyway.

The film is about society and the cliques and viewpoints that emerge about society--they even blatantly discuss it in dialogue often. Obviously there are plenty of ways to interpret the actions of the characters as a reflection of society. If everyone has a role to play, Braugher's character is obviously the cynical black man. It's not even interpretation, that's who he is. And to extrapolate that to today's political climate, the black community is often a wildcard--there is a distance between them and the mainstream right wing/left wing dichotomy. I believe this is why Darabont had Braugher call bullshit on the entire thing and leave the store. Their fate is left ambiguous.

I'd argue that to deny this school of thought would be to disrespect the film.

[Sven]

Well then what is the evidence that there is some message behind having them all be white?

It's too easy. Jane's character is white and Braugher's character is black and they butt heads. The set-up is honestly as simple as that. But to elaborate, there are other minority characters represented in the supermarket (also check out the stock Latin man who is always cut to when Harden is waxing religious... the religious Latin stereotype in play right there), which makes sense because the film builds up the supermarket as a microcosm of America. In the end, the only characters that dare escape the corruption of religious hegemony are the powerful, open-minded people who are all white. In such a multi-ethnic and bluntly-metaphorical-for-society model, that there is a motion of white primacy like this is interesting (note that Braugher's character is a denier of truth, whose unwillingness to acknowledge the factual danger leads a handful of people to their almost certain demise).

[Sven]

I'd argue that to deny this school of thought would be to disrespect the film.

Word. Interesting take, too, about Braugher.

[Rowland]

Interesting take, too, about Braugher.Seconded.

[number8]

It's too easy. Jane's character is white and Braugher's character is black and they butt heads. The set-up is honestly as simple as that. But to elaborate, there are other minority characters represented in the supermarket (also check out the stock Latin man who is always cut to when Harden is waxing religious... the religious Latin stereotype in play right there), which makes sense because the film builds up the supermarket as a microcosm of America. In the end, the only characters that dare escape the corruption of religious hegemony are the powerful, open-minded people who are all white. In such a multi-ethnic and bluntly-metaphorical-for-society model, that there is a motion of white primacy like this is interesting (note that Braugher's character is a denier of truth, whose unwillingness to acknowledge the factual danger leads a handful of people to their almost certain demise).

I defended your right to see racial conflict undertones, but here's where I in turn challenge you, sir. :P

Consider this: you say the open-minded white people succeed in escaping the store, but where do they end up? Is it really a last-minute twist to reaffirm the right-wing viewpoint that we were led to believe is the "villain" of this piece?

To be honest, I initially reached the same conclusion you did. I just didn't see it as a confirmation of the belief--just a proposed scenario to remind us that we're too humble to ever know the unknown, and as such we should never be quick to judge.

However, on my second viewing, and after noticing the lady and the two kids, it suddenly hit me. What's the most prominent factor of modern day America's political front and governmental system? Fuckin' fear. And what does every single clique in the supermarket have in common? They're all afraid. From the military to the open-minded folks and even to Carmodie's congregation. They're all deathly afraid of what might be out there... All except that one lady, who rejected fear and valued the survival of her children (future generation) as priority.

[Bosco B Thug]

It's too easy. Jane's character is white and Braugher's character is black and they butt heads. The set-up is honestly as simple as that. But to elaborate, there are other minority characters represented in the supermarket (also check out the stock Latin man who is always cut to when Harden is waxing religious... the religious Latin stereotype in play right there), which makes sense because the film builds up the supermarket as a microcosm of America. In the end, the only characters that dare escape the corruption of religious hegemony are the powerful, open-minded people who are all white. In such a multi-ethnic and bluntly-metaphorical-for-society model, that there is a motion of white primacy like this is interesting (note that Braugher's character is a denier of truth, whose unwillingness to acknowledge the factual danger leads a handful of people to their almost certain demise). I did not notice the Hispanic man in Harden's following, and your argument makes much more sense when there's more ethnic representatives other than white and black, and I almost can agree with your assertation that there is a subversive (I'd say likely unintentional) undercurrent of "white primacy" in "open-mindedness and rationality," but then I don't understand for the life of me why you see this as a negative thing. Are you saying Darabont is a champion of white supremecy in being "civilized" and "liberal minded" non-sheep? That's pretty accusatory. And I hardly think we can say the film is decrying Braugher for being a "denier of truth." I say it's evocative of US history and racial connotation that he is so vulnerably defensive.


I don't think it's so much relevant that maybe all the black people follow Braugher out into the mist, but that at the end, the survivors are white hero Jane, his white son, white blonde woman, and two elderly white people. Really? The schism of the people is much more relevant to the subtext and undercurrents of the film than the rather "meta-" matter of what race are the rather bland and uber-virtuous leads, and while I see your point now about the "heros" all being white (what with the blacks and the Hispanic out of the "rational people" picture), I'm still not completely sold it's intentional THUS a negative aspect of the film... that just because the main "hero" characters (6 people out of a whole grocery store) happen to be white (no less in a New England town, I don't imagine there's much in the way of ethnic diversity), and then tons of the "evil" religious nuts are white themselves... that Darabont... what? See, I'm not sure if you're really accusing him and his film of what I think you're accusing his film of ("right-wingness"? racial bias?? I'm actually glad there wasn't a token ethnic character in the film's "hero" cadre).


