PDA

View Full Version : The Mist - My Review, err, Defense


irishjayhawk
11-22-2007, 03:14 PM
BEWARE SPOILERS





Darabontís screenplay, based on the Stephen King novel of the same title, was intelligent to the very end. And most of this is credited to Kingís expertise, but for all intents and purposes, letís focus on the screenplay. Itís intelligent because it has all of what the state of man consists of; religion, politics, group-think, different sides, different approaches, alliances, rivals, and above all, survival.

The beauty in the balance isnít seen at first glance. The easiest example is the evangelical. Throughout the entire film, the audience is rooting for a bullet to the head. Itís natural. The religious portion of the audience is thinking sheís vastly insane. In fact, the movie makes a comment directly about this in a line of dialogue before a character faces the Mist. The religious portion is thinking she misrepresents what people of (their) faith believe. All the while, the non-believing crowd - which is addressed directly in the film more than once - is laughing and pointing out that this is why they cannot believe; and further, why no one else should believe. So, when the end comes, both sides cheer and clap.

The second example is a bit harder. Let me call this character, the rational-denialist. His name, in the film, is Brent Norton. He is Draytonís next door neighbor and the lawyer who refuses to believe anything. This character serves his purpose by providing the religious people the opportunity to point and laugh at the non-believing crowd. However, the joke is on them. Nortonís refusal to evaluate the facts is as disconcerting to non-believers as it is to believers. He is, by definition, a rationalist. He dismisses the supernatural. But, at the same time, he is a denialist. He ignores - blissfully - the facts or even the possibility of the facts.

Finally, we have the main character David Drayton. He is the rational one. He evaluated the facts. The person running in who screams that something is in the Mist. Why would a person lie about such a thing? Drayton, in trying to get a blanket for his boy, hears strange things. Then witnesses, first hand, what has happened. At this point, faith is out the window. He is acting on the facts and continues to do so throughout the rest of the movie.
All of this revolves around man in the state of nature. Civilization is removed, and this is referenced many times throughout the film. It looks at how groups of people bond together with no civilization left for arbitrary boundaries and morality. Itís man at itís basic form. Everything else is a sidebar conversation.

So, it doesnít matter. Any monster contained with in the Mist was doomed to the ranks of cheesy or stupid. The monster could have been what each person fears most and, yet, it would have failed to be believable. Paradoxically, if they hadnít shown the creatures, more people would have jumped ship. Sadly, the failure of the monsters to impress upon the crowd is a sign of something more. Itís a sign that something has to be just believable to get by. A human walking on water, turning water into wine, curing people with no medicine seems believable. Reading gold tablets given to someone by an angel is believable to people. But once you transcend into giant insects in a mist, the joke is on the filmmaker. It doesnít work. No one buys it. But thatís just it. It underscores the entire point of the film. It proves thereís a fine line between believability and gullibility.

In the end, the movie may be cheesy, stupid, dumb, or ďcrappyĒ. The one thing it is not is pointless. Itís intellectually crafted from the ground up yet doomed to fail because of the human raceís built-in, unreliable bullshit detector.

Demonpenz
11-22-2007, 03:19 PM
I agree it was pointless

irishjayhawk
11-22-2007, 03:22 PM
I agree it was pointless

ROFL

Deberg_1990
11-22-2007, 04:19 PM
Sadly, this flick will probably bomb because its too smart of the average horror fan these days.

Easy 6
11-22-2007, 04:20 PM
Now THATS a movie critique.

I guess it IS possible to put some thought into these things.

JBucc
11-22-2007, 04:21 PM
So did it show some monsters or not?

irishjayhawk
11-22-2007, 04:22 PM
So did it show some monsters or not?

Yep.

SPOILERS (not really, but warning anyway)

















Giant Insects. It doesn't really spoil much to know that.

KcMizzou
11-22-2007, 04:56 PM
Supposedly the same director is making "The Long Walk".

I've been wanting to see that made into a movie for years. My favorite King story...

irishjayhawk
11-22-2007, 05:41 PM
Supposedly the same director is making "The Long Walk".

I've been wanting to see that made into a movie for years. My favorite King story...

The title sounds like The Green Mile.

What's it about?

By the way, Darabont wrote The Shawshank Redemption.

jjjayb
11-22-2007, 05:51 PM
The title sounds like The Green Mile.

What's it about?

By the way, Darabont wrote The Shawshank Redemption.

If I remember right it's a walk to the death. A bunch of boys have to keep walking. The last one standing gets to live. It's been a long long long time since I've read it though.

bowener
11-22-2007, 05:58 PM
Saw the Mist, wish I hadnt for the most part... but everyone (spoiler) cheered/clapped in the theater when the annoying religious bitch took a bullet to the face. Personally I liked the enormous 1000 foot tall horse/octopus/whateverthehell walking across the countryside.

Nzoner
11-22-2007, 05:59 PM
Went to see the late showing last night and all I can say is wow what an ending.Love the movie or hate it no one will be able to deny that the ending will be on all-time lists of most shocking,surprisng endings in film history,in fact when it happened I simply said outloud,"Holy Shit."

bowener
11-22-2007, 05:59 PM
By the way, Darabont wrote The Shawshank Redemption.

great movie

bowener
11-22-2007, 06:01 PM
Went to see the late showing last night and all I can say is wow what an ending.Love the movie or hate it no one will be able to deny that the ending will be on all-time lists of most shocking,surprisng endings in film history,in fact when it happened I simply said outloud,"Holy Shit."

