"The Mist" imo will be awesome - Page 5

Wires · #41 11-19-2007, 04:10 PM

"Horror remains a genre where the best work is most often done by indies and little studios"

A big budget is usually a bad sign for a horror movie. Again using 1408 as an example - the movie opens slowly and builds nicely with some genuinely creepy moments. By the end I'm not sure if I'm still watching a movie about a haunted hotel room or if I've accidentally caught the end of Platoon. Everything they worked hard to build was destroyed.

Small films generally invest time in getting you to care about the characters so you feel actual emotion when they are disemboweled [img]/images/graemlins/shocked.gif[/img]

fraserbrown · #42 11-19-2007, 06:12 PM

Just read the book last night, pretty scary stuff and cant wait for the movie. I hope the movie ending will be better than the books ending though.

CharlieDontSurf · #43 11-19-2007, 09:44 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
CDS, that ending sounds terrible. I won't be seeing this movie. I'm so disappointed because I loved the story and it sounds like the movie came close to being amazing.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then why wouldn't you go see it? "Close to amazing" sounds pretty good to me. At times I can even work with "decidedly mediocre". I guess if you only see 2 or 3 films a year you can wait around for amazing but if you've been geared up for this one why wouldn't you go and make up your own mind.

Even the questionable CDS states the movie is pretty damn good until the last 5.

I'll definitely check it out. It sucks when a lame ending takes you out of the movie but if the rest of the film was strong I can usually, in time, look back with some reverence.

[/ QUOTE ]

lol

- you shouldn't give a film leeway just because its a horror movie. And screwing up the ending of a film is just about the worst thing you can do. A great ending can sometimes make up for a average film, because it is almost always what people will remember. Kubrick was fantastic at ending films...Spielberg, not so much(well post 80s SS anyways).

- and even though the ending sounds awful and the characters act totally against their MO you should still def see it...the first 115 minutes are cool and pretty creepy.

Blarg · #44 11-19-2007, 09:51 PM

Yeah but you pretty much have to give up entirely on horror movies if you hold them to the standards of regular movies. And the parts they don't screw up can be so good, that I'd hate to have to do that.

xx44 · #45 11-21-2007, 11:21 PM

Saw the movie today. I really enjoyed it. For a "horror" movie it was excellent.

Didnt mean to be curt, but didnt want to give anything away. Definitely worth seeing.

SoloAJ · #46 11-22-2007, 02:24 AM

::Some minor spoilers of sorts maybe if you infer some things. But not worth whiting::

Ehhh, I think CDS is overreacting a little bit. I can understand where he is coming from in some respects, but implying that most people aren't going to enjoy the ending is a bit extreme.

Personally I would have preferred them to cut off about 2-3 minutes of the movie and have it be a little more ambiguous. I think it is definitely worth seeing. I thought the acting throughout was exceptional and the camera work was pretty amazing.

I .really. don't understand what CDS said about the characters doing a 180 and suddenly acting different. I thought that it was made really really really clear that David's character was consistent throughout.

CDS, I don't mean to start some war or something. I just really don't think the ending ruined it as much as you say. Personally, I would have preferred the movie ending minus about 3 minutes...on an ambiguous note. But I loved it anyway.

CharlieDontSurf · #47 11-22-2007, 02:38 AM

AJ,

The thing that made the ending so lame was the last 2 minutes of it. If u end before then its fine--it would actually have been really cool and twist if it had ended there with Jane walking into the mist with a empty gun after having killed everyone else. Though he killed them so damn quickly after running out of gas it felted like that scene was trimed.

But not leaving anything up to the imagination plus the fact that the mist just vanishes in about 2 seconds and the chick from the beg of the film is in the army truck made those 2 minutes almost laughable.

SoloAJ · #48 11-22-2007, 03:21 AM

I see where you're coming from CDS. I guess I just wanted to point out that I really enjoyed it in spite of those potential detractions. I thought that it just excelled really really well in the last 10 minutes in terms of acting and emotion and everything.

It all just came together for me really nicely. While I agree with you about the last bit, I do think that it gave the movie a good "rare" ending for American films and I adored that about it.

I can't believe on other boards I am reading that people didn't like the acting. I thought it was really good all around. I love how King wrote a novella called "The Mist" that really isn't even about the mist at heart. The movie translated this exceptionally, imo.

adanthar · #49 11-22-2007, 03:38 AM

I really loved the book and loved the movie, too.

[ QUOTE ]
But not leaving anything up to the imagination plus the fact that the mist just vanishes in about 2 seconds and the chick from the beg of the film is in the army truck made those 2 minutes almost laughable.

[/ QUOTE ]

It seemed clear to me that the mist wasn't vanishing per se; it was just slowly rolling back to Arrowhead where it came from. That's why the army was coming through - they were wiping out the infestation left behind a foot at a time.

Also, my first impression of the ending was "Wow, somebody finally managed to make an SK-based movie with a gloomier ending than SK." It seemed very apt, and I completely see where King is coming from when he said he'd rewrite it that way if he could. I think it's closer in spirit to the human condition part of the novella than the original was.

Given how badly his books tend to translate to movies, this was a surprisingly good adaptation and, I think, a very good omen for...

Frank Darabont's next film, "The Long Walk", next year (got this from IMDB where they have quotes of him confirming it.) *drool*

CharlieDontSurf · #50 11-22-2007, 02:00 PM

Yeah AD that reasoning behind the ending just seems way to contrived for me. It just happens to happen right at that moment. I thought just overall the writing and directing of that final scene was just bad bad bad. Plus Jane's decision was handled way to quickly and without any type of thought about how to survive which the character has been all about for the last 115 minutes. The rest is entertaining...not great but I doubt one could do much better given the story.

Its never a good sign when people are actually laughing at the last scene in a movie when its supposed to be sad/depressing etc. But I imagine it will be fine for most horror fans and people who haven't read the story etc...given how enjoyable the first 115 minutes was Darabont could have really done a lot better. It strikes me as kind of strange that King likes it so much, but perhaps it is because Darabont answers virtually every loose end that the novella leaves hanging.