POLL: The Mist's ending, good or bad?

[Q?]

Originally Posted by DjMethod

That's obviously the logic behind it but it doesn't make sense. It doesn't connect with the character.

[Show spoiler]He was clearly sane throughout the movie, but then all of a sudden he would rather become the monster that killed his wife and his son's mother? I would never go through all that effort just to shoot everybody in the face. Terrible ending.

I'm saying it in the nicest possible way, are we talking about the same movie?
If so you've misunderstood it, he did not kill them because he was insane, everybody except the kid agreed to die a quick death.

[kolibri]

Q!, I'm equating nihilism with pessimism in this case - perhaps I'm being a bit loose with the definition. The main character has lost all hope, and his subsequent course of action is, perhaps, understandable.

[Lepidopterous]

Originally Posted by Q!

I'm saying it in the nicest possible way, are we talking about the same movie?
If so you've misunderstood it, he did not kill them because he was insane, everybody except the kid agreed to die a quick death.

No what I'm saying is quite simple. I was saying his choice of action does not fit the flow of the movie. It is an abrupt change of character in an effort to surprise the audience. It doesn't fit within the realm of sanity. And the rationale of all hope is lost does not suddenly lead directly to desperate measures unless he's gone insane.

[SquidPuppet]

Originally Posted by DjMethod

That's incredibly stupid imo. And I think the director made light on how stupid and irrational it was. Not to mention it was out of character. If he showed signs of instability that would be a whole different story. But he went from hero to zero.

He wasnt unstable at the end. It was a group decision and he volunteered to take the short straw.

[SquidPuppet]

Originally Posted by Rob71

I agree. I'm putting all this in spoilers.

[Show spoiler]From his point of view every time they left the protection of cover, people died. Large groups began looking for scapegoats to blame and kill, not much better. So they chose to leave and at least have a chance at escape. They drove all the way from town back to his lake house and his wife was killed, in a pretty gruesome way. So they set off to try and get out of the mist. I don't know what the gas tank would hold in that vehicle, but it probably had a decent range so presumably they drove a good distance and even when they ran out of gas were still in the mist and surrounded by monsters. Getting out and walking giving everything they had been through really wasn't an option, or not a desirable one. A quick painless death for everyone giving what they knew was a better option than being impregnated by spiders, disolved by acid, crushed by tenticles or stung by giant wasps. And he did this knowing he wasn't going to "get off easy". Idk, like I said earlier I liked the way the ending just "worked" in the context of the film. Then at the very end when you either expect to see something get him or have a fade out to him screaming, the director gives you a swift kick to the nuts.

But I do understand why some don't like the ending, I just don't agree with them.

Your spoiler is exactly how I see it.

[Q?]

Originally Posted by DjMethod

No what I'm saying is quite simple. I was saying his choice of action does not fit the flow of the movie. It is an abrupt change of character in an effort to surprise the audience. It doesn't fit within the realm of sanity. And the rationale of all hope is lost does not suddenly lead directly to desperate measures unless he's gone insane.

Originally Posted by SquidPuppet

He wasnt unstable at the end. It was a group decision and he volunteered to take the short straw.

Yes.

The bolded part, it was very much in keeping with the character and his morals, the surprise is definitely a very big bonus, but everybody agreed that whoever did not get to die a mercyful death would suffer a very horrible death, so he volunteered to die in the worst possible way.
That's heroic in my opinion.

Remember nobody knew they were about to be saved, as far as they were concerned, death was inevitable. just a matter of how they would die.

[jhiggy23]

Originally Posted by Q!

After all they went through he did it to spare everybody of a horrible death, the way he saw it was that he'd rather have his son and the others have a quick and painless death, that's not stupid imo.

I personally think it's stupid because it represents a lack of faith, and I'm sure

[Show spoiler] being shot at point blank range isn't very painless!

[SquidPuppet]

Originally Posted by jhiggy23

I personally think it's stupid because it represents a lack of faith, and I'm sure

[Show spoiler] being shot at point blank range isn't very painless!

to the spoiler. A clean cranial shot would be pain free. You wouldnt even have time to recognize the sound, let alone feel the impact. Its like turning a light switch OFF. (sorry for the inhumane comparison)

[Q?]

Originally Posted by jhiggy23

I personally think it's stupid because it represents a lack of faith, and I'm sure

[Show spoiler] being shot at point blank range isn't very painless!

[Show spoiler]This is from Rob71's post
"A quick painless death for everyone giving what they knew was a better option than being impregnated by spiders, disolved by acid, crushed by tenticles or stung by giant wasps."
It'd rather have a bullet shot to the the head that would result in an instant death than those examples.
Faith as in believing in god or just being an optimist?
I could see myself losing all hope and faith and expect the worst after everything they went through.
As if the monsters were not enough, people turned against each other and blamed the "heathens" for the wrath of god.

