User Reviews

In the hands of a lesser filmmaker than Frank Darabont and processed through the mind of a typical studio screenwriter for hire, a Hollywood film adaptation of Stephen King's novella THE MIST could easily have become your run-of-the-mill monster movie: creatures from another dimension devour people trapped in a mall (presumably the monsters pick them off one by one, after the typical formula employed in countless generic horror films). But the most captivating thing in King's story is not really the plot about the monsters attacking and the "breach" into another dimension (although I love that idea): it's how the human characters react to it and what happens between them.

In staying faithful to the source material, Darabont uses the microcosm consisting of the people trapped in a small town supermarket to explore the dynamics and power shifts that happen very quickly within a society when a powerful outside threat appears. Just like King's excellent novella, the film is a hard hitting allegory for how easily even seemingly "civilized" countries become susceptible to the hateful, crazy messages of demagogues when they are faced with a serious crisis. And it not only manages to perfectly capture the subtext and political undercurrent of the novel, Darabont's film also gives the audience a true sense of the Lovecraftian horror King unleashed on the page (the creatures look fittingly otherworldly, misbegotten and truly frightening).

As it is, THE MIST isn't just one of the most faithful King adaptations to date, it's one of the best horror films of the new millennium.

P.S. (for new IMDb users): In case you don't know whether to trust this review or not, because you have no idea what my tastes in film are, just click on my username - gogoschka-1 - and you'll see a list what my 50 favorite movies are.

Having read the story and listened to the unabridged audio many times, this film version leaves me flat. Character development of David, especially the removal of the narrative style of the story in the book, hollows-out the characters, leaving the relationship of David and Amanda out altogether (which had been one of the best parts of the story). The death of Norm portion in the loading dock/storeroom was especially faithful to the story, however, and shines as the best portion of the film. The suspense of the scene is carried off well as is the pharmacy scene. Yet again, the book makes the pharmacy seem to have been a smaller store than depicted with the addition of the MP death by baby spiders scene being wholly gratuitous. The race to David's truck was nicely carried out, with the reverses well played. It surprised me that the screenplay author felt it necessary to leave out the faint hope of Stephanie Drayton yet being alive by the return to the Drayton's house and the discovery of her body there. A constant in the plot had been of David visualizing Stephanie working in the garden as he had left her on that first morning. This was a source of guilt on David's part because of the developing relationship with Amanda. But, the most galling portion was the murderous end of the movie! This was a complete opposite to the book, which had the survivors holed-up in a hotel some distance from their hometown at the end of the novella. A feeling of hope was given in the book, whereas the movie left one with a feeling of pointlessness, especially when the woman who had gone to find her children early in the movie turned up alive and well with her kids. When the book had her as one of the first to die. Overall, a movie that showed promise at first, but leaves a lot to be desired at the end. SK's books are always a lot better than the movies accredited to them.

I'm not going to bother giving you a synopsis of this movie. The Stephen King novella has been out there for several years already. I urge you to read it. Should you just read the story and pass on the movie? Well, that depends on whether you should read more anyway, and whether you don't mind sitting through a pretty weak ending. But, more on that a little later.

Most of the original plot points and characters of the original story remain. The setup has been tightened, but at the slight expense of Norton's character development. The mist itself also does not receive the proper build up like in the short story. I love watching movies, but one of the medium's shortcomings is it's inability to get into your head, and characters head, the way literature does. I realize that books and movies are completely different mediums, and you shouldn't compare apples to oranges, but I digress.

What does remain is the building terror, hopelessness, and Lovecraft inspired people eaters. Mrs. Carmody's character receives more focus, but with good reason. Some folks may complain that it stereotypes, and slanders Christians. No, what it does is shine a light on religious fanatics, and their exploitation of people's fears and sense of despair. It attacks fanatics, not Christians. Got that? The same kind of fanatics that talk desperate young men and women into blowing themselves up along with other innocents, or drinking poisoned Cool-Aid in a South American jungle. Several of the characters passingly express their faith in God, but are not presented as lunatics. However, if you can see the Camrody character for what she really is, and what she represents, there is no need to feel offended. But if you took this character as a serious attack on your faith, maybe the shoe fits. Hmmmm. Oops, I digress again. Got ahead of myself.