That was a pretty ****ed up ending, or maybe more tragic than anything. I think it could rank near The Departed as one of those "holy shit" type of moments.

kcchiefsus
11-22-2007, 07:29 PM
Yep, the end kind of sucked.

The best part by far was when the lunatic bitch got shot. Everybody in the theater clapped.

Count Zarth
11-22-2007, 07:31 PM
Getting good reviews:

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/mist/

Nzoner
11-22-2007, 10:07 PM
Yep, the end kind of sucked.


Do you mean sucked for the character?Because I thought the ending was two thumbs way up.Not your normal Hollywood warm and fuzzy feel good ending but a slap in the face that makes you go,"oh shit!"

blueballs
11-22-2007, 10:09 PM
King is a good read
success with turning it into movies
is hit and miss

Nzoner
11-22-2007, 10:12 PM
King is a good read
success with turning it into movies
is hit and miss

Couldn't agree more with that,although I like Kubrick's vision of The Shining,I was never happier than when I found out ABC was doing the mini-series on it and letting King be the executive producer so the story could finally be shown as it was written.

KcMizzou
11-22-2007, 10:13 PM
King is a good read
success with turning it into movies
is hit and missYeah, there've been some pretty shitty movies based on King's work.

Then you have movies like The Shining, Stand By Me, The Green Mile, The Shawshank Redemption...

Honestly though... I know most of his stories by heart, so I get a kick out of even the bad movies.

Nzoner
11-22-2007, 10:15 PM
Yeah, there've been some pretty shitty movies based on King's work.



That would be Salem's Lot for me,fantastic read but they never could get the movie right and they even made it twice.

Easy 6
11-22-2007, 10:15 PM
Yeah, there've been some pretty shitty movies based on King's work.

Then you have movies like The Shining, Stand By Me, The Green Mile, The Shawshank Redemption...

Honestly though... I know most of his stories by heart, so I get a kick out of even the bad movies.

I'll tell ya the one that disappointed me most, it was "Needful Things"...just an AWESOME book, but a TERRIBLE movie...even Ed Harris & Max Von Sydow couldnt save it.

I'd love to see it redone.

blueballs
11-22-2007, 10:18 PM
Pet Cemetery was just horrible
3 year old comes back from the grave
and they have a 3 year old try to play evil

KcMizzou
11-22-2007, 10:19 PM
I really, really hope "The Long Walk" is done well.

Easy 6
11-22-2007, 10:31 PM
Another pathetic attempt to film one of his books was the "Langoliers" mini-series. Bad acting, bad casting, LAUGHABLE special effects...the works.

But in all honesty, i thought the book was pretty damn stupid to begin with.

KcMizzou
11-22-2007, 10:32 PM
Another pathetic attempt to film one of his books was the "Langoliers" mini-series. Bad acting, bad casting, LAUGHABLE special effects...the works.

But in all honesty, i thought the book was pretty damn stupid to begin with.Yeah, not one of his best.

Demonpenz
11-22-2007, 11:57 PM
remember the titans was good

kcchiefsus
11-23-2007, 12:03 AM
Do you mean sucked for the character?Because I thought the ending was two thumbs way up.Not your normal Hollywood warm and fuzzy feel good ending but a slap in the face that makes you go,"oh shit!"

Both, IMO. I enjoyed the movie the entire time up until that happened. Just a matter of opinion though. I suppose it was a pleasant change from the normal Hollywood ending.

KcMizzou
11-23-2007, 12:08 AM
Both, IMO. I enjoyed the movie the entire time up until that happened. Just a matter of opinion though. I suppose it was a pleasant change from the normal Hollywood ending.You guys are killing me... Now I've got to see the movie just to see what that ending is.

Thanks for not spoiling it.

Demonpenz
11-23-2007, 12:10 AM
The ending really ****ed me up. I didn't think the killer was going to be old man withers the amousement park owner

irishjayhawk
11-23-2007, 01:23 AM
Out of curiosity, for those who didn't like it, can you elaborate as to why?

I wonder if it's because it fails as a horror movie, which I don't think I stressed enough or I did in the wrong way in my defense.

It's an absolutely terrible horror flick. But then, again, what isn't? The methods of scaring people are so tried and true that they become cliche rather easily. This film was full of them. Slams on glass, screams, funny camera angles etc.

Demonpenz
11-23-2007, 01:25 AM
I thought it was pointless

KcMizzou
11-23-2007, 01:25 AM
The ending really ****ed me up. I didn't think the killer was going to be old man withers the amousement park ownerHe'd have done it, if it weren't for those damned kids.

elvomito
11-23-2007, 01:43 AM
I suppose it was a pleasant change from the normal Hollywood ending.yes i agree. although i couldn't ever see myself doing the same if placed in that situation. shit, the fun was just about to start IMO.

one other thing, don't you hate utter stupidity? i wanted to kill those people who kept turning on the lights. everyone knows lights attract flying insects

oh yeah, the crossroads theatre at 17th & washington is very nice. they've got a nice "walt disney room" showcasing his activities in KC and with other disney stuff. they've also got a full bar with inexpensive drinks. and, in the theatre, they've got a row of comfy recliners

jjjayb
11-23-2007, 06:17 AM
Saw the Mist, wish I hadnt for the most part... but everyone (spoiler) cheered/clapped in the theater when the annoying religious bitch took a bullet to the face. Personally I liked the enormous 1000 foot tall horse/octopus/whateverthehell walking across the countryside.

Well, I guess there's no need to see it now. :shake:

djrcmay
11-23-2007, 06:41 AM
It was just plain STUPID movie!