25% Off Dinner
new york, NY 10028
As one of what novelist Stephen King calls his Constant Readers, I was as jazzed as every other monster-lovin' geek when word came that filmmaker Frank Darabont was making a movie of King's classic novella, The Mist. Cynics suggested that after tanking big time with his Frank Capra homage, The Majestic, Darabont was running to King for cover. Perhaps, but who could blame him? Adapting King's The Shawshank Redemption (1994) and The Green Mile (1999) brought the writer-director three Oscar nominations, and the good-luck chain actually stretches back to 1977, when King sold a 23-year-old Darabont the rightsfor all of one dollarto an old story, The Woman in the Room. The short film that followed was Darabont's ticket to Hollywood, and a life that any sad-sack horror nut (including this one) would envy.
Why, then, is The Mist such a disaster? How did a straightforward little tale about prehistoric monsters gobbling down the hapless citizens of a modern-day town become such a lumbering and depressing movie?
As the film opens, a weirdly thick fog is settling over Castle Rock, Maine, after an unusually violent storm. With the power out, book-jacket artist David Drayton (Thomas Jane, subtle and strong) leaves his wife at home and heads into town with his nine-year-old son (Nathan Gamble) to buy supplies. As they wait in a long grocery-store checkout line, a bloodied man (Jeffrey DeMunn) runs in, screaming, "There's something in the mist!" Soon, giant eel-like tentacles slip under the loading-dock door and drag away Norm the bag boy, a gruesome sight that only Drayton and three others witness. Neither King nor Darabont explains just why the dozens of other people inside the store can't hear the kid's bloodcurdling screams, but in any case, it falls to Drayton to convince the skeptical customers that there's danger in that there mist.
What follows is a lot of crying and speechifying and not nearly enough people-eating. At just over two hours, The Mist is the shortest movie Darabont has made, and it's still too long. Less chatter, more monster, please. There are two terrific attack sequences, one of which finds Drayton jabbing a string mop dipped in lighter fluid at flying pterodactyls as they dive for humans on aisle three. Later, he leads an exploratory mission to the drugstore next door, only to encounter massive spiders that shoot acidic webs.
Good stuff, but a clue to what's ultimately awry in this movie can be found in that drugstore sequence. A retired schoolteacher, played by the great Frances Sternhagen, comes face to face with an eight-legged freak and, rather than screaming, she sets it on fire with a lighter and a can of bug spray. Now, an old lady zapping a giant spider with a can of Black Flag is the kind of detail that makes Stephen King fun to read, but Darabont lets the moment (and others like it) rush past, as if bug humor is a bit beneath him. He gives similarly short shrift to the creatures: They're beautifully ugly, but you get the feeling that the filmmaker isn't all that interested in them, which is odd, because to make a good horror movie, a director's got to love his demons best. Instead, Darabont darts obsessively among the various factions of trembling humans within the store, as if he really believes that some great truth about humankind is going to be revealed by this gaggle of stock characters.
King's novella is 27 years old, but Darabont the screenwriter hasn't updated a thingthe dialogue is straight out of the booknor has he stripped away the author's youthful excess. (King, bless him, is no Shakespeare.) This is particularly true of the villain, Mrs. Carmody (Marcia Gay Harden), the town loon, who waves her Bible in the air and declares the mist creatures to be God's wrath. King has always relished a mouthy zealot, and Darabont may mean her to represent the fundamentalist extremes at play in a fear-based America, but listening to Carmody holler for the length of a movie is like being stuck at a bus stop near a Baptist with a bullhorn.
All this would be disappointing, but not infuriating, if the film's ending weren't so unforgivably bad. Darabont abruptly abandons his master's text in the movie's final minutes, sending Drayton and his little boy a plot twist that wouldn't be fair to reveal, but which is so distasteful and untrue to all that's come before it as to be a slap in the face to characters and audience alike. The last word in King's story was "hope," and while Darabont certainly has the right to head in the opposite directionin our own monster-filled world, happy endings are harder than ever to buyhe does so in a manner that's both pretentious and cruel. The Mist made me want to scream, but for all the wrong reasons.
This isn't a horrorfest in the traditional sense, it's a dark drama set in a horror context. I wish the reviewer would elaborate a bit more on why he feels that the film's ending "is so distasteful and untrue to all that's come before it". In my opinion, it's the perfect ending. They run as far as they can, and when they realise (erroneously) that they have come to the proverbial end of the road, the father keeps the promise he made to his son, about not letting the monsters take him. I guess this is a horror movie for adults.
