As for what The Mist avoids in comparison to other horror movies, I'd have to say that calling this ending superior because it doesn't wrap things up neatly rings inherently false to me.
I think this is a point we'll have to agree to disagree on.
I don't think it wraps it up neatly (Yeah, the cavalry is here, but there's still clean up, there's still the possibility things will escape to parts unknown (I mean, hell, what happened to that 30 story tall thing anyway? There was no 'earthquake' to mark it's falling from getting attacked), there's still people suffering, hiding, and the like). It gives a stopping point to the story of the main character. But it doesn't clean the world itself up. The world is still a mess. There will still be a very obvious period of aftershocks and readjustment to be made by the survivors. This isn't a 'reset'--that's very obvious just by the condition of the landscape alone.
Most horror flicks, once the survivors leave county XYZ, the world goes on as normal, and the rest of the world essentially never finds out. The place where it happens remains remote and untouched--still 'innocent' looking by casual passers-by. Military or allies of the 'monsters' clean up and leave no trace of what happened, etc. Pretty much the whole incident can be erased with a fence, a redirect away from the area or a judicial use of explosives.
Here, the world can't miss what happened, even if it didn't get that far. The land itself bears the marks in a way that can't be ignored or easily eradicated.
Now knowing the end of the book though, I can say I wouldn't have minded that either, even on film (I love those kinds of endings as much as these kinds). It's also underused (although people could argue that in a horror flick, an open ended ending like that doesn't really fit the genre. Oh wait... ;) ).
Ultimately though, I think, really, it's a matter of taste that we're arguing over on this one. It's still a good movie. :)
no subject
I think this is a point we'll have to agree to disagree on.
I don't think it wraps it up neatly (Yeah, the cavalry is here, but there's still clean up, there's still the possibility things will escape to parts unknown (I mean, hell, what happened to that 30 story tall thing anyway? There was no 'earthquake' to mark it's falling from getting attacked), there's still people suffering, hiding, and the like). It gives a stopping point to the story of the main character. But it doesn't clean the world itself up. The world is still a mess. There will still be a very obvious period of aftershocks and readjustment to be made by the survivors. This isn't a 'reset'--that's very obvious just by the condition of the landscape alone.
Most horror flicks, once the survivors leave county XYZ, the world goes on as normal, and the rest of the world essentially never finds out. The place where it happens remains remote and untouched--still 'innocent' looking by casual passers-by. Military or allies of the 'monsters' clean up and leave no trace of what happened, etc. Pretty much the whole incident can be erased with a fence, a redirect away from the area or a judicial use of explosives.
Here, the world can't miss what happened, even if it didn't get that far. The land itself bears the marks in a way that can't be ignored or easily eradicated.
Now knowing the end of the book though, I can say I wouldn't have minded that either, even on film (I love those kinds of endings as much as these kinds). It's also underused (although people could argue that in a horror flick, an open ended ending like that doesn't really fit the genre. Oh wait... ;) ).
Ultimately though, I think, really, it's a matter of taste that we're arguing over on this one. It's still a good movie. :)