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. (03/10/2008)

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. (03/18/2008)

I wouldn't compare Darabont's film to a cheap horror flick, or, heaven forbid, measure it through the lens of 1950s monster movies. I think The Mist works equally well as gritty horror, and as a kind of psychological drama where rationality vs. bigotry clashes within a small circle of people. Anyway, even the rather ridiculous tentacles at the beginning didn't spoil my overall very good impression. Scary, at times decently suspenseful and with a very powerful twist at the end. And Thomas Jane finally gave a believable performance (Punisher is forgiven). I wonder what the leaders (if they saw it) of the increasingly growing creationist movement in the United States, where their pseudo-scientific doctrine is already on school curricula and whose luminaries use much the same rhetoric as the deranged, had to say about the figure of the religious fanatic Mrs. Carmody. If Darabont wanted to symbolically smack them with it, I won't hesitate to give it the maximum rating :) I'm tempted to compare it with King's novel. (03/12/2008)

This film has some intentional B-movie elements and, at the same time, deals with religious themes, reaching a mystical dimension beyond that of a traditionally conceived fantasy. Frank Darabont combines serious existential topics and Greengrass-like image authenticity with digital tentacles and attacking spiders. And with a budget of just 26 million, it beats Spielberg’s War of the Worlds. The Mist is a remarkable, impressive, somewhat intellectual and non-mainstream film with a reverse version of The Shawshank Redemption’s message about hope. In short, it is a small work that deserves great praise. (09/16/2008)

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. (03/08/2008)