[kolibri]

Originally Posted by jhiggy23

I personally think it's stupid because it represents a lack of faith, and I'm sure

[Show spoiler] being shot at point blank range isn't very painless!

It's that very lack of faith that makes him a flawed, fallible and, ultimately, believable character. I don't think it's stupid or irrational.

[AKORIS]

[

kolibri
I don't think it's nihilistic, at least not from the main characters perspective.
He did it with all the best intentions.[/QUOTE]


agreed as far as the characters motivation but it is nihilistic on the film
directors part-- if it didn't have the final gutpunch of seeing rescue only minutes away-- the ending would have been horrific and downbeat-- to add this is the definition of mean-spirited.
Now please do not misunderstand-- I do not mean to insult anybody in any way-- but I just can't understand how anybody could "love" this ending--do people simply not get involved with the characters? Are emotions and empathy completely shut off? Are people so desensitized today that nothing bothers them? I literally cannot watch this movie again-- it upset me that much!

[Q?]

I do not "love" the ending, I was not desensitized, of course I was shocked.
I think it's great because it forced me to think about what I would have done.

[AKORIS]

Originally Posted by Q!

I do not "love" the ending, I was not desensitized, of course I was shocked.
I think it's great because it forced me to think about what I would have done.

I'm using the term "love" generically to all of the positive posts of this film-- didn't mean to single you out!

I certaintly agree that the ending is something that makes you think about possibilities. The entire movie was based on decisions-- good and bad....

[SquidPuppet]

Originally Posted by AKORIS

[

kolibri
I don't think it's nihilistic, at least not from the main characters perspective.
He did it with all the best intentions.

agreed as far as the characters motivation but it is nihilistic on the film
directors part-- if it didn't have the final gutpunch of seeing rescue only minutes away-- the ending would have been horrific and downbeat-- to add this is the definition of mean-spirited.
Now please do not misunderstand-- I do not mean to insult anybody in any way-- but I just can't understand how anybody could "love" this ending--do people simply not get involved with the characters? Are emotions and empathy completely shut off? Are people so desensitized today that nothing bothers them? I literally cannot watch this movie again-- it upset me that much![/QUOTE]Tragic irony. I guess thats why I loved it.

When he did the deed, I was completely satisfied (as I thought THAT was the ending). I was glad to see a brave controversial ending full of pain and suffering. When the military arrived and their choices/actions proved to be unnecessary, well I thought it was double brave (and horrific).

[jhiggy23]

Sorry guys about my unpopular take on the ending!

[Show spoiler] What I meant about painless isn't necessarily that a shot to the head would be painless, but for the kid, seeing his dad getting ready to shoot him. The other two agreed to it, but the kid did not

I look at the whole movie as one big story about faith, which is why I view the ending the way I do.

[Q?]

Akoris

I was not offended in any way and I could certainly see your concern on the matter.

Jhiggy, your argument is very strong, well said but I still "like" the ending.

[AKORIS]

jhiggy-- your example is one of the things that simply tore my insides out when watching it!

[SquidPuppet]

Originally Posted by jhiggy23

Sorry guys about my unpopular take on the ending!

[Show spoiler] What I meant about painless isn't necessarily that a shot to the head would be painless, but for the kid, seeing his dad getting ready to shoot him. The other two agreed to it, but the kid did not

I look at the whole movie as one big story about faith, which is why I view the ending the way I do.

Dont be sorry. Good discussion. Expand on the faith aspect.

I see it as a loss of faith too. But my perspective is that we are all flawed. We all have some degree of strength and we all have some degree of weakness. I believe that all of us, at some point, given horrific enough circumstances will lose faith, or just plain old give up. Throw in the towel as it were. Maybe I see it too simply, but to me, the group just chose the lesser of two evils.

[Lepidopterous]

Originally Posted by SquidPuppet

He wasnt unstable at the end. It was a group decision and he volunteered to take the short straw.

Originally Posted by Q!

Yes.

The bolded part, it was very much in keeping with the character and his morals, the surprise is definitely a very big bonus, but everybody agreed that whoever did not get to die a mercyful death would suffer a very horrible death, so he volunteered to die in the worst possible way.
That's heroic in my opinion.

Remember nobody knew they were about to be saved, as far as they were concerned, death was inevitable. just a matter of how they would die.

But it's the extremity of the decision that emboldens that specific change in character. Sure nobody saw it coming, but that's precisely why it's flawed. It just does not fit in the movie, which is why it ruined it for me.

[SquidPuppet]

Originally Posted by AKORIS

jhiggy-- your example is one of the things that simply tore my insides out when watching it!

I THINK, but I'm not sure, the director attempted to convey that the boy was shot while sleeping.