THE MIST: A MOVIE REVIEW
THE MIST (2007)
My first thought upon exiting the theatre was: What it is?
It’s based on a novella by Mr. Stephen King. It seems to be true to the “King spirit,” as witnessed in previous film renderings of this master of the unlikely masquerading as a plot. Of course, this film does not equal his extraordinary film absurdity, Caroline. If not an Oscar, that film certainly took the cake. Further, being a Stephen King-based flick, one need not ask whether heavy-handed irony will be employed. We do credit the King-Darabont combo for a gothic twist at the conclusion not seen since the early horror tales of E.C. Comics.
This film is not entirely the product of Stephen King’s menacing “pen.” One Frank Darabont wrote the script and directed the movie. His team of actors are not major names, so far as I am concerned. There was one good performance by Toby Jones as “Frank.” The “mist,” according to my personal word usage, should be called a “very thick fog.” however, that’s not such a snappy title. Still, I’m a little offended that the films “wall of impenetrable whiteness” should bear the title of “mist.” Put as simply as possible, it is incorrect usage.
What is the meaning of this sudden advent of mist? Does it signal the presence of Evil? Of something merely unnatural? Or something downright weird? Should they run for it? And why doesn’t ANYONE try a cell phone?
In the lingo of Star Wars: Are the people going to die? You bet! At least a bunch.
The film’s male protagonist is Mr. Thomas Jane, who plays one “David Drayton”. I thought he rendered a credible performance. His character seems to be a successful commercial artist, using well-known characters or settings to help sell a product. At the film’s outset the moviegoer notices him painting a figure already recognizable as the Clint Eastwood character from the “Spaghetti westerns,” such as The Good, The Bad and The Ugly. He is a sturdy, presentable guy, appearing to be a credit to the profession. He is married to an attractive, good-humored woman. They have a son, who is an altogether too prominent figure in this film , due to his chronic and habitual whining. I felt an urge to ascend the stage and to give this kid a good” shaking,” while remonstrating, “Grow up!” The kid was played by Nathan Gamble. He doesn’t deserve much praise. Let us just say that the David Drayton character presumably “spared the rod” on the lad.
After a brief introduction to the Drayton family in their comfortable “digs” in a rustic looking section of–I believe–Maine, the moviegoer is treated to a storm. The Draytons retreat to their basement to escape the perils of the rather severe storm. This proves wise, as the moviegoer witnesses “something” crashing through a window [quick cut aids mystery]. When the storm subsides and the Draytons resurface, they discover that a tree has crashed through a window, doing structural damage to the house and annihilating some of David’s nearly completed painting projects. Darn!
The Draytons go outside to peruse the damage. David’s boy gets Dad’s attention that the boathouse has also been annihilated. More perusing and discussion of their neighbor, played by Andre Braugher, who plays a prominent lawyer. David declares that he plans to amble over to talk to this neighbor and trade insurance data. It is clear that these two don’t have a “good neighbor” policy in effect.
Now, I thought this was paced well. The film begins close to the point of appearance of the film’s problem, yet keeps a very deliberate, mundane tone. It creates a starker menace by contrast. Soon, the lad notices a strange cloudy form oozing near the surface of the lake and headed their way. This director also seems to like lingering close-ups, which last sufficiently long that one could get a tad uncomfortable with the proximity. Some decent special effects occur in this film, also.
The neighbor has had his own problems from the storm. This offers the necessary condition for a budding neighborliness. The Drayton males are intending to take a drive into town, and the neighbor coaxes a ride. Along the way they notice unusual military personnel movements, speeding police vehicles, and so forth. Wonder what’s up?
They get into town and soon are visiting a supermarket. This supermarket becomes the center of action for most of the remaining film–and there’s a lot to go. Too much, actually. This film drags. There is a sort of constant recycling of dramatic events/moments. There are moments which are humorous–at least to me–but frankly, I don’t know whether writer-director Darabont meant them to be. The milieu wears.
There are a large number of people in the supermarket, and director Darabont doesn’t seem to have a sure notion what to do with them until the point when he can dispense with their services (have them killed off). He tends to divide them into two groups: The Drayton crew and the Mrs. Carmody crew (her power “snow-balls as film progresses). From another perspective Darabont has them divided into Homeboys and Newcomers. However, there are areas of blurring. He even manages briefly to have a black-white division. And surrounding the supermarket, cloaked in a thick “mist,” are—are–what the hell are they!
The confrontations in the supermarket are frequent, confused and increasingly deadly. Toby Jones’ character, “Frank,” gets in a slam against politicians and religion, suggesting a Marxist perspective: A good world has no religion and the State has faded away. There are apparently ill-advised attempts to run through the jungle of fog. But folks, the fleers weren’t alone in the fog. [Fog is usually a dangerous environment in films.] Consistency of character not to be counted on as pressure mounts.
As for the fog-foes, the moviegoers initial impression is that it is a mutant, steroid octopus. Guess again! True to King films, such as Dreamcatcher, the creature has a bit more menace than that. Another thing, which is consistent with Dreamcatcher, is that the evil-looking “things” produce kid-beasts abundanza. Well, guilty beasts don’t got no rhythm and, true to this dictum, these are very “clunky” creatures, as well.
What is going on here? In the course of this film there are increasing allusions to “strange goings on” at the military base atop a ridge. This scenario is completely at one with the old Frankenstein classics, wherein burghermeisters and peasants alike eyed the castle of Baron von Frankenstein with misgivings. In this film–get a grip on your chairs–writer/director Darabont seems to borrow from Mr. H.P. Lovecraft’s chronic thesis of another universe, filled with clamoring, fiendish beasts, energetically seeking to enter our universe–and not just to say, “Howdy.”
However, throughout most of this film, it is a rather nasty confrontation between apocalyptic Christianity in the guise of Ms. Harden’s “Mrs. Carmody” and the secular forces surrounding David Drayton. It was this film’s substitute for the “Scopes Trial,” where fundamental Christianity was pitted against Evolutionist Doctrine in a school environment. It was done with mendacity and malice aforethought. Still, I could have dealt with it were it well done. It was not.
Ms. Harden’s character is a bold, misshapened sketch. However, her overacting brings to the film the major interest in film personality herein provided. She sounds downright “loony.” Self-conscious about this business, Director Darabont even has a few characters indicate that she’s unstable and the like. Most of the others are memorable only in regard to interaction with Ms. Harden.
Otherwise, most memorable actors relate strictly to their demise at the hand of man or tentacle of beast. Further, romance is played down, sometimes suggested, but usually cut short. This film isn’t about romantic love at all.
There is a final desperate attempt at escape from the supermarket environment and surrounding “mist” which leads to the neat twist at the end, which is truly ironic. I would not encourage spending good money at a theatre to see this, but believe it might be viewed on television in the not too distant future.
All rights reserved. Gobigfoot, 2007.
