The Mist

This adaptation is faithful to the original and yet it will take your breath away at the end. Darabont has a knack for storytelling, and the actors under his leadership give the performances of their lifetimes. Plus, Thomas Jane is suited to the role of David like no-one else. The special effects are amazing (mainly the fog, because they leave room for the imagination), in the style of Faun's Labyrinth and Hellboy. In the end, you can say what Stephen King said at the press conference: "Whoever gives it away should hang by the balls in a draft." It’ll take your breath away. (11/03/2008)

I like that King's unpredictability and uncompromising nature can be felt every second in the story, that the common (outdoor) enemy is sufficiently straightforward and "evil," and that it is clear from the beginning that no nonsense can emerge from the events outside. But what took the breath away from me in the worst way was that in the crucial passages the story always relies on the aggressively-religious motive of punishment for sins. Instead of carefully measured fear, Darabont tries to crawl under the skin with mass psychoses and hits a wall. If such a gallery of bloodthirsty monsters is lurking outside, I really have no desire to listen to a threatening fanatic. Moreover, the whole film is somewhat undermined by the ending in the style of brutal finishes that change the original tone. Despair thus clashes with an unexpected twist, and the desperate mood is tainted by a sense of futility. (16/05/2008)

For Darabont, the notion of horror is something completely out of place, given that he can't even handle the most basic genre practices. He borrows from Carpenter here, and Cameron there, only to drape the whole thing with dialogue straight out of a dumb 1960s sci-fi movie. For two hours, the plot spins in a merry-go-round, with maybe a spindle of religious fanaticism pushing the viewer's emotions. Otherwise, except for the very end, it’s an absolutely cold, terribly long, and unintentionally stupid B-movie, which apparently got rave reviews just for the impressive ending. (09/03/2008)

The first reactions to Frank Darabont's new adaptation of Stephen King's literary source were enthusiastic and caused a great deal of anticipation among horror fans. Then followed somewhat mixed reactions, so I was curious about the result. The Mist is a typical example of a film where the creator balances between trying to shoot a psychological drama of a group of people surviving in extreme conditions and trying to please the mass audience and shoot a sci-fi horror in the style of Alien. Naturally, the few avid intellectuals will not be pleased with the presence of typical B-movie props such as giant mutated spiders or gigantic polyps, while a larger group of horror fans will miss some of the clichés they love, as well as greater plot dynamism and a lack of intense action. Many will rightly criticize The Mist for its somewhat outdated special effects, which can be done more professionally and with better results today. Despite all this, it is a significantly above-average genre movie that has a strong story with a very decent dramatic culmination and several strong scenes. However, I can't help but feel that more could have been extracted from this material, and the encounter with extraterrestrial life could have been much more imaginative. Why does the author think that the same forms of life live in the distant universe, only significantly larger than here? Overall impression: 85%. (28/06/2008)

In a thick mist that could be cut with a knife, there is a supermarket, and in it... Darabont and King’s short story fourth time round (if we count The Woman in the Room). It’s a mystery to me why, after a six-year rest, Darabont returns to the screen with an adaptation of this only slightly above-average story by King. Arguments suggesting answers like “an enclosed, group of heterogeneous people in extreme conditions, holding up a mirror to society" or “in the best spirit of classic sci-fi B-movies from the early fifties" just don’t hold water. Stephen King approaches this frequently and usually better. This adaptation is a good movie with an exceptionally powerful ending (although I prefer how the book ends). But in between we get a good two hours that could have been expediently cut down in length. Because what works in the written text, narrated in the first person, won’t necessarily work as a depersonalized movie record of events. Almost nothing is expressed here by images, but just by chatting away. Remove the visuals and you have a fully-fledged radio play. And that’s never good for a movie. However, the last half hour which is exceptional and the best part of The Mist. Is this just a coincidence? Unfortunately it looks like the narrative genius Darabont has become a routineer over the last few years since his last “big" movie. And if this were too little, the nice idea with the pseudo-documentary camerawork (and entire atmosphere) worked seriously badly here and reliably trampled any hints of atmosphere that were to be found. However, the sound and design of the Monster are great positives (the CGI mist is a little unconvincing, but the problem doesn’t lie there). The curse of adaptations of King’s horror stories endures, despite this being a solid movie in essence. (19/03/2008)