Contrary to these other comments, I can't believe just how true your ENTIRE review is. Awesome old lady burning a humongous spider monster was great fun, but the characters said nothing about it, despite that being one of the few kills in that store. Just a simple, "Nice one!" Mrs. Carmody was not so bad for me, but she did start to grate on my nerves after two hours of "This is GOD'S wrath!" over and over. Then came the ending. It was... terrible. I can see no other descriptor. It left no sense of something accomplished in the movie, no sense of a good two hours used, but a sense of annoyance and disgust that the writer came up with THAT. Finally, something to add to the review perhaps: The entire movie had not one point, but three. It started out anti-military for reasons apparent if you watch the movie. A little while later, ol' miss Carmody made it seem anti-religious, and then, it skipped over to PRO-military almost. If it had had a clear point, a better ending and a little more focus overall, perhaps I could have watched it. But taken all together, the movie litterally has nothing going for it. Side-note: The biker guy SHOULD have been a bigger character. His line...?s? were the greatest in the movie.
Why does someone like this guy even get to write reviews. Honestly don't listen to him his opinion does NOT matter.
I disagree completely with Wilson's review. I think "The Mist" is a masterpiece of horror cinema (and I take my horror seriously -- maybe even a tad too seriously). It's the first modern horror film I've seen in ages that actually lives up to the genre's classification. I think its pace is perfect and the sense of dread likewise. The characterizations and performances are uniformly strong, as is the dialogue and "speechifying." Mrs. Carmody is a true movie horror, scarier than any Pinhead or Freddy Krueger, and believable (which is why she's scary). And if she isn�t a perfect effigy for Bush Era scare tacticians, I don�t know who is. I also don't think Darabont, a bona fide comic book nerd and horror aficionado, gave the critters short shrift, either. There are plenty of loving, clear-as-day close-ups for the viewer to enjoy (maybe too many, actually). And the ending is strong and harsh. No, Wilson is wrong (and if he needs any further proof, King liked Darabont's ending better than his novella's original one). Wilson is a different type of horror: a critic.
Good review. This movie depressed me to tears. No fun at all!!!
Check your pulse, Chuck. I fail to fully understand your reasons for disliking this film, which I would argue, as hyperbolic as it may sound, is one of greatest horror films I've ever seen - and it's been a long time since i've seen one that's not instantly forgettable. This one cut right through me, partly because it stayed so true to its vision, which was really more of a human drama, with real characters grasping for any shred of hope, even in the face of seeming hopelessness, and in doing so, plunging headlong into the messiest and unpleasant corners of human nature. It was this almost verite style story that made the monsters, already some of the most vicious, horrific, and inventive I've seen, all the more out of place and trauma-inducing. You say there's not enough people-eating?? Maybe we weren't watching the same film. Though it's true, the characters don't get snatched up left and right, the few that do venture out into the mist witness or succumb to fates so gruesome, who can blame the other characters for sticking tight and not playing the stock victim who decides to wander off for no better reason than to play the cheap kill. That the camera doesn�t obsess over the creatures I felt added to the terror they bring. They also never grew boring, and never ran out of surprises, which I thought was quite a feat for the director. The ending, while definitely cruel, and possibly pretentious, was also uncompromising, relentless, and more consistent with the rest of the story than you give it credit for. What you call a slap in the face to the audience, i call not letting them off the hook, which is, perhaps perversely, also a reward. this film was incredibly depressing, but it also felt pure and undiluted in its bleakness. Both good and bad alike are punished and i think by not pulling any punches it forces viewers to contemplate some darker places within themselves they might otherwise ignore.
don't let Chuck fill you full of hot air. This movie was amazing, any review with standards will tell you that. It digs much deeper than just monsters running around eating people. I guess if you understood the story you'd know that Chuck.
I went to see the movie yesterday with my boyfriend. For a long time he has been trying to seduce me with Stephen King and make me love the books as much as he does. I have read these books: 14 Dark Tales, Insomnia, Pet Cemetary, From a Buick 8, Quitters, Inc. To me, however they were never impossibly scary, probably because of the lack of monsters and gory details. I can see why he likes them though. It is the psychology and the people's reaction to the horrifying things that made his books so famous. With all that said, it would be rather strange to expect deliciously grotesque monsters everywhere in The Mist. King's books are not about the monsters, they are about the people. That's why the poster of the movie said "Fear changed everything." The terror was in watching people go crazy and join the town God-freak, not in them being eaten. I respect the director's decision to follow King closely in that respect. As for the ending, though, I concur with you. It was far too cruel. You do have to admit though, it made you think and made you remeber it. Basically, it sold the movie to us. It was made for that purpose and it served well to fulfill it.
Discover restaurants, nightlife, travel, shopping...
Get 50 to 90% off every day on restaurants, movies, massages...
More than 10,000 of the BEST things to eat, drink, and experience
Join the Village Voice community and get exclusive deals and info
Your local Happy Hour guide at your fingertips
Log in or Sign up
Social Connect:Use your favorite account to access My Voice Nation.
Use your My Voice Nation account to log in:
Sign Up or Log in
Social Connect:Sign up for My Voice Nation with your preferred network.
Sign up for a My Voice Nation account:
