hope, despair, and that damned ending

Rating: 5/10 (7 December 2007)

I'm not going to bother giving you a synopsis of this movie. The Stephen King novella has been out there for several years already. I urge you to read it. Should you just read the story and pass on the movie? Well, that depends on whether you should read more anyway, and whether you don't mind sitting through a pretty weak ending. But, more on that a little later.
Most of the original plot points and characters of the original story remain. The setup has been tightened, but at the slight expense of Norton's character development. The mist itself also does not receive the proper build up like in the short story. I love watching movies, but one of the medium's shortcomings is it's inability to get into your head, and characters head, the way literature does. I realize that books and movies are completely different mediums, and you shouldn't compare apples to oranges, but I digress.
What does remain is the building terror, hopelessness, and Lovecraft inspired people eaters. Mrs. Carmody's character receives more focus, but with good reason. Some folks may complain that it stereotypes, and slanders Christians. No, what it does is shine a light on religious fanatics, and their exploitation of people's fears and sense of despair. It attacks fanatics, not Christians. Got that? The same kind of fanatics that talk desperate young men and women into blowing themselves up along with other innocents, or drinking poisoned Cool-Aid in a South American jungle. Several of the characters passingly express their faith in God, but are not presented as lunatics. However, if you can see the Camrody character for what she really is, and what she represents, there is no need to feel offended. But if you took this character as a serious attack on your faith, maybe the shoe fits. Hmmmm. Oops, I digress again. Got ahead of myself.
Actually, one of the things I admired about this film was how well it presented this argument. Frightened, desperate people with no answers to mounting crisis (personal or otherwise) tend to flock to charismatic psychopaths that promise answers and solutions. This can happen to even the most 'normal' person under the right circumstance. Look at what happened in Jonestown, Heaven's Gate, Waco. 'The Mist' illustrated part of this dynamic pretty well. Marcia Gay Harden's performance is so effective, I almost denied her my praise. Some may call it overacting, but, have you ever heard a revivalist on a roll?
Another interesting point the film makes is how you can't expect that reason and logic alone will protect you or save your life. Like in the book, the Brent Norton character refuses to believe the dilemma they are in, simply because it doesn't fall in line with what he knows (or thinks he knows) about the world around us. In his mind, there is no need to fear something that makes no sense to you. If you can't see it, why fear it? This point of view costs him his life. And, at the other end of the spectrum, is Carmody, which I just discussed.
There are a couple of fine scenes of superbly executed terror. The pandemonium that breaks out during the first night when some of the creatures make it into the store, is simply amazing. The scene in the pharmacy had me almost in a fetal position in my chair. Well executed.
***** Major Spoiler Alert -I'm not kidding, turn back now!!!******
Still with me? Okay, Sounds like I really liked this movie, so far. Right? Well folks, sometimes a game is decided in the final seconds. There's no way I can talk about this movie without talking about the ending.
First of all let me clarify my position on the cookie cutter, happy Hollywood endings that give closure and warm fuzzies to all. I abhor them. Some of my favorite classics do not have happy endings with complete closure: Casablanca, Citizen Kane, Gone with the Wind, 2001 a Space Odyssey. A well crafted anti-ending should leave you with some kind of yearning, or maybe leave you reeling from 'punch in the gut' ending that challenges your intellect. I can see that they really tried for this, but they failed. Why? Well, it boils down to plausibility. You can get away with just about anything in your story telling, but your character's development and the story construct has to lead up to it. You have to convince your audience that their actions are plausible, no matter how outrageous.
Drayton popping bullets into everyone's head almost immediately after he runs out of gas is implausible because of his drive (and everyone else's) to survive just a few hours before. What?! You mean to tell me this guy's will to live turned on a dime that quickly? And no one in the car protested? How could Darabont have made the ending more plausible, thus more effective? How about watching (time lapse over days) them slowly run out of food, water, start to get sick. How about having them pinned down by those creatures for several days to the point that despair sets in. Then the ending would be plausible coming from these characters. And then watching their would be salvation roll in just a few seconds later would have made it even more poignant. Just another five minutes of film would have done it. But the way it was handled, it didn't feel natural, it felt forced and contrived.
I applaud Darabonts attempt at underscoring the importance of not losing hope. How falling into despair can lead to tragedy. If he had pulled it off, it would have been a true knock-out ending.
Unfortunately, the ball got fumbled in the final seconds. Such a shame.