The Mist

[....]

I just saw this movie.

It was awesome. Feels so good to get to say that about a Stephen King movie, finally. They stuck with the storyline almost completely. They didn't take anything out (well, one sex part, but that was okay) and the things they added just helped make the movie even more horrifying. The only thing that really got changed was the end. I'm not sure I like it more or less than the book's ending, they are both really excellent ways to end the story.

I suppose I'll have to make a complaint to sound like less of a fanboi: The CG was a little iffy, especially for the tentacles, but I think they did a pretty good job, used the Mist's obscuring powers to sort of edge out the poorer effects.

Anyone else see this movie? Especially anyone who actually read the story?

[Fin]

Thanks for the mini reveiw i never really considered watching the film but i have read the book, i'll consider my stance re-considered and watch it now. :smallbiggrin:

[DraPrime]

Wait, a good Stephen King movie? Something's wrong with the natural order.
*runs of with a wrench to fix the universe*

[Kaelaroth]

Is this the one with Tom Welling and Selma Blair? :smallconfused:

[SurlySeraph]

I didn't see the movie, but I read the story and loved it. I heard they changed the ending - did they make it better or worse?

[....]

I heard they changed the ending - did they make it better or worse?

See, I'm not sure. Its hard to explain without spoiling it.

The movie ending is much more visceral and crushingly depressing...

But the book ending is more melanchloly and utterly hopeless.

The movie ending is sadder, but also happier than the book. You'll understand if you watch the movie.

And yeah, Tom Welling and Selma Blair are in the movie, but they're not main characters... and actually do a really good job in it. All the actors were actually suprisingly good.

[StupidFatHobbit]

The movie was terrific right up until the revised ending, which ruined the whole thing more than any ending has ever ruined a movie before.

I disagree with the notion that the book ending was hopeless. The book ending was open-ended and you didn't find out the characters' eventual fate, but they were going on with hope. The last word in the story was "hope" in fact. It was a haunting, distressing, but ultimately optimistic ending.

The movie ending, on the other hand, was downright soul-crushing. It was mean-spirited to an extent I've never seen before.

I wish someone had told me to leave the theatre immediately after the scene where the gigantic sky-high thing walks over their car. That's only a few paragraphs/scenes from the end. Then go home and read the last few paragraphs of the story and imagine the movie ended that way.

[Somebloke]

Read up on the movie ending (I've read the book).

Glad I didn't go see the film.

[hamstard4ever]

I disagree with the notion that the book ending was hopeless. The book ending was open-ended and you didn't find out the characters' eventual fate, but they were going on with hope. The last word in the story was "hope" in fact. It was a haunting, distressing, but ultimately optimistic ending.

No, not really. It was positive in a certain sense, in that it was a triumph of human spirit holding out hope in the face of an utterly hopeless apocalypse, but there is really no reasonable doubt as to their eventual fate. It was the survivor's willingness to defy that inevitable fate to the bitter end that made the original story so poignant.

There is a certain sort of story where the protagonists face impossible odds and overcome them through the sheer power of positive thinking. This is not one of those stories. I haven't seen the movie yet, but I am elated that they opted to go with a darker ending, because otherwise it probably would have ended up with a more-or-less happy Hollywood ending and that would have truly and utterly ruined it.

[StupidFatHobbit]

because otherwise it probably would have ended up with a more-or-less happy Hollywood ending and that would have truly and utterly ruined it.

I hate it when a downbeat ending gets Disneyfied into everyone living happily ever after, and I heard that it hadn't been done in this case, so I went into the movie assuming I'd probably be ok with whatever ending they gave it. I thought the remaining choices were basically "tragic" or "ambiguous."

The director didn't go for either of those. I don't know how to describe what he did go for, except that it struck me as being so cruel and spiteful that it damaged the whole preceding movie for me.

If anyone really wants to know the ending, this is what happens:

They're stuck in the car, they all give up hope, and the main character shoots all the rest of them including his own son. Then, out of bullets and mad with grief and despair, he rushes outside so the monsters will kill him too. Then, like one second later, the mist goes away and he sees the National Guard arrive and they've killed all the monsters and the world is saved.
It's the worst of both worlds. It's repellent.

Edit: When I wrote that spoiler above, it made me realise that the exact same ending could have been made poignant, tragic and thoroughly satisfactory. Instead, it came across as a big directorial "---- you, you cared about these people, didn't you? HA HA HA!" to the audience.

[Hell Puppi]

Haven't seen this yet...and yes my worst fear was how they would treat the ending of the story...

Though I suppose they could've done it like Dawn of the Dead, and gave you some hope up unless you stayed for the credits...

[bugsysservant]

I hate it when a downbeat ending gets Disneyfied into everyone living happily ever after, and I heard that it hadn't been done in this case, so I went into the movie assuming I'd probably be ok with whatever ending they gave it. I thought the remaining choices were basically "tragic" or "ambiguous."

The director didn't go for either of those. I don't know how to describe what he did go for, except that it struck me as being so cruel and spiteful that it damaged the whole preceding movie for me.

If anyone really wants to know the ending, this is what happens:

They're stuck in the car, they all give up hope, and the main character shoots all the rest of them including his own son. Then, out of bullets and mad with grief and despair, he rushes outside so the monsters will kill him too. Then, like one second later, the mist goes away and he sees the National Guard arrive and they've killed all the monsters and the world is saved.
It's the worst of both worlds. It's repellent.

Edit: When I wrote that spoiler above, it made me realise that the exact same ending could have been made poignant, tragic and thoroughly satisfactory. Instead, it came across as a big directorial "---- you, you cared about these people, didn't you? HA HA HA!" to the audience.

I read your spoiler, and I honestly can't tell if you're screwing with me. If not, I really don't want to see that movie.

On the plus side, I did like the story... (and it was not hopeless :smallyuk: )

[StupidFatHobbit]

No, I wasn't screwing with anyone. It's exactly what happens. The rest of the movie was very well done and worth seeing. Just make sure you leave before the end, that's all...

[....]

I didn't think the ending was 'mean'. It was very depressing, but it wasn't unrealistic. The man thought he had nothing left, and acted as best he could.

And the ending of the book struck me as more depressing, sure, there's all this human hope ect.. ect... but the world is over. The Mist won't stop. They'll live the rest of their undoubtably short lives in horror and fear.

The only thing that bothers me about the end of the movie was that the people in the market will be alright, whereas one point of the story is that they couldn't just wait it out, they had to be dynamic and try to escape in order to survive.

I still say it was an excellent movie, and definatly one of the best Stephen King movies ever made, surely the best horror King movie ever made.