The Mist (2007)
Directed: Frank Darabont / Cast: Thomas Jane, Marcia Gay-Harden, Toby Jones

Apa yang akan Anda lakukan, bila Anda terjebak di suatu tempat, sementara ada sesuatu di luar nalar manusia, yang siap menghabisi Anda, jika Anda berani keluar? Itulah yang dialami oleh David Drayton (Jane), beserta puluhan orang lainnya, yang terkurung di dalam supermarket, saat kabut tebal misterius menyelimuti seluruh kota.

David dan putranya Bill pergi ke supermarket pagi itu, untuk membeli perlengkapan dan persediaan makanan, jikalau badai besar datang lagi, seperti malam sebelumnya. David pun turut mengajak tetangganya, Tuan Norton, seorang pengacara temperamental. Di supermarket, mereka malah tak bisa keluar ketika kabut datang. Bukan sekedar kabut biasa, namun ada berbagai jenis spesies monster mematikan, yang siap memangsa siapapun, tanpa pandang bulu.

The Mist adalah film yang diangkat dari karya Stephen King, maestro cerita horror mencekam. Karya King tersebut diangkat ke pita seluloid oleh Frank Darabont. Darabont sendiri sudah pernah menggarap film yang juga didasarkan dari buah tangan King, yaitu The Shawsank Redemption, dan The Green Mile. Kedua film tersebut mendapat banyak pujian, bahkan masuk nominasi Best Picture di ajang Academy Award 1994 dan 1999. Darabont juga dikenal setia dalam mengangkat kisah-kisah rekaan King. Oleh karena itulah, di tangan Darabont, karya King bisa dibilang ‘aman’.

Akan tetapi yang menjadi pertanyaan sekarang adalah premis kisah The Mist itu sendiri. Bagi yang belum pernah membaca karya King yang satu ini, mungkin akan timbul pertanyaan: King menulis kisah tentang monster? Padahal King terkenal dengan cerita horror-thriller psikologis, atau setidaknya drama yang mencekam. Wajar saja bila kita berpikir demikian, karena bila kita berbicara tentang film monster, mungkin yang terbayang adalah film dengan kisah absurd tentang survival, yang penuh jeritan, kematian, dan tentu saja makhluk mengerikan berukuran jumbo. Lihat saja film-film macam Cloverfield, Godzilla, atau Eight Legged Freak. Film-film yang menghibur memang, namun absurd. Terlebih, di zaman seperti ini, rasanya keberadaan monster sulit diterima oleh akal sehat kita. Lalu, apakah The Mist juga merupakan film monster konvensional, seperti film-film di atas?

Jawabannya ya dan tidak. Ya, karena film ini juga menawarkan kisah tentang survival, dengan jeritan, kematian, darah, serta kemunculan makhluk besar mengerikan. Akan tetapi, semua itu bukanlah komoditi utama yang ingin disampaikan oleh King –juga Darabont. Ada tema lain yang hendak mereka tuturkan pada kita semua.

Perlu kita ingat bahwa kita sedang membicarakan film yang diangkat dari tulisan King. King pasti takkan mau mempertaruhkan reputasi baiknya, dengan menghasilkan sebuah karya picisan dan klise tentang monster. Bagaimana pun juga, karya King syarat dengan tema psikologis manusia. Unsur psikologis pun terdapat di film ini. King dan Darabont menempatkan puluhan orang dengan ego masing-masing, di satu tempat, dan di bawah rasa takut yang luar biasa.

Dengan demikian, The Mist tak sekedar menjadi film tentang survival belaka. Terdapat kekayaan emosi di dalamnya. Rasa takut, frustasi, hingga egoisme yang tinggi. Terjadi perbenturan ego, juga kepentingan masing-masing individu, yang ingin selamat dan tetap hidup. Kemudian, di bawah kondisi mencekam, muncul pula beragam reaksi. Ada yang panik, ada yang putus asa, ada yang pasrah, ada pula yang tetap berpikir jernih dan berani mengambil resiko, demi mempertahankan hidup. King dan Darabont menarik habis seluruh kualitas – juga keburukan – terbesar dari tiap manusia, ketika hidup mereka berada dalam bahaya.