It's not happy about it, but of course it believes in it. Why execute it if it doesn't believe in it? I'm not sure I know what you mean. But it's completely invested in our/Drayton & co's ideals. The film's completely on our side. It has no sympathy for Harden or that dock man. It's anti-religion. It's completely sympathetic that Drayton is consistently losing even as he think he's getting away with everything (thinking differently and eventually breaking off from the fanatics, keeping his son from the monsters, etc.) It can't possibly want to say he's a fool for not becoming a religious nut or deludedly waiting for the military to come save them.


Her body splayed in a Christ pose. Okay, are you saying the film wants us to believe she was a prophet and not a petty tyrant? She's plainly a villain throughout the whole film.


Like number 8 said, her prophecies come true, and her followers are left alive at the end. Well, we never do find out what happens to the grocery store people at the end, or am I mistaken?


Yup. The military saves the day, does it not? Right, but the only reason this plot development exists is because they found out a way to make it a sad turn of events, not an Independence Day "ra ra!" moment or a middle finger to us who sided so much with Drayton's ideals and plight.


How do you reconcile constructive flippancy? Throw a handful of legos into a tumbler and see if you can make a helicopter. Flippant not as in throwing it in just for kicks, but flippant in a rhetorical way. If the film ended as the story did, the movie would have been a nice and sorrowful allegory for some major problems in the world. Okay, cool. But with this ending, it performs a kick in the nuts that recalls the harsh duplicity of the world.


Maybe I agree with you that the the film doesn't want to convince us of its truth. But then what good is it? If this irony doesn't mean anything, then the whole film is meaningless. The ending might justify that nihilism, and I am not "pro" the propagation of nihilism. The irony meant something to me. It's not nihilism, it is pessimism. The film is overall humanistic (though again, I have to see it again to evaluate the execution and whether the film unsuccessfully inadvertantly makes it come off as a cheap twist).


Why? What's wrong with that?

You're rejecting the idea for the same reason you did at my perception of Drayton as a non-hero. You're taking the film at face value. Which is fine, it's certainly a very entertaining horror film, but there's no reason why it can't be interpreted as purely metaphorical. Which makes the film much more interesting anyway.

The film is about society and the cliques and viewpoints that emerge about society--they even blatantly discuss it in dialogue often. Obviously there are plenty of ways to interpret the actions of the characters as a reflection of society. If everyone has a role to play, Braugher's character is obviously the cynical black man. It's not even interpretation, that's who he is. And to extrapolate that to today's political climate, the black community is often a wildcard--there is a distance between them and the mainstream right wing/left wing dichotomy. I believe this is why Darabont had Braugher call bullshit on the entire thing and leave the store. Their fate is left ambiguous.

I'd argue that to deny this school of thought would be to disrespect the film. Absolutely. But I think megladon8's mainly responding to iosos' claim about "white primacy" in the lead characters, which I was sort of iffy on at first, but am buying into a little now, under the condition that it's a positive (maybe intentional, maybe unintentional - there is a casting agent, after all) thing and not something to be disgusted with the film about.

[Sven]

8 & Bosco:

You guys have given me much to digest. I will ponder further, and respond. Tackling all this at the present is a bit daunting, as we're talking about lots and lots of things here.

Bosco, I do want you to note that I say that the white primacy element is "interesting", not "bad" necessarily. I would need to qualify things a bit more to extrapolate any value judgment I have on it. To whit, it's not so much the racial stuff in itself that irks me, though I realize I suggested that before. It's more how it ties into Darabont's conservativism-cum-liberalism. I think it's a terribly confusing picture, ideologically. ie, there's a point to which I can buy the argument that Braugher's defense is strictly cautionary, but I think the dramatics play well past the mark, to the point where its flat-out ignorance. There was a friggin' tentacle! How come Braugher never questions where the bagboy went, even after accusing them of joking tastelessly? Cerebrally, it is sensible to understand a character's doubt, but emotionally (dramatically) it is next to impossible for me to comprehend his denial of the situation when the evidence is right there.

But mostly, I think the race issue is an interesting one, not inherently a negative one. I kinda just wanted meg to acknowledge that it existed, is all. I'm not meaning to suggest a black-white-good-evil dichotomy, and I certainly agree with you on the token ethnic survivor hypothesis--that could be tasteless as all get out. I don't demand political correctedness, I only demand clarity--of narrative and ideology. Of course, if I don't agree with a film's ideology, I feel I can exercise an ethical imperative and disapprove of it. Right now, I'm too confused about the mixed messages of The Mist to deride it politically. I wish it were more coherent (and, maybe hoping too much, a little less didactic).

Of course, Harden does play a villain (and I have to admit, it never jives well with me when a movie makes me feel good for a character being shot), but ultimately, Darabont does suggest, by means of her splayed corpse, the truth of her prophecies, and the survival of the people within the store (which I think it's safe to infer, given the allegorical nature of the film), that her character represents a truth, and that truth is religion. (Note: I did not say the truth "of" religion.) But again, I get confused, because the film obviously is opposed to this truth, because it's bloodthirsty, short-tempered, illogical. It is a haven for those unwitting enough to believe, but at the same time, what they believe is fact. Confusing.

