kenada_woo
Posts: 1669
Joined: 30/9/2005
|
I finally got round to watching the film and overall....wasnt impressed at all. SPOILERS!!!!!!!!!!!!
First up - The film wasnt scary. The 1st thing a horror film must do it provide a few scares at least. Minus the pharmacy scene, every other so called "horror" scene was laboured and unimaginative, derivative from a host of other horror films but with added CGI beasts straight from Ivan Reitman's Evolution. Even the Pharamacy scene that began great when the film was picking up after is slow and dis-interesting first hour just made me think Arachnophobia and even Eight Legged Freaks if I'm being honest. But it didnt have the scare nor the fun or OTT nature of a great b-movie horror, which I thought could've been its saving grace after an hour in being its a surprsingly R-rated/15 horror film. But even that, IMO, felt very forced. The action scenes could've been bloodless, the swearing (especially Andre Braugher'r "cocksucker, motherfucker" line in the opening and felt out of place) toned down - the film felt like a TV-movie that just threw in some "adult" moments because it was past the watershed.
I tried to get into the movie. I tried to figure out or see anything new or fresh with it characters that stepped it up from your generic horrors being its made by the man who did Shawshank Redeption. I couldnt find them. None of the characters stand out or are just staples of the genre you've seen times before - you have the dumbs guys doing dumb stuff and getting people in trouble, you have the good guys always making the right move, you know who's dying and who lives (till the end that is) - I was very disappointed with that aspect of the film, which I what I thought could've been its main saving grace if the gore/horror element wasnt working. You also just dont care for anyone in the film. All you get is Thomas Jane's son as a hook, but that is a very weak device in causing sympathy for a character when he's in peril.
And because of that, there's missed oppurtunity's abound. When Norton (David's neighbour) leaves the shopping centre and is killed, there's no character tension for the lead. The whole religious aspect is itself a device for conflict but more so for every character rather than David's. With what's been happening - death of people he might feel resposible for, his wife, making the right choices - none of them are brought up or utlised in a way that could make Jane's character interesting. He takes charge (but what about the Army guys? Saw that a mile away) but you never really get that feeling or conflict that maybe he's the wrong man, that he makes bad decisions. They're maybe hinted at but never explored which is what I really expected.
But what did work well is Marica Gay Harden. Probably the most horrible character I've seen in a long while. Everytime she's on screen you want her dead, and that's the point. After a very heavy handed "message in your face" scene involving the main cast regarding "humanity" and "socitey" (where everyone has their important line to say on the topic) the film begins to pick up (about 1hr and 20 in) and become interesting with the religious aspects come into play. This adds alot to the film - when the people loose hope they go to faith, and whoever leads the faith has the power. After an hour of going round and round with "she's talking shit" the film makes good on its promise and actually expands this. But.....I've seen the Wicker Man, so while entertaining and well thought out, its been done before and better. I'd even say Silent Hill (visually the same but that's only a coicidence) does a better job at this with its religious cults but keeps its originallity and scares.
Which is another main gripe. Nothing feels new. Yeah, you can say "nothing does" or "everything is ripped off something" which is true. But what horror is good at and has been since the genre inseption is taking its conventions and flipping them or showing, improving something better than went before. Dull horror films dont do this and drain any fun or imangination you can have with the genre, which something even your Dark Castle or Platinum Dunes films do nowdays no matter how poor the films are - they still have imagination and fun like most b-movies. The Mist doesnt know what its doing. Its not fun but its not serious all so because its made and acted in a low-budget b-movie way. It tries undertones of themes but uses them heavy handedly. So what does it do? Depresses you.
I'm all for dark endings but like with any film, a films has to earn its ending ( happy or dark). Seven, perfect example - adds depth, is clever, takes the genre to somewhere its never been, adds morality, tension etc, all in its last 10 minutes. The Mist with all its cod-gradiose posturing with its operatic score (for a film with a limited visual scope) you're led up to an ending that just didnt settle at all with me.
The whole film is one note - hopelessness. There is no sense of hope in the film, everything either dies, or is led astray to converted relgious freaks. Then when one moment of hope arrives and the characters escape, what happens? They all give up. Why? I know people will be like "I was shocked" or "They had balls to do that" but I dont buy it. Its cheating and renders the film pointless because its meaningless. A darker ending has to have meaning to be dark, a reason. What does The Mist have? They ran out of petrol so they die. Its not interesting. Like it or not but to me conflict about surviving, having hope the characters got so far, having them dig deep to push on - give me something to actually root for because I honestly dont care for any of these people. But if you gave me something like a sense of hope, then yeah, I care for these people. And to add insult to injury....David killed the survivors and his kid for no reason when the Army shows up and everythings fine!!!! WFT? I didnt give a shit about him killing them, and he did it for nothing is meant to make think "poor feller". Not for me, just made me think -- The film doesnt know how to end itself. Again I'll bring up Silent Hill - that ending is very dark in a sense, but has earned its right to be so because its has a sense of the characters fullfilling something. They might not leave Silent Hill but they did all they could and helped put a stop to something.
Overall, very disappointed. Not scary or fun or imaginative to be entertaining on a b-movie level (even though is made by the man who wrote films that excell in that genre with The Blob and Nightmare On Elm Street 3). Or has anything new to say and fully explore its themes to raise the film above its schlock roots (even though its made by the man who made character pieces such as Shawshank Redeption and The Green Mile). Not terrible but a waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay way way away from being anything like "the best horror film in years" (never gets past go in the frights department to begin with).
***/*****
< Message edited by kenada_woo -- 23/7/2008 7:11:26 PM >
_____________________________
http://dereksdontrunfilms.blogspot.co.uk/
"You bailed out a Jamaican street named Monkey the other day, I want him. This other piece of shit, Screwface, I want him. I know you're a scumbag and a puke, I don't mind that, but give me what I need and I'll leave here a nice guy. If you don't, I'm gonna fuck you up. "
Hatcher. Marked For Death
|
Printable Version
RE: sweet jesus x2 - 
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread