The Mist
5 out of 5
(http://www.jonmeakin.co.uk/images/mist.jpg)
After a devastating storm, David (Thomas Jane) takes his son Billy to town for supplies. It seems like a big cross-section of the locals have had the same idea. Soon a mysterious mist gathers around the supermarket and they become trapped by whatever is hiding in it, and by their own paranoia.
I’ve wanted to see this for a long time, especially since Pete gave it one of his famous not quite-5 star ratings! Course, he throws them around like sweets now. ;) I’ve given it full marks, but ask me again tomorrow and I may just have knocked one off again. It’s a long time since I’ve seen a film that has wound me up this much and right now, I think that’s its best quality. It will get right under your skin whether you want it to or not. Settle down, this could take a while. :training:
Another quality worth noting is that this film shouldn’t exist. Hollywood can’t make proper horror, it’s that simple, unless you count the Saws and Hostels, but I’m talking sophisticated b-movies that haunted American cinema in the 60s and 70s. For the past few years and maybe even longer, if you wanted to be scared you had to travel to Asia, Spain, or in my case at least, stay right at home in Britain. The days of The Texas Chainsaw Massacre and Night of the Living Dead are long gone, so a bit of a shock when Frank Darabont of all people bucks the trend! It shouldn’t be as he is like Spielberg; he can make optimistic crowd pleasers, yet with terrifying moments. But for such an uncompromising film to get through all the test screenings and studio executive bullshit is impressive. The controversial reception it received may mean they won’t make that mistake again, sadly.
The setup is old school. A group of people, handily representing a cross-section of conflicting social, political and religious views (plus child innocence to boot), are trapped by a super-natural event that possibly represents the end of the world, whether ushered in by the military, God or both. There are foolhardy missions to reach supplies, descents into madness and survivors turning on each other. This familiarity works in its favour though because it’s handled with originality. To be fair, it is based on a Stephen King novella almost 30 years old. Were clichés invented then? It’s Darabont’s film though and he continually avoids convention.
The script sometimes awkwardly makes sure everyone has their point of view and has a few clumsy metaphors, but overall is sophisticated and really gets you thinking. Darabont, now surely officially recognised as the best director of King’s work, chooses a handheld style, but don’t be concerned, because it’s just snappy and fast and shouldn’t cause motion sickness. Snappy and fast also describes several of the marvellous creatures lurking in the mist (or Mist, as it’s that important). The attacks on the store by night, then the pharmacy raid are incredible set-pieces. Other larger thingies are slow and stompy; one in particular is brief but awesome. In some ways, I enjoyed being reminded of Half-Life. Even the story hints at a similar origin. All though benefit from the Mist hiding their low budget origins. Although they’re CGI this film works like classic horror from the 40s or Spielberg’s Jaws because he can’t linger too long before you spot the joins. By the way, this review is of the black and white version and after a quick flick through the coloured one, I’m glad. It’s much more effective and evokes a 60s style paranoia very well while taking the edge off the CGI.
Like Spielberg had Quint on the boat, Darabont has Carmody in the store. Marcia Gay Harden’s marvellous performance in a stellar cast as a bonkers “vessel of God” causes far more trouble than the beasties. They’re only hunting while she whips ups the survivors to go to horrific depths. Thomas Jane also impresses as the everyman and convinces in the films final moments, possibly the most depressing you’ll ever see.
Actually it’s that ending that’s giving me trouble. Is it too strong? Some say it was only done to be shocking, but that’s rubbish because it makes sense. King’s novella ended ambiguously which wouldn’t have been right for the film, but he did allude to the possibility. If you accept a certain message that the film may have had from much earlier it works even better. But I don’t like that idea!
Eveything was done wrong. They should have followed the woman wanting to get home or just stayed still and waited. We can probably assume the store survived, proving Carmody right. So is it saying that religious propaganda and Bible-thumping fundamentalism is right? (Her prediction of needing a blood sacrifice was true for David) Or in the face of losing all hope, you have to abandon humanity to survive? (They only get out the store through murder) Urgh. Tough!
It is a proper ending though to a proper horror and I haven’t felt so affected by a genre movie for a long time. I want to argue with people about it! So that right there is reason for a deserved classic status for this, possibly the best American horror for a generation. When did a director last punch his own audience in the guts so effectively?
I've not really like it when I've watched it last year and I've wrote why in this old thread (http://www.dvdcollectorsonline.com/index.php/topic,691.msg71852.html#msg71852). Maybe I should give it another go in B/W, but except to hide the too obvious cgi I don't think that my problems with this film will disapear.
