CGI or no CGI. It felt like a mix of b-grade and even c-grade with a small dose of Hollywood. I am a movie buff. I watch a lot of movies. I watch many movies daily, and I like to think I have good taste when it comes to any movie of any genre whether it be a drama or a horror like this one.
Now I'll get to the point. I try to keep an open mind even with all movies, even the blatantly bad ones or even the films I don't really personally like, as I can admit when they are well filmed or acted brilliantly regardless of my opinion on the actual plot, like No Country and There Will Be Blood for example. Those movies I hated but I can respect them for their brilliant acting and work of camera and hidden themes etc. The Mist on the other hand, well let's just say I'd have more respect for a 10 dollar hooker with a yeast infection. I can at least say I didn't waste my money on this rubbish movie. But that being said, now there's 2 hours of my life I want back.
The acting is so unforgivably bad and a lot of their lines are so incredibly uncredible you can just never get attached to any character as everything everyone in this movie just felt contrived. I mean sure, you wouldn't come across a situation like this in real life, but I refuse to believe that's how people would act if a monster in the mist actually ever did appear in my town. How can citizens be so dumb? So putting the sub par acting aside, I'll forgive Thomas Jane just once for choosing a bad movie because I honestly believe it was mostly the scripts fault here and not so much the actors. I'm not even going to go into how bad the CGI is because I don't want to get attacked by people who will try to tell me you don't need good cgi to enjoy a movie. I am aware of this fact, but I still have to say that in today's world of technology how is it possible for a Hollywood blockbuster to have such incredibly lame CGI? Oh and the ending of this movie just made me want to punch my friend in the face for making me sit through the whole thing.
What more is there to say really? Except to wonder over how the rating for this weak movie obtained a score over 7 on IMDb when it should be less than 5. I have a feeling it has to do with the fact Stephen King lent his name to this abomination and come on, we all know a Steven King fan is not a reputable source as a movie critic. So unfortunately there are an abundance of King fans out there and who will rate anything he has done highly just because they can.
Comparing to the last monster movie I'd seen this year, Cloverfield was rubbish but even that had more cinematic qualities going for it than this waste of a motion picture. In the end I recommend seeing the Fog, 1980 John Carpenter classic. Now that is what a horror movie is supposed to do. Scare you, not make you laugh and cry for the wrong reasons. In The Mist I was laughing at the monster moments and crying during most of the dialog. It really was that bad and right up there with the Fog remake from 2005 only somehow less scary.
B-grade movie enthusiasts however will probably think this is somehow the greatest movie they have ever seen in their whole lives.
Now I'll get to the point. I try to keep an open mind even with all movies, even the blatantly bad ones or even the films I don't really personally like, as I can admit when they are well filmed or acted brilliantly regardless of my opinion on the actual plot, like No Country and There Will Be Blood for example. Those movies I hated but I can respect them for their brilliant acting and work of camera and hidden themes etc. The Mist on the other hand, well let's just say I'd have more respect for a 10 dollar hooker with a yeast infection. I can at least say I didn't waste my money on this rubbish movie. But that being said, now there's 2 hours of my life I want back.
The acting is so unforgivably bad and a lot of their lines are so incredibly uncredible you can just never get attached to any character as everything everyone in this movie just felt contrived. I mean sure, you wouldn't come across a situation like this in real life, but I refuse to believe that's how people would act if a monster in the mist actually ever did appear in my town. How can citizens be so dumb? So putting the sub par acting aside, I'll forgive Thomas Jane just once for choosing a bad movie because I honestly believe it was mostly the scripts fault here and not so much the actors. I'm not even going to go into how bad the CGI is because I don't want to get attacked by people who will try to tell me you don't need good cgi to enjoy a movie. I am aware of this fact, but I still have to say that in today's world of technology how is it possible for a Hollywood blockbuster to have such incredibly lame CGI? Oh and the ending of this movie just made me want to punch my friend in the face for making me sit through the whole thing.
What more is there to say really? Except to wonder over how the rating for this weak movie obtained a score over 7 on IMDb when it should be less than 5. I have a feeling it has to do with the fact Stephen King lent his name to this abomination and come on, we all know a Steven King fan is not a reputable source as a movie critic. So unfortunately there are an abundance of King fans out there and who will rate anything he has done highly just because they can.
Comparing to the last monster movie I'd seen this year, Cloverfield was rubbish but even that had more cinematic qualities going for it than this waste of a motion picture. In the end I recommend seeing the Fog, 1980 John Carpenter classic. Now that is what a horror movie is supposed to do. Scare you, not make you laugh and cry for the wrong reasons. In The Mist I was laughing at the monster moments and crying during most of the dialog. It really was that bad and right up there with the Fog remake from 2005 only somehow less scary.
B-grade movie enthusiasts however will probably think this is somehow the greatest movie they have ever seen in their whole lives.