The ending on The Mist...

Was flicking through the channels tonight and came across The Mist, was about a third through but decided to watch it anyways.

Movie was pretty intensive I'll give it that...did a quick look on rottentomatoes and was surprised with the 71% rating, didn't think it was that good.

The ending though is what I want to comment on...wow, talk about a black ending. Honestly left me speechless with a feeling of bleakness :(

What'd you guys think of it?

I LOVED the ending. So dark, so desperate, and tragic.

***SPOILER***

But after a while I realized "what kind of man would shot his own kids?" Especially when there is no immediate threat. Like if there was a huge monster staring you and your family down, and you knew it would torture you for hours, then a father might consider sparing his kids a horrible death and just shoot them in the head.

But if there only threat were monsters that would kill you , most likely, withing minutes and more often than not seconds, wouldnt you want to let your kids live?

Anyway, I am being silly..it was a super cool ending.

Some movies have bad endings and I still like them.

Some movies have bad endings and I hate them.

The Myst is an example of one I HATE

What I learned form the movie:

If I am ever in a car with my kid, and two other people running away from monsters, and we have a gun, and no gas. I will wait ten minuets before shooting anyone just in case the army roles on in.

Made me wanna kill myself.Wozmcfc

You thought that was bad? Go watch "IT"

*Spoiler*

The whole time you think It is some evil clown demon from hell, and when they finally break into its layer, it's just some giant-ass spider. And the the people smash it, and that's it. The end of a five-hour movie. I know he was only taking the shape of something the people could comprehend, like the Taco in the South Park episode "Cancelled," but seriously, who are you kidding? All they had was a spider?

I wasn't a fan of the ending but that's Steven King for ya.grizza

I LOVED the ending. So dark, so desperate, and tragic.

***SPOILER***

[spoiler] But after a while I realized "what kind of man would shot his own kids?" Especially when there is no immediate threat. Like if there was a huge monster staring you and your family down, and you knew it would torture you for hours, then a father might consider sparing his kids a horrible death and just shoot them in the head.

But if there only threat were monsters that would kill you , most likely, withing minutes and more often than not seconds, wouldnt you want to let your kids live? [/spoiler]

Anyway, I am being silly..it was a super cool ending.
mrbojangles25

I wasn't a fan of the ending but that's Steven King for ya.grizza

actually, from what I read, that was the one thing the director did different. I heard the majority of the movie was pretty loyal to the book, but the director changed the ending (with King's blessing).

[QUOTE="grizza"]I wasn't a fan of the ending but that's Steven King for ya.mrbojangles25

actually, from what I read, that was the one thing the director did different. I heard the majority of the movie was pretty loyal to the book, but the director changed the ending (with King's blessing).

Yup, ending is different from the book, King would never kill a kid like that in his books. The movie was extremly cheesy and had way to many plot holes.

After watching so many movies, I've come accustomed to good endings.

The bad ending in The Mist left a bitter taste in my mouth however considering the movie was so bad to begin with, who cares. It had some of the worst acting I've ever seen in a movie, maybe even worse than Alone in the Dark.

Special effects were terrible as well. Nothing was convincing and everything looked low budget and just well crap...

Honestly people, if you want a good movie with a "sad" ending take a look at No Country for Old Men. So much better in every way.

[QUOTE="mrbojangles25"]

[QUOTE="grizza"]I wasn't a fan of the ending but that's Steven King for ya.DarKre

actually, from what I read, that was the one thing the director did different. I heard the majority of the movie was pretty loyal to the book, but the director changed the ending (with King's blessing).

Yup, ending is different from the book, King would never kill a kid like that in his books. The movie was extremly cheesy and had way to many plot holes.

Look at Cujo, look at Carrie. Kids in both of those books die in some pretty crappy ways.

I LOVED the ending. So dark, so desperate, and tragic.

***SPOILER***

But after a while I realized "what kind of man would shot his own kids?" Especially when there is no immediate threat. Like if there was a huge monster staring you and your family down, and you knew it would torture you for hours, then a father might consider sparing his kids a horrible death and just shoot them in the head.

But if there only threat were monsters that would kill you , most likely, withing minutes and more often than not seconds, wouldnt you want to let your kids live?

Anyway, I am being silly..it was a super cool ending.

mrbojangles25

Of course there was an immediate threat. No gas in the car, mist you can barely see in, and you have seen countless people die horribly because of the horrible creations that are running about. You want to twalk your kid outside for a while just to see him get taken up by some spider and have eggs laid in him? He knew they were dead. The chances of them surviving were very nil. It was the only way to save his kid. Im sure if u were in the situation u might undertstand i guess.

After watching so many movies, I've come accustomed to good endings.

The bad ending in The Mist left a bitter taste in my mouth however considering the movie was so bad to begin with, who cares. It had some of the worst acting I've ever seen in a movie, maybe even worse than Alone in the Dark.

Special effects were terrible as well. Nothing was convincing and everything looked low budget and just well crap...

Honestly people, if you want a good movie with a "sad" ending take a look at No Country for Old Men. So much better in every way.

kayn83

Acting in Stephen King movies is usually more like the acting in a play. Its not that it is bad, its just exagerated and at times amateur.

THe special effects were great; I am glad they used animatronic stuff and did not overuse CG like a bigger budget movie would. Idunno though, I was raised on films like Robocop, Terminator, and Aliens so maybe puppets and robots hold a special place in my heart compared to computer generated cartoons.

In short, the appeal of Stephen King movies is the cheesiness. Its like Army of Darkness or Darkman or any other number of quality-albeit-cheesy movies; you go to be entertained, not to see a well-made, critically acclaimed film.

No Country For Old Men, well, youre right its has a good ending but I would say it was sad. I mean, my mom cries at every sad movie and she did not cry at the end of that movie.

patience is excellence

[QUOTE="mrbojangles25"]

[QUOTE="grizza"]I wasn't a fan of the ending but that's Steven King for ya.DarKre

actually, from what I read, that was the one thing the director did different. I heard the majority of the movie was pretty loyal to the book, but the director changed the ending (with King's blessing).

Yup, ending is different from the book, King would never kill a kid like that in his books. The movie was extremly cheesy and had way to many plot holes.

I LOVED the ending. So dark, so desperate, and tragic.

***SPOILER***

But after a while I realized "what kind of man would shot his own kids?" Especially when there is no immediate threat. Like if there was a huge monster staring you and your family down, and you knew it would torture you for hours, then a father might consider sparing his kids a horrible death and just shoot them in the head.

But if there only threat were monsters that would kill you , most likely, withing minutes and more often than not seconds, wouldnt you want to let your kids live?

Anyway, I am being silly..it was a super cool ending.

mrbojangles25

[QUOTE="DarKre"][QUOTE="mrbojangles25"]

[QUOTE="grizza"]I wasn't a fan of the ending but that's Steven King for ya.Rockclmbr6

actually, from what I read, that was the one thing the director did different. I heard the majority of the movie was pretty loyal to the book, but the director changed the ending (with King's blessing).

Yup, ending is different from the book, King would never kill a kid like that in his books. The movie was extremly cheesy and had way to many plot holes.

ya i did miss that, thanks for restating though.

Minda makes me respect King even more than I already did. Seems like a good guy.