Why do I always expect more when I see a movie based on a story from Stephen King? There are approximately 50 movies and miniseries that are based on either novels or short stories written by King and, by my count, there are only three of them that should be considered either very good or classics. (The Shining, The Deadzone, and 1408). And yet, I still watch these movies with an air of excitement, hoping that I can experience the same enjoyment that I feel while reading his book, especially his earlier works. But, inevitably, I come away disappointed. Whether this is because his material is not set up to be made into movies, or I'm blind to how bad his books are, or movie companies don't find the right talent to develop the stories, I don't know. However, I do know that the Mist gets lost in its own fog of mediocrity.
I had read the short story when I was younger and thoroughly enjoyed it. Stories dealing with the apocalypse - the end of the world - have always caught my imagination, and `The Mist' is no exception. I have no trouble picturing a world where survivors are holed up in a supermarket, fighting both the monsters outside and each other inside. A movie that follows this kind of storyline would not necessarily succeed on a twisty plot alone to keep the audience engaged, but might have to call on some genuine moments to keep its attention. Horror movies that can achieve this sense of fear and insecurity can overcome a lot of other deficiences like weak character development. However, this movie did the exact opposite, eschewing character development and genuine scares, for an inane plot twist and monsters that would not scare an eight-year-old(Peter Malcomson).