Actually, one of the things I admired about this film was how well it presented this argument. Frightened, desperate people with no answers to mounting crisis (personal or otherwise) tend to flock to charismatic psychopaths that promise answers and solutions. This can happen to even the most 'normal' person under the right circumstance. Look at what happened in Jonestown, Heaven's Gate, Waco. 'The Mist' illustrated part of this dynamic pretty well. Marcia Gay Harden's performance is so effective, I almost denied her my praise. Some may call it overacting, but, have you ever heard a revivalist on a roll?

Another interesting point the film makes is how you can't expect that reason and logic alone will protect you or save your life. Like in the book, the Brent Norton character refuses to believe the dilemma they are in, simply because it doesn't fall in line with what he knows (or thinks he knows) about the world around us. In his mind, there is no need to fear something that makes no sense to you. If you can't see it, why fear it? This point of view costs him his life. And, at the other end of the spectrum, is Carmody, which I just discussed.

There are a couple of fine scenes of superbly executed terror. The pandemonium that breaks out during the first night when some of the creatures make it into the store, is simply amazing. The scene in the pharmacy had me almost in a fetal position in my chair. Well executed.

***** Major Spoiler Alert -I'm not kidding, turn back now!!!******

Still with me? Okay, Sounds like I really liked this movie, so far. Right? Well folks, sometimes a game is decided in the final seconds. There's no way I can talk about this movie without talking about the ending.

First of all let me clarify my position on the cookie cutter, happy Hollywood endings that give closure and warm fuzzies to all. I abhor them. Some of my favorite classics do not have happy endings with complete closure: Casablanca, Citizen Kane, Gone with the Wind, 2001 a Space Odyssey. A well crafted anti-ending should leave you with some kind of yearning, or maybe leave you reeling from 'punch in the gut' ending that challenges your intellect. I can see that they really tried for this, but they failed. Why? Well, it boils down to plausibility. You can get away with just about anything in your story telling, but your character's development and the story construct has to lead up to it. You have to convince your audience that their actions are plausible, no matter how outrageous.

Drayton popping bullets into everyone's head almost immediately after he runs out of gas is implausible because of his drive (and everyone else's) to survive just a few hours before. What?! You mean to tell me this guy's will to live turned on a dime that quickly? And no one in the car protested? How could Darabont have made the ending more plausible, thus more effective? How about watching (time lapse over days) them slowly run out of food, water, start to get sick. How about having them pinned down by those creatures for several days to the point that despair sets in. Then the ending would be plausible coming from these characters. And then watching their would be salvation roll in just a few seconds later would have made it even more poignant. Just another five minutes of film would have done it. But the way it was handled, it didn't feel natural, it felt forced and contrived.

I applaud Darabonts attempt at underscoring the importance of not losing hope. How falling into despair can lead to tragedy. If he had pulled it off, it would have been a true knock-out ending.

Unfortunately, the ball got fumbled in the final seconds. Such a shame.

Let's be honest, Stephen King stories have not had very good luck when it comes to big screen adaptations. For every "The Shining", there have been 10 terrible movies. I was pretty leery about seeing "The Mist". I had enjoyed the novella and I wanted to see something that would do it justice. This film does a pretty good job, although I'm not sure it deserves its current lofty rating here on IMDb.

The plot is rather simple. A mixed group of survivors are trapped in a supermarket as a mysterious, deadly mist suddenly rolls in. No one is really sure where it came from, although theories abound. Some think it's the end of the world, Biblical style. Others think it's an industrial accident. Still others are convinced this has something to do with the research being done at a nearby military base. Very quickly the survivors learn there are weird monstrosities lurking in the mist. Creepy, prehistoric predatory creatures. They also quickly learn that any trip into the mist usually results in a gruesome death within minutes. There is no communication with the outside world, so the survivors are left to speculate how far the mist has spread and if any one else has survived.

Over time tensions begin to get the better of the survivors and civility breaks down. Some turn to a religious zealot for answers, others look to our hero, David Drayton (played by Thomas Jane), others simply commit suicide. At this point, the movie becomes more of a disaster movie with some movie-monster special effects thrown in. It's a study of how quickly society can break down when the normal routine and rules are removed. The movie also raises interesting questions about making decisive, life-changing decisions when it's hard to have a clue what the right answer might be. Do you stay in the supermarket, with an increasingly violent group of people, and hope help is on the way? Or do you try to formulate an escape plan and risk the mist, where no one has survived for more than a few hundred feet?

