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

[showyourguns.livejournal.com]

It actually is about a....maybe a 75% accurate representation sans a few pertinent details. But the novella ends about five minutes before the movie does, and is essentially "well....we might find something, or we might just run out of gas and die," and that more than anything else was the reason for the change - because just driving off into the mist works in text, but on film? Oh, we need to finish with bangs. Or screams of horror!

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. It is a neat, tie up all loose ends type of deal, just because it doesn't do that happily doesn't mean that life does not essentially go back to normal for everyone uh, isn't dead. The calvary comes, almost literally. Just because it comes too late for the protagonist doesn't really change that.

[silverthorne.livejournal.com]

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. :)

[showyourguns.livejournal.com]

hahah yeah, fair enough. And really, what a lot of it comes down to is that I was pretty attached to the original ending; it struck me as basically perfect for all the assorted reasons I've gone into here. When the rest of the movie was so faithful (for the most part), that just left me going ".....what. No, really. WHAT."

[silverthorne.livejournal.com]

Exactly. And see, since I haven't read the novella, I don't have that bias and/or expecatation to go off of. So what I'm comparing it to is...other films. So we're not even starting from the same reference point.

That being said, I'm pretty sure I would have gone 'WTF?!' myself if I had read the story first. Kinda like I did when Dudditts (I can never spell that right) turned into an alien in the movie version of Dreamcatcher. That was a serious 'OMGWTFBBQ??!' moment for me right there (although I loved the rest of the film.).

[showyourguns.livejournal.com]

>_> Iiiii will not get into how I felt about Dreamcatcher, although I did love the first 20 minutes!

[silverthorne.livejournal.com]

I will say this. It was junk food, and I tended to divorce myself from going 'this is a Stephen King flick' in order to enjoy it (Kinda like I do with the first two RE movies, before Alice just becomes an exercise in 'why did you even bother to put the RE label on this?').

Unfortunately, the whole Dudditts thing jolted me right out of that mindset.

I think one of my fav parts had to do with FX rather than the movie itself--the part when the kid (I can't remember which one it was) did his little finger trick. That I liked.)

Also, the shit weasels were even more gross 'in person'. Ugh.