You guys are misunderstanding the ending…
-
Cyborg1989 — 11 years ago(March 13, 2015 08:47 PM)
To the OP Sorry but, you're reading a little too much into it. If thats what you want to take away from the ending, then fine.
But there was no intent at an "uplifting message", or anti-suicide agenda there. That is something YOU have chosen to interpret.
The director just thought it would be a great, "shocking" ending to cap off a bleak horror flick. Nothing more than that. -
!!!deleted!!! (34980460) — 10 years ago(April 29, 2015 02:32 AM)
The director of the Shawshank Redemption and the Green Mile (both of which are about holding on to hope) , you mean?
He totally missed this interpretation of the ending and was actually going for a horror-flick one?
Really? -
clytamnestra — 10 years ago(February 17, 2016 03:56 PM)
How is either of those movies uplifting?
Shawshank: the justice system is beyond beep but you may slip through the cracks (what unbelievable luck that he never got another cell or had his wall repainted) after a few decades of prison-rape
Green Mile: don't bother arguing for you innocence or trying to get the actual child-killer in jail, just die in the most jesus-like way possible. -
bananabutcher — 11 years ago(March 23, 2015 01:40 PM)
i didn't care to much about the meaning but as i was watching the end when they where shot up in the car i was saying to myself "it would be funny if he killed them and suddenly the mist disappear"and it happened. i was laughing my head off, best comedy that.
-
debunkerboy — 10 years ago(April 06, 2015 05:33 AM)
The annoyance is that the characters are made to do something FUNDAMENTALLY false to the character they have established in the story so far, to their role as protagonists which we have come to IDENTIFY with, IMO. It rankles that this is everyone's gut instinct yet Darabont was so seduced by the idea of the ending that he used it anyway even though it didn't fit THIS story. Defenders of the ending actually feel this same sense of violation. I have read too many of their posts here, trust me, they feel it too. But they rationalize it away on various grounds . . that the ending was so brave in going anti-hollywood that they forgive Darabont, or that the problem is on our side for being unable to imagine their fear, etc.
-
skullwrath — 10 years ago(April 14, 2015 07:19 AM)
Why do you say it's fundamentally false? The whole reason they wanted to leave the super market was the hope that they could escape the mist or at least find some other signs of human life. But instead they found the mist unrelenting, driving what we can only assume was for hours and finding nothing but more death and decay and enormous monsters. Then they ran out of fuel, could hear the sounds of more beasts in the background, and decided to end it on their own terms. Just because they had courage and hope in the supermarket does not mean that will last through the realisation that the world as they know it is gone and the only way out seems to be a brutal death at the hands of some demon.
-
cyril_grey — 10 years ago(May 11, 2015 03:22 AM)
God, I love those "nature of character" arguments some people love to have. This idea that a character, who is also a human, is going to always act in accordance to some moral agenda that the story will set out, is plain foolishness. That's the beauty and the curse of the human race: we are unpredictable.
To argue that these people were set up to behave a certain way and the ending betrays that is the exact writing style that makes films so predictable and it's what shows like Game of Thrones are working so hard to corrupt. The film's ending is far more human than anything else because they do not do what the story set them up to do. -
clytamnestra — 10 years ago(February 17, 2016 04:19 PM)
Sometimes in fiction characters do things that are too far removed from how they were built up though, and just looks like lazy writing. It depends how it's done though.
True. A character changing behavior can be either due to 'lazy writing' or due to organic 'character growth'.
In this movie it did not feel like lazy writing to me. It makes perfect sense to me that they'd initially try to fight but eventually lose hope as they see one person after another dragged out of the store by monsters and return home to find the mother also dead and after that just keep driving and driving and driving without seeing the slightest sign of life anywhere.
It's pretty much what happens when people ask for euthanasia: they fight the cancer for the first few years but eventually decide they'd rather die right now than painfully suffocate in the next few weeks. The characters would rather take a bullet to the head than be chewed to pieces as their friends were.
I hated it when startrek did the 'i killed my father just months before life-saving medicine hit the market' story and i sure hope this movie wasn't aiming for that kind of connection. It's hugely disrespectful towards people who struggle with those questions at the end of their life to cut it off at 'you must live at all costs' and dangle a potential miracle in front of them (in reality a patient in that situation will be perfectly aware of new drug-trials and alternative medicine cures doing the rounds: new treatment doesn't just poof onto the market one day to the next) -
andrewpi7 — 10 years ago(March 12, 2016 10:09 AM)
The mist severely limited their vision so of course they were not going to see life when they were driving especially after an attack of that magnitude.
If all 4 of these once strong characters conveniently now did all lose hope then viewers should have seen some dialog and emotions between them to show that before all of them agree to suicide in mere seconds without saying a word. It was displayed as carelessly as if the dad was asking if they wanted some gum.
Euthanasia is a bad analogy as these people were not fighting monsters for years and were not under any physical pain, much less painfully suffocating for weeks. But even if we use that analogy then it is
no different
than StarTrek's "I killed my father months before life-saving medicine hit the market" scene that you found hugely disrespectful earlier because the Mist movie dangled a potential miracle in front of the dad seconds after he killed his son & the 3 others so that would make this scene hugely disrepectful if we accept that analogy. -
-
kgwrote-854-104240 — 10 years ago(April 12, 2015 07:50 AM)
I didnt think the film was a realistic portrayal of human nature at all.
The most irritating scene was the black lawyer refusing to go with the three people into the next room to see what they were talking about. His mistrust during a crisis was very theatrical.
I also think in a crisis, when a town crank who no one likes is stirring up trouble, people would resort to violence to silence them. The movie was melodramatic not realistic. -
Jayross1 — 10 years ago(April 23, 2015 04:33 PM)
The black neighbor annoyed the hell out of me too, and I agree that the actions of many of the characters weren't realistic. I just didn't buy the ending at all. As you alluded to, a lot of the conflict in this movie seemed forced for the sake of drama. Don't get me wrong, I thought it was a decent movie, but some of behavior of the characters got on my nerves.