To add a corollary to what I said in my initial reaction, and to sum up this response which was more comprehensive than I initially intended it to be, statements about the harsh duplicity of the world are just as easy, if not easier to execute than cathartic endings. This is a primal misunderstanding that I think many, many people have about the power of the dramatic scenario. I believe in the classic tradition of catharsis, where an audience is edified. It is not sadness that I am against, because the truth is edifying and sadness is a truth. It is, however, with Brechtian alienation, in the context of tragedy, where bad things happen to destroy the "myth of happiness" for the sake of this destruction only, that I have a problem. At the risk of exposing myself as a simpleton, I simply hate nasty endings that do not feel justified. Jane's pain at the end is purely a writerly conceit of misery (it doesn't help the execution was totally amateurish, timing-wise... they could've developed a bit of a struggle with the suicide-angle, and maybe let Jane wander in the fog a bit longer--as it is it's way too Twilight Zoney, perfect for a twenty minute piece, inappropriate for a two hour drama). It's easy, and immature (in my opinion, natch), to kill characters so fruitlessly. What's hard and real and enlightening is to allow the characters the opportunity to live and grow. I'm unconvinced that anything in the movie as it is would be any weaker, or different at all in its expression of a duplicitous world, with a more cathartic (ie, either Jane is killed too or he and his son carry on) ending.

Anyway, time for more pondering.

[megladon8]

Why? What's wrong with that?

You're rejecting the idea for the same reason you did at my perception of Drayton as a non-hero. You're taking the film at face value. Which is fine, it's certainly a very entertaining horror film, but there's no reason why it can't be interpreted as purely metaphorical. Which makes the film much more interesting anyway.


But I'm not taking the film at face value - I've seen it four times now and have spent hours and hours thinking about it and what it was saying.

I wasn't rejecting your idea of him as a non-hero, but rather the feeling I got from your writing that he is somehow not a "good person". No one is just solidly good or bad, and I read your post as saying that because he wasn't willing to risk his and his son's life to help the woman get to her kids, he was somehow not worthy of being seen as a heroic character. As I said, he's not Superman, but he's certainly got some very admirable qualities, and does some heroic things. Though, as you said, it was too late.


I can see where you are coming from, iosos, with the race thing (after having read your extensive posts here).

I apologize for seeming so harsh with my first post. Like I said, I got the feeling at the first that race was being dragged into the equation when it wasn't rightly meant to be, and that ticks me off. But now I know what you meant, so all's good I hope :)


Not to victimize myself or anything, but I often think that people do not take what I say seriously, or consider me one of the "lesser" thinkers on the forum. I admit I'm guilty of sometimes making broad or ridiculous statements because I feel like that's the only way anyone's going to pay attention to/reply to anything I write anyways.

[Sven]

Not to victimize myself or anything, but I often think that people do not take what I say seriously, or consider me one of the "lesser" thinkers on the forum. I admit I'm guilty of sometimes making broad or ridiculous statements because I feel like that's the only way anyone's going to pay attention to/reply to anything I write anyways.

Sad. Don't think that. I love you!

[megladon8]

Sad. Don't think that. I love you!


Well I'm glad to hear it.

I was afraid maybe I'd really pissed you off.

[Sven]

I was afraid maybe I'd really pissed you off.

Nah. It takes a bit more than the occasional "get your head out of your ass!" to irritate me.

[Bosco B Thug]

It's more how it ties into Darabont's conservativism-cum-liberalism. I think it's a terribly confusing picture, ideologically.

ie, there's a point to which I can buy the argument that Braugher's defense is strictly cautionary, but I think the dramatics play well past the mark, to the point where its flat-out ignorance. There was a friggin' tentacle! (Haha, agree. I too was irritated) How come Braugher never questions where the bagboy went, even after accusing them of joking tastelessly? Cerebrally, it is sensible to understand a character's doubt, but emotionally (dramatically) it is next to impossible for me to comprehend his denial of the situation when the evidence is right there.

I don't demand political correctedness, I only demand clarity--of narrative and ideology. Of course, if I don't agree with a film's ideology, I feel I can exercise an ethical imperative and disapprove of it. Right now, I'm too confused about the mixed messages of The Mist to deride it politically. I wish it were more coherent (and, maybe hoping too much, a little less didactic).

Of course, Harden does play a villain (and I have to admit, it never jives well with me when a movie makes me feel good for a character being shot) (The moment troubles me as well, it's rather cruel and questionably effective in the audience response it evokes), but ultimately, Darabont does suggest, by means of her splayed corpse, the truth of her prophecies, and the survival of the people within the store (which I think it's safe to infer, given the allegorical nature of the film), that her character represents a truth, and that truth is religion. (Note: I did not say the truth "of" religion.) But again, I get confused, because the film obviously is opposed to this truth, because it's bloodthirsty, short-tempered, illogical. It is a haven for those unwitting enough to believe, but at the same time, what they believe is fact. Confusing.

To add a corollary to what I said in my initial reaction, and to sum up this response which was more comprehensive than I initially intended it to be, statements about the harsh duplicity of the world are just as easy, if not easier to execute than cathartic endings. This is a primal misunderstanding that I think many, many people have about the power of the dramatic scenario. I believe in the classic tradition of catharsis, where an audience is edified. It is not sadness that I am against, because the truth is edifying and sadness is a truth. It is, however, with Brechtian alienation, in the context of tragedy, where bad things happen to destroy the "myth of happiness" for the sake of this destruction only, that I have a problem. At the risk of exposing myself as a simpleton, I simply hate nasty endings that do not feel justified. (No no, don't say that, you've got fine discerning taste! You see, I'm -convinced- this ending would work for you if some different, more artistically-minded and sensitive director made this film. I'm convinced. Thus you cannot blame the ending for being ideologically unsound. :P Jane's pain at the end is purely a writerly conceit of misery...

