The Mist (2007)
The first act of Frank Darabont’s adaptation of Stephen King’s (enough possessives there?) The Mist gets it. This portion of the film, like good Twilight Zone, like the first third of Spielberg’s underrated War of the Worlds, understands that nothing is scarier than quiet. The storm leaves, the mist approaches, and we watch every little awkward expositional piece snap into place for the inevitable nightmare with a smile on our faces. I generally hate crowds, but this is a good film to see with a crowd, to recreate that huddled together to hear something scary vibe. To reaffirm the illusion that you’re stuck right with the characters in that little grocery store when someone discovers that a possibly really big octopus is hiding in the supernaturally photogenic mist (which is really fog, but John Carpenter beat King to the punch.)
I was enjoying this first act so much that I dreaded the inevitable reveal of the monster(s). This can be a buzz kill, particularly in our new school horror films, hard won mood dissipated over a few cheap CG beasties. I warn you. The beasties are cheap, and are definitely CG, but the The Mist, for the better part of another hour, continues to effectively mine the Monsters are Due on Maple Street vibe of a bunch of types slowly falling apart as the outward menace relentlessly presses in. Yes “types”, there’s not one recognizable human being in all of The Mist, and, with the exception of Marcia Gay Harden’s stale psychotic religious lady bit (a religious lady must have really screwed King over sometime in his young life, as he seems incapable of not including a damning portrait of one in his work) I didn’t care. This movie brought me back to my pre-teen days of reading Stephen King in my little bedroom.
There has been talk that Darabont, formerly of the more good natured King adaptations The Shawshank Redemption and The Green Mile (one overrated, one barely watchable, I’ll let you guess which is which) has changed King’s open ending to something a little nastier. He has, and this is a stumbling block. I don’t mind the ending itself, but Darabont mucks up the staging; seeming a little too self-consciously “bad”, a sunny director’s attempt to break free from his reputation. Darabont is too proud of his ending and overplays it, lingering where a few quick cuts would have sufficed. I won’t spoil the surprise but imagine the ending of Night of the Living Dead as restaged by a trying to slum Frank Capra and you’ve got an idea of what you’re in for.
That’s why The Mist doesn’t ultimately stick. Romero’s film has true outrage. Carpenter’s The Thing (an obvious influence) is colored by a fuck it cynicism. Even Serling, as overbearing as his messages could be, seemed to be truly haunted by his visions. On the page, The Mist transcended its derivations by the sheer pulp force of the writing. Darabont, good intentions and fun aside, doesn’t quite escape the trying to be good for you sandbox.
★★★
November 29th, 2007 at 12:12 pm
“Night of the Living Dead as restaged by a trying to slum Frank Capra”
Couldn’t agree more. The first part is pure tension and suspense and the TV style shooting gives it a nice intimacy.
But. Those. Monsters.
This is where the film had to deliver. I’m impresseD THE MIST only cost 15 million. But I woulD’ve spent 6 mill on efx just to get it right. And without CG. That is what killed it for me. This film cried out for Bottin style physical effets, not stop motion Harryhausen style. The bugs just weren’t creepy enough.
I did like Toby and Thomas fine. Oh well, another King adaptation down.
November 30th, 2007 at 5:44 am
Bottin special effects? I really wish you hadn’t said that Christian, that’s EXACTLY what the film needed and now I won’t be able to get that missed opportunity out of my head. Surprised Darabont didn’t at least try to get him, being that The Thing was obviously on his mind anyway. One monster worked: that terrifying praying mantis thing that eats Truman Capote and is only seen in the shadows.
Re:King adaptations, the biggest stumbling block is King’s folksy dialogue. Reads fine, but doesn’t normally perform well (recalling what Harrison Ford said to Lucas about that dialogue). King redeems the earnestness of the characterizations and dialogue (at least in his better work) with surprisingly inventive, vicious set pieces, the weirdest of which, of course, being the first thing the filmmakers drop. All your left with then is the earnestness.
I would love to see a good director get ahold of Bag of Bones, that’s one of King’s very, very best. But they better not drop that bizarre rock throwing scene in the lake, and they better not either play to the cheap seats or go for some sort of stale Oscar pablum.
What did you think of 1408?
December 5th, 2007 at 12:46 am
The geek press was really high on “Frank” and this flick in the months leading up to its release. Man, what a misfire. I knew it wasn’t big budget, but $15 million? Kids with home video cameras and credit cards could make a better movie than this one. Good review, Chuck.
December 5th, 2007 at 5:20 pm
Didn’t see 1408 and I’ve heard meh/okay from too many folk. I gave up on King movie adaptations around 1984…
And on King at IT…
December 6th, 2007 at 7:11 am
I thought 1408 rated a solid “pretty good”, overuse of effects, of course, and a dumb imagination free ending, but the meat was better than usual.
As for King himself, I thought he had a little resurgence in quality with the wonderful Bag of Bones and Hearts in Atlantis in the late 1990s, his work lately has been disappointing again.
December 6th, 2007 at 7:28 am
Maybe it’s a sign of sad maturity or sumthin’ but when I went back to read a new collection of King stories, I was incredulous: why did the chattering teeth come to life? That’s stupid!