I know

[silverthorne]

That a lot of people don't like the ending of the movie version of The Mist, and I can understand why--there really just isn't a happy ending. Just a cessation of the horror.

For me though, that's what I like about it. It's brutal. But it's honest. And quite frankly, it lets the audience feel the full horror and pain that kind of horror would put the people through, rather than aim for a trite 'everything is okay after all in the end' or the cheap 'bwahahah!' of one last 'unexpected' kill and cheap scare at the end of the movie to indicate 'it really isn't over yet' (Final Destination sequels, I'm looking at you).

So yeah, it's horrible, and heart breaking, and just downright sucks for the main character.

But...it's true to the genre. I'm actually grateful for the chance to feel truly, truly awful about the fate of the people in the movie, and not just in that 'OMG! Did you see when his head exploded all over the place?! GROSS!!!' way.

Comments

[vivian-shaw.livejournal.com]

Oh hey! Stephen King addresses the problem of his absolutely shitty movie endings by not having one?

Kind of an improvement.

[showyourguns.livejournal.com]

Iiii respectfully disagree. The rescuers showing up JUST AS the protagonist has collapsed into utter despair? That's an overinflated sense of dramatic irony, not honesty. "Honesty" in a movie about a bunch of unprepared civilians being attacked by prehistoric monsters would have been everyone being eaten, sorry to say.

Aaaand I wouldn't call the way the movie ended a cessation of horror for anybody, unless you count the dead people. I imagine Tom Jane's character is headed for a padded cell, if not, uh...prison.

All of this is totally subjective, of course, but the novella's ending is the one I liked - it wasn't happy either, but it was hopeful. Which in the context of the story made the most sense.