I saw a number of great films last year, but only one has remained at the top of list.  It was one of the most polarizing not only of last year, but of the past decade.  It’s a genre film that makes us question the aesthetics of what has come before and after it, while forcing us to watch humanity dissolve on screen before our very eyes.  It was created by a duo whose very names are synonymous with great storytelling; writer/director Frank Darabont and author Stephen King.  Of course, I’m talking about The Mist.

Technically, it’s not exactly a long lost film, but I do firmly believe it to be one that needs to be revisited from time to time.  That is because, and mark my words, it will be considered a very important horror film.  It’s a nasty little tale that is about the deterioration of what makes us human as much as it is about monsters popping out of the dark and it must be viewed at least once a year due to the fact that it is the type of horror film that genre fans have been clamoring for since the 1960s and 70’s (arguably the highpoint of effective horror filmmaking).

Thankfully, I’ve been given a little less than a year to let the film soak in.  It’s not an easy one to get through, nor does it necessarily require repeat viewings.  But Darabont infuses the film with much more emotion than you’d expect, to the point that it completely catches you off guard with its relentless display of the lengths we will go through in order to survive seemingly insurmountable circumstances.  

Nothing is more disheartening than watching a film populated with unlikeable characters.  The Mist is one of those films that have them in abundance.  What’s worse is that the few good ones are made to suffer more than others.  I’m sure this is one of the many reasons the film was met with little to no enthusiasm last year; it focuses on horrible people doing horrible things to survive.  What’s worse is that, by the time the credits role, the film points its finger at the audience and questions them as to what they’d do if they were thrown into a similar situation. 

The character of Mrs. Carmody, while highly exaggerated, is plucked straight from the newspapers.  In times of despair, people turn to a logical explanation.  Any explanation, for that matter.  But what happens when the most logical explanation is brought forth by a person who is the most dangerous and in demand of absolute power?  Darabont develops Carmody beautifully and while she isn’t necessarily a three-dimensional character (she is quite mean with no redeeming traits for the majority of the picture), she is the catalyst for having the characters and the audience question their faith and how it can be perceived in times of despair. 

Another strong aspect Darabont addresses is that of social breakdown and how it can turn even the meek into cruel harbingers of death.  Remember the scene in which the soldier is sacrificed for knowing what went on up in the mountains (which eventually led to the arrival of the mist)?  It’s nightmare inducing because it can actually happen.  In times of uncertainty, selfishness becomes top priority.  And the reason that scene pissed people off was because it was a tad too realistic.  As disturbing as it was, it was necessary to the story, as it showed the absolute depravity that these people are willing to experience in order to save their own skin.

After having some time to think about it, the much talked about ending is not as controversial as it first appeared to be.  Sadly, everyone seems to focus on it when criticizing the film, which I think is a horrible counter-argument when discussing the quality of the film.  I firmly believe that Darabont did it for all the right reasons, the least of which being the desire to shock us.  He could have gone a totally different (and easily accessible) route if he wanted to shock us, but he’s better than that.  I mean, even Stephen King loved the ending.  Whether he was telling the truth or not is beside the point.  King has enough pull in the industry at this point to tell off a filmmaker if they bastardize his creation; especially one as beloved as The Mist.

It’s a cruel ending, one that understandably made Dimension Film very uncomfortable.  Truth be told, I’m surprised they allowed Darabont to keep it intact, considering they have a habit of butchering tales into indecipherable abominations.  But they understood something that the general movie going audience didn’t.  They realized that David Drayton, essentially, isn’t a true hero.  That’s where people get confused.  Yes, he said he’d protect his son, and he did throughout most of the film.  But in the end, he made an ill-timed decision; one that proved he was just as flawed as Mrs. Carmody in many, more subtle, ways.

I recommend that you watch The Mist either again or for the first time.  Ignore any comments you may have read or heard about it, and come to your own conclusion.  It may very well piss you off, but in the end, just be assured that it was made with love, dedication and the intention of treating the audience with the utmost respect.  In that regard, it succeeds without question.  But see it soon before it truly joins the annals of long lost cinema.