Anyway, time for more pondering. So cool response, I can see how the film is inadequate and that makes any thematic multivalence just not work at all. But the parts above that I bolded (non-pink ones), I just cannot see it at all your way. How is the film that allegorical or fantastic that it can create a universe where her prophecies really are fact? If Drayton was a Darwin-thumping atheist who is imposing his son not to believe in God, then there'd be some allegorical bent that would make the ending work in allegorically validating the prophecies (and the film would be religious propaganda). But they're just stock hero characters. What would it prove to have her prophecies be shockingly proved to be true? That the film takes place in some fantasy world where Drayton's son is a Messiah that the evil monsters must take alive if they are to rule the world etc. etc.

Not sure if what I'm saying makes sense now. I'll understand if you choose to cut the bickerin' and hollerin' debate short right now. :P I'm more into snuggling too.

[Raiders]

I didn't care much at all for the creatures in this. They seemed unfinished and rather disappointingly familiar in conception. I would have preferred them to be kept off camera, which shouldn't have been too difficult since the real horror comes from inside the store, not outside.

I think the ending to me was one of bleak sadness. I don't know if the film is at all condemning Jane's character, nor am I convinced it is being particularly ironic. The small band was forced outside by the religious piety on the inside. They made plans to leave, but mainly in light of the preachings of Carmodie and ultimately in light of her desire to begin sacrificing them. Seems to me their fate is a direct result of her callousness and fear-mongering, and that her followers survive is only more indicting to the zealots, the hateful murderers in this case, being those still alive at the expense of the others. It is their fear that ultimately kills the other characters, but it is Jane and his small group's original fears that perhaps condemned them by keeping them inside, and indicated by the re-emergence of the woman who went to find her kids. So, I don't know. It's a very entertaining film, and I like that the ending provides discussion, but I can't help but agree with iosos it doesn't really seem conclusive or even necessary.

I did find it interesting that his painting at the beginning was one of a gun-wielding "heroic" type, swaggering in profile.

[lovejuice]

I did find it interesting that his painting at the beginning was one of a gun-wielding "heroic" type, swaggering in profile.

that's an illustration for king's the gunslinger, and yes, quite fitting.

[Dead & Messed Up]

Why? What's wrong with that?

You're rejecting the idea for the same reason you did at my perception of Drayton as a non-hero. You're taking the film at face value. Which is fine, it's certainly a very entertaining horror film, but there's no reason why it can't be interpreted as purely metaphorical. Which makes the film much more interesting anyway.

The film is about society and the cliques and viewpoints that emerge about society--they even blatantly discuss it in dialogue often. Obviously there are plenty of ways to interpret the actions of the characters as a reflection of society. If everyone has a role to play, Braugher's character is obviously the cynical black man. It's not even interpretation, that's who he is. And to extrapolate that to today's political climate, the black community is often a wildcard--there is a distance between them and the mainstream right wing/left wing dichotomy. I believe this is why Darabont had Braugher call bullshit on the entire thing and leave the store. Their fate is left ambiguous.

I'd argue that to deny this school of thought would be to disrespect the film.

I'm not a big fan of this way of viewing films. For example, I find little of interest in the racial interplay of Night of the Living Dead, since Romero's casting of a black man was incidental. Many have written extensively on the subject, but I'm much more interested in what the film is specifically saying beneath the surface: the nuclear family, the traditions of America, are as transparent and destructive as the threat outside our walls.

In Andre Braugher's character, I'm much more intrigued by the concept of a man whose rationality veers into denial born of panic. As far as race is involved, he's black because Braugher is black. That's all.

[number8]

I believe there's power in the incidental.

The weight of a film is determined by its outcome, not its intentions.

[megladon8]

I sitll must say, the most powerful part of the film (for me) was right after the tentacle incident...

"You got that kid killed...and I've got his fucking blood on me!"

The desperation in Jane's voice when he spoke that line was incredible.

That was followed by his nausea, which again, was a great, very human reaction to the circumstances - and something very rarely seen in movies.

[DrewG]

I finally got around to seeing it last night and loved it but I gotta say megaldon8, that my favorite line has to be in Amanda's teary question to David:

This isn't gonna end...is it?

[megladon8]

I finally got around to seeing it last night and loved it but I gotta say megaldon8, that my favorite line has to be in Amanda's teary question to David:

This isn't gonna end...is it?


That was a wonderful line, too.

There were lots of those in the film, actually.

Evne when they're in the jeep, and Amanda turns to David and says "maybe we'll get clear of the mist".

I was really surprised by Laurie Holden. The only thing I had seen her in before this was Silent Hill *GAG* so it was great to see that she not only can act, but can play an empathetic character very well.

[Dead & Messed Up]

I believe there's power in the incidental.

The weight of a film is determined by its outcome, not its intentions.

True, but most films can be "read" with more accuracy, if one has a stronger understanding of what the artist is trying to accomplish.

It's a fine line, to me, between distinct film readings and critical masturbation.

[megladon8]

True, but most films can be "read" with more accuracy, if one has a stronger understanding of what the artist is trying to accomplish.

It's a fine line, to me, between distinct film readings and critical masturbation.