The psychological aspect of the mist is what's truly scary and isn't explored nearly enough. The actual monsters in the mist aren't all that frightening. Giant spiders, giant lobsters, giant insects, pterodactyl-like flying creatures... They all seem like rejects from a bad science fiction B-movie. The "military research gone wrong" angle also fits nicely with B-movie tradition and seems a little tired and ridiculous. The movie is far more enjoyable as a disaster movie, rather than a horror movie.

The end of the movie is surprisingly downbeat and nihilistic. What if our hero, who seemed so confident and in control all along, was just guessing like everyone else? What if he made some disastrously bad decisions, through no fault of his own? That's the end of this film. It seems the cowardly people, who were afraid to take action, are the ones who probably survived. All along we are so focused on the character flaws of the supporting characters, we fail to see that perhaps the hero might be just as flawed.

I've been a member of IMDb for many years now and rarely do I take the time to comment on a film. In addition, I watch, on average, about 10-15 films a month, split among all genres including horror. Lately though, I've been very disenfranchised with most horror films especially with the proliferation of shock/gore/splatter/torture-porn films such as Hostel 2, The latest Saw film, Captivity, etc. Enter "The Mist" and I leave the theater saying to myself "this is why I go see movies".

Frank Darabont should be the only one adapting Steven King novels and short stories...period. He brings a human balance that's missing in most horror films these days. You can have the most unbelievable, and maybe even the most ludicrous, situations and events, but if you make the characters believable and further peel the layers to expose fear, prejudices and vulnerability then you have the foundations towards making an effective film. I was absolutely gripped during the entire film, and that all-too-rare-these-days sense of dread permeates through almost every scene and left me emotionally exhausted at the end. And speaking of the ending, isn't that what almost everyone is talking about? I'm not going to give anything away, but in my opinion, I loved it. I can see why it can split into camps of "loved it"/"didn't like it" but for me it was a great conclusion to the entire storyline of the human condition. I wouldn't have changed a thing.

The acting is good for the most part, and the mist definitely creates an ominous atmosphere throughout the movie. Some of the CGI is a bit dated but it's from 15 years ago people. The ending is rough, in a heart wrenching way. I didn't read the short story so I don't know how much it follows it, but I would assume some creative additions were made in order to make it a full movie. There are some parts that drag a little bit, and possibly some over zealous reactions from the characters, but all in all I think it's a creative representation of what people might do when faced with such a horrific scenario..

SPOILERS AHEAD...

Previous reviewers don't seem to realize that it happens over the course of a few days, maybe even a week. Yes the crazy religious lady being able to develop a following might be a little overblown, but when faced with such dire circumstances who knows how some devout followers may react? You have to put yourself in these peoples heads and remember that they have NO IDEA WTF is going on or out there in the mist, so paranoia is gonna set in. Survival instincts are gonna kick in, and when faced with what could seem like the end of the world to some people, intense beliefs are gonna start to take hold too.. As far as the ending, put yourself in their shoes. As far as the 5 survivors know, the mist means death. They weren't able to get away from it with the gas they had! So what are you gonna do? Go outside to meet a grizzly painful end? Or shoot yourself in the head? What could've been an even more tragic ending is if the father puts his sons head next to his so that one bullet can kill both of them, then we see the tanks roll up and think "If only they had waited another minute or two.."

While the cast and crew of "The Mist" will herald the Weinstein Brothers at press junkets and the like, the producing duo has made 2007's most refreshingly original horror films ("Grindhouse," "Halloween") sacrificial lambs to fright-unfriendly weekends (there's a good article on this at Dread Central.com). And while "The Mist" certainly commands a 30-foot screen, maybe its best possible fate lies on DVD, where viewers with surround sound and a widescreen TV can live the horrific, harrowing experience without the distraction of an audience too dumb to decipher their ticket stubs.