Eveything was done wrong. They should have followed the woman wanting to get home or just stayed still and waited. We can probably assume the store survived, proving Carmody right. So is it saying that religious propaganda and Bible-thumping fundamentalism is right? (Her prediction of needing a blood sacrifice was true for David) Or in the face of losing all hope, you have to abandon humanity to survive? (They only get out the store through murder) Urgh. Tough!
If you had read the book the thing that you have wrote here would haven't work : The woman who get out to see her child is killed in the parking by the creature. The creature take over the store at the end, no one is alive there the creature had broken the window.
You explain your definition of a feel-good ending as the soldiers arriving because that implies they have the monster problem under control. I see your reasoning as a fan of the ambiguous book ending, however as someone who's only experience of the story is this film, I didn't for one second believe the military would have it under control (talk of refugee camps at least suggested it was a work in progress). Maybe it's because of other stories; the Half-Life game I referenced before, and Night of the Living Dead both feature supposed military dominance, but both also showed later that it failed. 28 Weeks Later also showed Half-Life style the soldiers turning on the people. So all this is informing my idea that soldiers are not a good thing! But it works here in any case to reinforce David's awful position. Rescue was moments away. Achim already mentioned the commentary, but Darabont's phrase was "Karma picked David to dump on". I do wish they could have at least suggested what you said was in the book so we knew that the supermarket hadn't survived as it would have helped me handle the ending better.
I think I reacted similar to Achim; I was angry and felt it was a shock for shock sakes twist. The it started to make sense and then I listened to that part of the commentary and the way Darabont explained it justified it for me. Except for thinking that bitch was possibly right! That leaves a nasty taste.
I know you also said you didn't like the character changes, but again, purely from a film point of view, I had no problem with any of them. In fact, hate to say it, but I think I'd likely prefer the film over the book! I've never liked King's style. Carmody makes sense to me to be middle-aged as those sort of characters usually are much older and a younger person is harder to ignore. Ollie also, I liked the paradox of such a normal looking bloke being the only one who can use a gun. And finally, white for black, I can't see it making any difference. Darabont did the same with more effect in Shawshank because Red was supposed to be an Irishman. Obviously this is a habit of his!
Have you ever played Half-Life? I wouldn't be surprised if the book was a loose inspiration. Did King allude to military experiments in his story? I know it wouldn't work, but I'd love them to make a Half-Life inspired sequel to this, with a guy (let's call him Gordon Freeman!) fighting to free key locations in a special hazard suit. He'd come across the scientists responsible and they'd try to help him, and then the soldiers would turn on him. At one point he would be armed only with a crowbar... :laugh:
I just had a read through the other thread. I haven't re-opened it because I agree with Achim and it would only go over old ground. Except for...
I have not read through the old thread :bag: so I hope I won't repeat myself.
You explain your definition of a feel-good ending as the soldiers arriving because that implies they have the monster problem under control. I see your reasoning as a fan of the ambiguous book ending, however as someone who's only experience of the story is this film, I didn't for one second believe the military would have it under control (talk of refugee camps at least suggested it was a work in progress).
Well, I also added the feeling the "lifting of the fog" gave to my reasoning. When the fog/Mist disappeared it is implied to the audience that the nightmare is being pushed back by the army and everything will be fine. (Of course, doesn't have to be, but I feel it's implied. But yes, I am a big fan of the story, despite only having read it once, and that also made me look badly upon the ending.
I think I reacted similar to Achim; I was angry and felt it was a shock for shock sakes twist. The it started to make sense and then I listened to that part of the commentary and the way Darabont explained it justified it for me. Except for thinking that bitch was possibly right! That leaves a nasty taste.
I'll agree with you on this point. As an adaptation is feels like it's shock for shock's sake; since that didn't exist in the novella. As a stand-alone movie however... I am very much looking forward to listening to Darabont's commentary; but want to watch the b/w version before doing so.
Nice review Jon, I don't necessarily agree with all your comments (that is what makes this forum the best!) but I really enjoyed reading your thoughts, personally I could live with the ending, and was not as bowled over by you, although I did think it a great film I would only have gone as far as a ;D
The more I think about the ending, the more I like it. Like I said, I think you have to be willing to accept a theme from much earlier, then it all makes sense. It's a rather depressed story, pushing this idea that we're all doomed from the start. They never achieve anything constructive, except to be miserable or mad! Hell of a message. I knew it was going to be a downbeat ending, but I thought there would be at least noble acceptance. Nope. Life's a bitch and then you die... or just wish you had. :-X
Exactly, I consistently undermark and keep my top marks as secure as my virginity :hysterical:
Strange smell in here... :devil:
The joy of Night of the Living Dead for me was that only the viewer was aware of what had happened and the enormity of it. None of the characters care, for various reasons... Being dead or racist covers a lot of pesky emotions! But poor old David is left a tormented soul...
So did you watch the mono version?