I agree with both this, and what you said earlier -


As far as race is involved, he's black because Braugher is black. That's all.

[Raiders]

I think it is too narrow-focused to say plainly that the character is black because Braugher is black and leave it at that. Must all things in the end be determined only by the screenplay? Could the casting of Braugher not be an intentional idea to sort of spurn the character's defensive attitude and refusal to buy into what he sees as exclusionary, po-dunk town behavior? Do you think if Jane's character were black and Braugher's white the scene would have had the same level of seething contempt beneath the surface? Maybe it would have, maybe it wouldn't. I think there's room for contemplation there and people who bring it up shouldn't be scoffed at for trying to bring "race into the issue." Race is always an issue by sheer factor of its existence and there is nothing wrong with a filmmaker utilizing this nor a viewer from experiencing a situation through this. We don't experience art in a vacuum.

[Scar]

Braugher was cast because he's black. When he leaves, doesn't he say 'his people' and they're all black?

[megladon8]

Braugher was cast because he's black. When he leaves, doesn't he say 'his people' and they're all black?


There were a couple of black people with him, yes.

I don't know how to defend my opinion, to be honest. I guess I try to not even acknowledge different skin colours - in the end, we're all just people.

[Scar]

There were a couple of black people with him, yes.

I don't know how to defend my opinion, to be honest. I guess I try to not even acknowledge different skin colours - in the end, we're all just people.

Since I don't own the movie, I can't rewatch the movie. I'd like to know what his exact line is in regards to leaving, and who is leaving with him.

[megladon8]

Since I don't own the movie, I can't rewatch the movie. I'd like to know what his exact line is in regards to leaving, and who is leaving with him.


He says "you already turned four of my people".

Then Laurie Holden says "YOUR people? They're just PEOPLE".

Then when he leaves, there are a few blacks, a few whites, and then that motorcycle gang dude with the rope around his waist.

[Dead & Messed Up]

I think it is too narrow-focused to say plainly that the character is black because Braugher is black and leave it at that. Must all things in the end be determined only by the screenplay?

In a way, I think it's just as narrow-focused to assume that "racial" casting must always have some sort of sociological significance.


Could the casting of Braugher not be an intentional idea to sort of spurn the character's defensive attitude and refusal to buy into what he sees as exclusionary, po-dunk town behavior?

Darabont said that the casting was unintentional, from a racial perspective. However, he also said he loved the "chip on his shoulder" that Braugher brought, so obviously there's some merit to people discussing race. I guess I'm just not as interested in that.


Do you think if Jane's character were black and Braugher's white the scene would have had the same level of seething contempt beneath the surface? Maybe it would have, maybe it wouldn't. I think there's room for contemplation there and people who bring it up shouldn't be scoffed at for trying to bring "race into the issue." Race is always an issue by sheer factor of its existence and there is nothing wrong with a filmmaker utilizing this nor a viewer from experiencing a situation through this. We don't experience art in a vacuum.

I never said people couldn't have their reaction. I refer you to my original point, which is a variation on the old "Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar" idea.

[number8]

In a way, I think it's just as narrow-focused to assume that "racial" casting must always have some sort of sociological significance.

I don't think anyone said that. Obviously, in this case, the issue came up because it fit the themes presented in the film and there are strong evidence to support it. I don't assume that there's some commentary to the fact that Superbad only shows white kids.


Darabont said that the casting was unintentional, from a racial perspective. However, he also said he loved the "chip on his shoulder" that Braugher brought, so obviously there's some merit to people discussing race. I guess I'm just not as interested in that.

There you have it. Romero said the same thing about Night too. He didn't intend the casting that way, but he supports the interpretation and it's of course in line with Romero's sensibilities. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, but if Freud starts licking the tip of the cigar, then the cigar is no longer just a cigar.

[Raiders]

Darabont said that the casting was unintentional, from a racial perspective. However, he also said he loved the "chip on his shoulder" that Braugher brought, so obviously there's some merit to people discussing race. I guess I'm just not as interested in that.

Eh, what's the difference? The "chip on the shoulder" could easily be racially-driven. The point is, it very much fits in this circumstance and just because Darabont doesn't want to admit it (much like meg was quick to defend himself as seeing people as people--a line directly in the film to Braugher, no less) doesn't mean it isn't there. I firmly believe people are a little afraid to openly engage in the idea that race was a factor, but it is something that seems so obvious to me to be under the surface. I never like taking the director's word, and I feel that a racial reading works too well here to be ignored. And in the end, like 8 said, there is power in the incidental. Everyone is entitled to their own ideas as long as they can support them. Hell, I'd even be open to a racial reading of Superbad if the person could properly support it. I may disagree, but nothing is ever out of the question in something this subjective.

[Dukefrukem]

I just wtached this last night. I wish they didn't "explain" where the mist came from and such... the mystery would have worked so much better. Why do you think they bothered to include that part of the story?

[Dead & Messed Up]

I just wtached this last night. I wish they didn't "explain" where the mist came from and such... the mystery would have worked so much better. Why do you think they bothered to include that part of the story?

I suspect Darabont bulked it up so the military could be more involved. Their presence gives the film added resonance as a contemporary reaction to the "state of fear" politics of America at home and abroad.

It also works as another symptom of the fifties throwback style of the picture, since those were always about scientific experiments that tampered in God's domain.