"What's wrong with Stephen King?!" one member asked at the climax of "The Mist," certain he had made an alternately incisive and hilarious comment. To which I thought, "Had you actually read the novella, clod, you'd know that King ended on an (almost) upbeat note." With home entertainment fast becoming the industry standard, I guess the expectation of a tactful audience is beyond reason anymore.

Despite the running commentary, I was able to see the treasure most of the room missed out on. As a novella, "The Mist" is—like most of King's work—pulpy, scary, and compelling. The film, written and directed by Frank Darabont, is a stunning adaptation that manages to capture the slow burn of dread and desperation that permeates the novella. And while there is an uncanny titular similarity to John Carpenter's "The Fog," this is an altogether different beast.

The setup is simple: after a brutal storm whips through a small Maine community, movie poster artist David Drayton (Thomas Jane—"Dreamcatcher") and his son, Bill (Nathan Gamble) head into town for supplies, accompanied by Norton (Andre Braugher), their next-door neighbor. Once they arrive at a small shopping plaza, a shear mist encroaches upon them, trapping a large number of people inside a grocery store. The utter randomness of this scenario is enough to make one's skin crawl, but it turns out there are prehistoric-looking monsters waiting in the mist. And the inhabitants of the store become increasingly desperate for survival.

(At this juncture, I will apologize in advance for the upcoming comparisons to "Night of the Living Dead," due to the sheer quantity of mentions.)

What follows has a lot of thematic parallels to George Romero's "Night of the Living Dead," a B movie whose guerrilla fearlessness and intelligence pushed it into legitimacy and legend. "The Mist" is as much about things-that-go-bump-against-the-plate-glass as the way in which trapped humans respond to such a fantastic situation. Like "Night," the breakdown of social order and martial law is addressed; the role of the military comes into play; religious fundamentalism is personified by Mrs. Carmody (Marcia Gay Harden), a fire-and-brimstone type who becomes a macabre, sacrifice-minded beacon to the store's desperate. In an era where most of today's horror crowd expects "Saw XIV" every time they walk into a theater, Darabont's script is built on a foundation of logic and authentic human action (even when characters do things we know are unwise, their rationale is convincingly fleshed-out) as opposed to manipulative twists and anticlimaxes. The ending is at once ballsy, depressing, and right. Like "Night," "The Mist" is less about otherworldly monsters than mankind's uncanny ability to BE the monster.

That being said, "The Mist" works as well as a traditional horror film, with several genuinely scary sequences involving mutant hybrids of pterodactyls, houseflies, and spiders, with several Cthulhu-esquire unmentionables to complement their Lovecraftian backstory. The CG is well-utilized and the sharp editing keeps it from being overdone. Darabont transforms the creatures—which are essentially '50s B-movie fodder—into absolutely convincing visions of hell. This film bucks current horror trends by actually scaring the audience instead of just repulsing them.

"The Mist" is one of the year's best.

I really expected a lot coming into this movie considering it had a rating on this site of 7.5. The entire time I found myself yelling, "What are you doing?!" Almost everything the characters did was "horror film stereotypical". As monsters ran towards them, they stood there and screamed instead of running. The crazy lady trying to kill a ten year old child somehow had acquired a huge band of followers within 24 hours who also felt that somehow God would appreciate it it they stabbed the child to death, along with the Army guy. It made absolutely no sense why anyone would listen to her at all. They should have duct taped her mouth shut from the beginning. Overall, I was extremely annoyed by how predictable this movie was and how I felt like I needed to dumb myself down in order to watch it. I couldn't think logically about anything that was happening or else I would have turned it off, so I had to pretend that it was convincing just so I could finish watching it. The ending made me totally nauseas. No one would EVER do what this man did. You battle the monsters for days and risk your life repeatedly and then you think that running out of gas means QUIT?! No, you would not shoot two old people, your own ten year old son, and the woman holding him and spare yourself. That is ridiculous. The personalities that these people had we not the type of personalities that would accept giving up, and the fact that they didn't join the crazy lady's band of insanity shows that the man was not a psycho and would not have shot his child in the head and not himself. I realize it was to spare them from the monsters, but no one in their right mind could do that. Every "mission" he went on was life threatening, and all of those people put their lives at risk by getting in that car, so why commit suicide?? They wouldn't. It was stupid.