The Mist

De la béquillardise intentionnelle aux thèmes religieux et à la dimension mystique au-delà de la fantasy traditionnelle. Dans ce film, Frank Darabont combine des sujets existentiels sérieux et l'authenticité visuelle à la Greengrass, avec des tentacules de poulpes numériques et d'autres araignées attaquant. Et avec un budget de 26 millions, il surpasse le contenu de la Guerre des mondes de Spielberg. Un film remarquable, captivant, légèrement intellectuel et non conventionnel, avec une idée de Shawshank inversée sur l'espoir... Une petite œuvre méritant une grande appréciation. (16/09/2008)

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. (12/03/2008)

If there is one horror movie this year that deserves a full score, it’s this one. It has an awesome atmosphere, especially in the second half, and I also liked the diversity of the monsters. But it’s not only about monsters, the story has a very strong dramatic line, too. The ending is amazing! More movies like this! Darabont has another successful King adaptation under his belt. (26/11/2007)

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)

If I set aside the slightly B-movie effects, The Mist shows some of the greatest viabilities of King adaptations. An intimate and elegantly universal metaphor with one of the best endings the screen has ever seen... (11/06/2009)

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)

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)

Hm... the blonde was terribly unappealing... come to think of it, I didn’t actually like anyone in this... The best part was stirring up the mob, how easy it is, right? And that ending? I kind of expected it, exactly like that. Mr. King always tries to end with that bit of a shock, but this one seemed transparent to me; oh well, it's dawn now and the mist is rolling over the tree tops. And I'm not scared at all. Such a pity. (11/04/2009)

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)

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. (10/03/2008)

Darabont combines a classical survival thriller with expertly crafted psychological character development in an incredible way. The dense atmosphere is created not only through the mist, but also through the brilliantly portrayed characters, and the balance between both elements is excellent. At the beginning, there is a lot of mystery (excellent camera work and editing), then the monsters appear (survival), and for the rest of the film, we have a devout fanatic, foolish villagers, a cunning lawyer (a clash of interests, opinions, and beliefs), and several gruesome scenes with monsters that are truly worth it. I am willing to overlook the occasional light inspiration from Alien, because, overall, it is an excellent genre mix that delivers anything but what you expect. Thumbs up for the ending! (16/01/2009)

In addition to a great atmospheric work, this is, more importantly, an excellent character study of a group of people in a deadly and hopeless situation. Also, as is a bit typical of him, Darabont has once again confines into in a vast building a handful of unfortunate souls whose only hope is a chance for escape and freedom. The monsters are really incidental, only necessary to build up some really thick tension, which they manage to do to perfection in many sequences. The premise may look like for a B-movie, but the presence of an A-list director is very much in evidence and the story has a power that surpasses many of the more famous sci-fi horror films. Let the shocking ending speak for itself, it gave me quite a chill. 80% (09/04/2012)

Un travail brillant. Une conclusion parfaite. Ça vous prouve vraiment que les gens peuvent être pires et plus dangereux que des monstres à tentacules assoiffés de sang. Les sermons bibliques remplissent leur objectif, mais par moments ils sont ennuyeux. Et si ces monstres étaient un peu mieux traités, ce serait un 5* ici. (07/04/2011)

I don't claim that the individual characters (or situations) are any dazzling, insightful, or accurate analysis of the various possible variations of human behavior in a heated situation. However, I do feel that Darabont worked with King's source material extremely well and conscientiously when writing the screenplay, so the film itself is thankfully not devoid of perhaps the greatest strength of most of King's novels – the excellent psychological sophistication of the story. If I were to compare The Mist with, say, Shyamalan's The Happening, the difference in the sophistication of the characters and the psychological aspect of the story would be diametric, even woeful. And to put reason, common sense, and sober reasoning on one side and religious fanaticism on the other was a stroke of genius in the source material as well. Darabont did not leave this storyline out; on the contrary, he made it essentially the most profound and interesting part of the plot, when at a certain stage you begin to wonder where the greater danger lurks for this "rational group" – outside or inside the shop itself. I haven't seen something so elaborate, scary, and hellishly impressive in a long time. (03/04/2011)