[Kurosawa Fan]

I watched this last night. Enjoyed it up until that ending. It completely ruined any enjoyment I found in the film. It was ridiculous, in fact I'd say it's one of the worst endings I've seen in quite some time.

Why the hell would David be in such a hurry to shoot everyone in the car, his son included? Why not wait until there was some kind of threat? They were all alone in that area. Maybe something good could come from just sitting and waiting. If a monster shows up, or you see one of those huge ones approaching, then start with the mercy killings. Not only that, but they'd be traveling through that pea soup mist for that long, and as soon as he decides to kill his fellow survivors, the mist lifts and the army is there? They didn't hear helicopters before that point? And the woman who left the store when the mist first appeared was somehow able to save her children when anyone else who set foot out of that store died almost immediately? Was that to shame David even more for not taking his son and going back for his wife? That entire ending felt like nothing more than an excuse to punch the audience in the gut before the end credits.

It was contrived nonsense. I'm stunned so many people on this board are giving it a free pass. I'll admit that what came before was very tense, and a nice throwback to fifties horror (though the gore was a misstep for sure), but nothing excuses that ending. Absurd.

[Sven]

Did you read what I said about it, KF? Because you just repeated me almost verbatim. Seriously, gah.

[Ezee E]

I finally get this in from Netflix today.

About goddamn time.

[Kurosawa Fan]

Did you read what I said about it, KF? Because you just repeated me almost verbatim. Seriously, gah.

Seriously? Awesome. I thought everyone on this board loved this movie. I try not to read a thread for a movie I haven't seen yet, but it seemed like every time I skimmed this one it was someone singing its praises. I'll have to go back and check out your comments.

[Sven]

Seriously? Awesome. I thought everyone on this board loved this movie. I try not to read a thread for a movie I haven't seen yet, but it seemed like every time I skimmed this one it was someone singing its praises. I'll have to go back and check out your comments.

They're kind of strewn all over, throughout the course of many posts. But yeah, you captured my initial impression exquisitely.

[Kurosawa Fan]

They're kind of strewn all over, throughout the course of many posts. But yeah, you captured my initial impression exquisitely.

Ooh, I forgot to mention how utterly convenient everything was with Harden. I mean, in a matter of about 36 hours, every prophecy and prediction that David makes about her comes true, right down to the sacrifices. That was eye-roll worthy.

[megladon8]

I can't defend the movie adequately, so I'll just shake my head and walk away...

[Derek]

Seriously? Awesome. I thought everyone on this board loved this movie. I try not to read a thread for a movie I haven't seen yet, but it seemed like every time I skimmed this one it was someone singing its praises. I'll have to go back and check out your comments.

I wasn't a fan either, so nice to have you aboard. :) I think my comments are lost in the abyss that is Y Tu Film, but basically I felt the same as you and iosos except I wasn't all that impressed with what came before the ending either.

[Sven]

except I wasn't all that impressed with what came before the ending either.

I thought it was okay, with a few great things strewn about. Had it ended satisfactorily, I probably would've let it slide with a positive rating and never thought about it again.

[Ezee E]

While there are some great theories and ideas within the movie, all of which have been noted in the eight pages of this thread, the movie still comes up as a failure to me. It almost seems like Darabont has his ideas in focus more then the movie at hand. Especially when no monsters were seen for the longest of time on the road, they run out of gas, and Jane decides to shoot everyone. WTF? K-Fan hit this perfectly, because it was such a rushed ending. It surprised me, but in a laughable way.

This wasn't the only aspect that was lazily done. The special effects, which probably do look better in B&W, look awful in color. And the neighbor, while suppose to support ignorance, is just plain awful.

The commentary here is much better than the movie itself.

[Dead & Messed Up]

While there are some great theories and ideas within the movie, all of which have been noted in the eight pages of this thread, the movie still comes up as a failure to me. It almost seems like Darabont has his ideas in focus more then the movie at hand. Especially when no monsters were seen for the longest of time on the road, they run out of gas, and Jane decides to shoot everyone. WTF? K-Fan hit this perfectly, because it was such a rushed ending. It surprised me, but in a laughable way.

The implication is that

The distant sounds of approaching tanks were mistaken by the group for monster noises. This was clearer on a repeat viewing with the sound turned up. However, I do think this could've been communicated more effectively (something as simple as them looking behind the car and growing more panicked).


This wasn't the only aspect that was lazily done. The special effects, which probably do look better in B&W, look awful in color. And the neighbor, while suppose to support ignorance, is just plain awful.

The commentary here is much better than the movie itself.

Andre Braugher was clearly hiding his panic through denial. As for the effects - Darabont said he wanted to go low budget, and, given the money they spent, I thought the effects' creativity more than made up for the occasional lack of tactility.

[Morris Schæffer]

Agree with K-fan and Ezee E. The ending was rather unsatisfying and I did wonder whether it was possible for people to be converted in a timespan of a single day although it might be possible considering the horrific things they had witnessed.

Nevertheless, an incredibly handsome production that is ridiculously easy to embrace given the current poor state of horror movies.

And that first spider sequence!!! Mamma mia!!!!

[Kurosawa Fan]

The implication is that

The distant sounds of approaching tanks were mistaken by the group for monster noises. This was clearer on a repeat viewing with the sound turned up. However, I do think this could've been communicated more effectively (something as simple as them looking behind the car and growing more panicked).


Hmm.
I watched this at home two nights ago and I heard no noises until the shootings had commenced and David was begging for one of the monsters to come and kill him. Then we heard a terribly manipulative sound (which was nothing like an approaching tank unless said tank learned how to grow legs and stop as it pushed through the mist) identical to one of the massive monsters and finally saw the tank and soldiers.

[Raiders]

I feel similarly to you on the ending, KF. I wrote a couple of feelings about what the film may have been trying to say with it, but ultimately I just came up with it being there to deflate David's role as "hero" completely. Road to hell paved with good intentions, and all that. Way too pessimistic for a film that until then had shown a pretty clear division of right and wrong.

[Bosco B Thug]

I'm no longer convinced of my feelings toward the overall film and its execution now, I need to re-watch it, but I'll stand by the ending, in concept. The ending definitely is cheaply absurd, but it is aware of that and is the film's imprimatur shift to irony. The ending is an exploitative gut punch, but not because it's meant to provoke any drastic change in our views or our opinion of Drayton, but because our views and opinions remain aligned, only now proven as ones of failure - it's pessimistic but not necessarily conflicted. The surprise reappearance of the mother should not necessarily be seen as a criticism or shaming of Drayton. Instead it can possibly be most effectively seen as evoking the idea that, while the mother is "the winner," she on the other hand did not get the "privilege" of experiencing and witnessing the sociological horrors of the supermarket as Drayton did, which he mere (absurdly "mere") moments before thought he came out with the upper hand in (and this includes his foolhardy going through with the big act) and in which he likely indulged a feeling of "honor" (better yet, "duty") in being the level-headed hero in the microcosm... so it is a deflating of Drayton as a hero, but not completely completely, in a sense, imo.

[Ezee E]

Yeah, I didn't recall any noises leading up to it either.

The passenger had legit fear on her face, but the old people in the back just looked confused, and afraid that they were going to, you know, get shot, when they didn't want to be.

But you don't tell The Punisher no.

[Bosco B Thug]

the old people in the back just looked confused, and afraid that they were going to, you know, get shot, when they didn't want to be.
Heheheh, yeah, I remember that..

The decision the car makes is just an absurdity in itself when you think about it. How huge of a doomsday mentality and a pretty much fundamental religious fear of "Evil" does there have to be to push four such rational people to such an inefficient and silly decision, agreed on communally in silence no less (adding to the built-in "laughableness" of the new ending)? "Evil" extended to "political evil," the notion is brilliantly incongruous - but even with these "demonic creatures," Drayton and co. had none of the resources that would bring them to bring these creatures down a peg from Biblical (a la the Anti-Christ bringing destruction through military power), to no more than an interdimensional variant on the killer creatures in Jurassic Park. Thinking about how important to making the ending actually work is the very need to instill in these creatures a sense of "otherworldy" and supernatural/spiritual "Evilness," as opposed to the science-based dinos in Jurassic Park, is another brilliant irony about the film's ending.

[Rowland]

Yeah, I didn't buy the ending at all after my theatrical viewing, and I feel like I tried to convince myself that it works after my repeat viewing more than I actually believed it.

[number8]

ultimately I just came up with it being there to deflate David's role as "hero" completely. Road to hell paved with good intentions, and all that. Way too pessimistic for a film that until then had shown a pretty clear division of right and wrong.


It does?

[Raiders]

It does?

Unless you really think the film somehow makes it unclear if we should side with Carmody or David. I don't think it does. Just because her predictions are right doesn't make her the film's moral center. If anything, she's the opposite and her predictions all the more malignant because of her acerbic personality and holier-than-thou preaching. She's the pious, mob-mentality fear-mongerer who empowers herself at the expense of others. If, in the end, the film champions this, then that's a little too much nastiness for my taste.

[megladon8]

Yes, there were definitely sounds of approaching monsters when they're sitting in the car. I kind of want to ask if you guys were watching the movie on mute? Because they were pretty clear...


And I'm surprised no one seems to have remembered David's promise to his son not to let the monsters get him.

I agree with Bosco B Thug's interpretation most - the "exploitative gut punch".

[Kurosawa Fan]

Yes, there were definitely sounds of approaching monsters when they're sitting in the car. I kind of want to ask if you guys were watching the movie on mute? Because they were pretty clear...


And I'm surprised no one seems to have remembered David's promise to his son not to let the monsters get him.

I agree with Bosco B Thug's interpretation most - the "exploitative gut punch".

I'm nearly positive there were no noises. After they leave behind that gigantic monster, I don't remember any monster sounds until David is screaming for them to come. And it's very fresh in my mind.

And I remembered the promise, and knew what was coming the moment David wouldn't leave without grabbing the gun. My problem wasn't with the mercy killings, it was with their timing and the manipulative conclusion that followed them.

[Rowland]

Yeah, I don't recall hearing any noises, and I've seen it twice.

[transmogrifier]

Yeah, I don't have a problem with choosing to shoot yourself rather than go out the way that they had seen the others go, but it is a complete bust to have them do it when they are not in any immediate danger AND to then suddenly have the army arrive 30 seconds later. It's cheap and manipulative, when it could have been shattering and mournful.

[Bosco B Thug]

Unless you really think the film somehow makes it unclear if we should side with Carmody or David. I don't think it does. Just because her predictions are right doesn't make her the film's moral center. If anything, she's the opposite and her predictions all the more malignant because of her acerbic personality and holier-than-thou preaching. She's the pious, mob-mentality fear-mongerer who empowers herself at the expense of others. If, in the end, the film champions this, then that's a little too much nastiness for my taste. Yeah, no way the film wants to champion Carmody and vindicate her beliefs. I think number8 meant more "right/wrong" not in the moral sense, but in the "decision that had the better outcome" sense. Not that Braugher or Carmody ever made decisions that turned out particularly well, but neither did Drayton. Thus there was a cynical irony in the film (which I think is strikingly belied by the seeming earnestness and somberness of the film's tone as a whole), but I did not sense a moral backwardness (other than the questionability of the "crowd-pleasing" Ollie/Carmody moment).


I don't remember any noises either. Just a communal sense of doom after the

car runs out of gas

Which is good. If there were monster noises pushing them to it or a vocal panic instead of the silent acquiescense of their decision, then it wouldn't support as well my "Ending is a purposefully absurd and over-done joke on us" reading. "Shattering and mournful" would have been mawkish and cheap. Ironic and kinda funny in how ridiculous it is was the way to go.

[megladon8]

Turn up the volume, guys.

I just FF'd to the ending, and there are definitely monster noises in the distance while they are sitting in the car.

[Kurosawa Fan]

Turn up the volume, guys.

I just FF'd to the ending, and there are definitely monster noises in the distance while they are sitting in the car.

Well, I'll take your word for it, because I'm not watching this again. All I can say then is that it was very poorly done. If this many of us heard nothing, they did a bad job with their sound.

[megladon8]

Well, I'll take your word for it, because I'm not watching this again. All I can say then is that it was very poorly done. If this many of us heard nothing, they did a bad job with their sound.


I find this very odd, because I was aware of the sounds from the first time I saw the movie.

It's not like the monster is right beside the car - it sounds like something in the distance is growling.

[Sven]

I heard the monster noises and I still think it was a laughable stretch.

[Ezee E]

No desire to watch it again. I trust my initial instincts, and if there were sounds, they weren't loud enough.

Regardless, a large number of us agree. Something is wrong there.

[Dead & Messed Up]

Regardless, a large number of us agree. Something is wrong there.

Strength in numbers, eh? You should line up for Carmody's next sermon.

:P

[Ezee E]

Strength in numbers, eh? You should line up for Carmody's next sermon.

:P
You got me there.

But she was right....

[Grouchy]

Yeah, there were definitively monster sounds in the distance.

In a way, and speaking about the sound, I'm sorry I already saw this on DVD, because I'm positive it will get a theater release a month from now or something like that. And watching it on the theater must be a blast. I saw The Descent like that - great experience.

[Scar]

You got me there.

But she was right....

They should have put a bullet in that bitches skull once she started quoting scriptures.

[Dukefrukem]

I watched this last night. Enjoyed it up until that ending. It completely ruined any enjoyment I found in the film. It was ridiculous, in fact I'd say it's one of the worst endings I've seen in quite some time.

Why the hell would David be in such a hurry to shoot everyone in the car, his son included? Why not wait until there was some kind of threat? They were all alone in that area. Maybe something good could come from just sitting and waiting. If a monster shows up, or you see one of those huge ones approaching, then start with the mercy killings. Not only that, but they'd be traveling through that pea soup mist for that long, and as soon as he decides to kill his fellow survivors, the mist lifts and the army is there? They didn't hear helicopters before that point? And the woman who left the store when the mist first appeared was somehow able to save her children when anyone else who set foot out of that store died almost immediately? Was that to shame David even more for not taking his son and going back for his wife? That entire ending felt like nothing more than an excuse to punch the audience in the gut before the end credits.

It was contrived nonsense. I'm stunned so many people on this board are giving it a free pass. I'll admit that what came before was very tense, and a nice throwback to fifties horror (though the gore was a misstep for sure), but nothing excuses that ending. Absurd.

I agree. There is also added hate within me since a review I read in the Rue Morgue gave away what was in the mist.

[Sycophant]

I watched the movie tonight. I read most of this thread. In essence, I agree with iosos and Kurosawa Fan, except I believe I enjoyed everything pre-ending less. They got my basic points across better than I can at the moment, though.

[Watashi]

Still love this film.

I wonder why I don't own the DVD.

[Sycophant]

This movie made me like Spielberg's War of the Worlds more. It actually convinced me to give it another shot.

Also, I was pretty meh on Jane's performance. He's alright, I guess.

[megladon8]

Also, I was pretty meh on Jane's performance. He's alright, I guess.


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v496/megladon8/KylesMom.gif

[Dukefrukem]

Ummm cool?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kya_uqiSQOY

[Dead & Messed Up]

Hard pass. Swipe left. The mist doesn't mess with your mind, it has big damn monsters from another dimension that eat people like they're a shrimp buffet.

[Irish]

Why are you bumping a 9 year old thread for a new TV show?

Click around some more, dude!

http://matchcut.artboiled.com/showthread.php?24-The-TV-Discussion-Thread/page509&p=570084&viewfull=1#post570084

[Morris Schæffer]

Shaeeeeeeeeeeeet.

[Dukefrukem]

Watched this again last night- I'm surprised so many people above didn't hear the noises in the car right before the final scene. But Meg was right, they are there. I've come to appreciate this film more over the years. Obviously the best stuff is the dread and interactions inside the supermarket. The final scene still feels cheap but I've come to accept it for what it is.