Mereka juga mempertanyakan hakikat dari kodrat manusia sebagai makhluk sosial. Apakah rasa kemanusiaan masih tetap ada, jika nyawa ini terancam? Ataukah manusia akan berubah menjadi makhluk-makhluk primitif dan jahiliyah, yang tidak peduli dengan keselamatan orang lain, asalkan mereka sendiri bisa selamat? Nilai-nilai kemanusiaan tersebut dipaparkan lewat adegan perdebatan yang membuat hati miris. Egoisme bisa membuat manusia lebih mengerikan daripada binatang buas.

Dalam segi akting, performa para aktornya pun termasuk mumpuni. Saya bukan fans Thomas Jane, tapi saya menyukai aktingnya di film ini. Ia terlihat natural memerankan sosok seorang ayah, sekaligus ‘pahlawan’ yang menjadi andalan, tanpa harus mengenakan kaos hitam bergambar tengkorak, sambil menenteng senapan besar. Putranya Bill, adalah alasan utama baginya untuk tetap bertahan hidup. Pemeran Bill pun tampil meyakinkan. Meskipun laki-laki, ia tetaplah seorang anak kecil, yang membutuhkan sang ayah di sampingnya di kala takut. Toby Jones dan Frances Strenhagen juga berhasil berperan sebagai tokoh ‘lemah’, yang diluar dugaan dapat menunjukkan potensi diri mereka.

Akan tetapi, adalah Marcia Gay-Harden yang bermain paling cemerlang. Aktris nominasi Oscar ini berperan sebagai Mrs. Carmondy, salah satu pengunjung yang terjebak di supermarket. Mrs. Carmondy adalah seorang penganut agama yang fanatik. Ia adalah sosok fanatis, paranoid, sekaligus superstitious, hingga membuatnya seperti wanita setengah gila. Mrs. Carmondy pun pada akhirnya berubah menjadi figur false prophet yang justru membawa mudarat dan malapetaka, di tengah kondisi serba rikuh. Tokoh Mrs. Carmondy dihadirkan King bukan untuk ‘menceramahi’ audiens dengan dalil-dalil Tuhan, atau doktrin suatu agama. Sadar tak sadar, keimanan seseorang akan diuji oleh Tuhan saat berada dalam kondisi penuh tekanan. Mereka yang beriman pada Tuhan secara tulus, ikhlas dan hanya menginginkan ridho-nya, niscaya akan melewati ujian itu dengan baik. Sementara mereka yang ‘beriman’ karena kefanatisan mereka, atau karena takut mati, hanya akan terpuruk sebagai manusia-manusia yang paling buruk di muka Bumi ini. Mungkin, itulah kiranya yang ingin King sampaikan lewat sosok Mrs. Carmondy (juga para ‘pengikut’ dadakan Mrs. Carmondy lainnya).

Secara bertahap, Mrs. Carmondy menciptakan rasa benci di hati kita semua, para audiens, lewat sikapnya yang merasa paling suci di antara semua. Klimaksnya, Mrs. Carmondy mengambil langkah sumbang, yang akan membuat kita muak setengah mati. Namun, seperti di kisah King lainnya, setiap tokoh akan menerima karmanya masing-masing. King adalah crowd-pleaser yang menghadirkan balasan setimpal bagi para tokohnya, terutama tokoh antagonis / antagonistis.

Visualisasi monster-monster besar tak banyak diperlihatkan. Hanya monster-monster kecil yang secara konstan terlihat menyerang. Dengan demikian, kehadiran monster bukan merupakan fokus utama film ini. Sosok monster seolah-olah ‘hanya’ ditempatkan sebagai ‘ancaman’ nyata bagi para survivor. Ketegangan yang sama mungkin tetap dapat dibangun, bila para monster diganti dengan sepuluh pembunuh psikopatis, yang mengepung supermarket, bersembunyi di balik kabut, dan siap membunuh siapa saja yang keluar dari supermarket tersebut. Dengan demikian, The Mist yang semula berdiri sebagai film tentang monster, bertransformasi menjadi film drama-thriller-psikologis, yang menyajikan ‘perang urat syaraf’ di antara para survivor, sebagai fokus dan konsumsi utamanya.

Dan film ini pun berakhir melalui sebuah adegan twist ironis, yang menyesakkan dada. Di akhir kisah, King dan Darabont seolah ingin menyampaikan pesan terakhir mereka: bahwa usaha dan perjuangan keras hanya akan sia-sia, bila manusia akhirnya terperangkap dalam keputus-asaan. Sebuah pesan yang menohok, dan pastinya takkan dilupakan oleh kita semua.

…because apparently the movie blows.  What a fast fall — just a year ago, I asked a script guru what the best script around was.  He gave me Law-Abiding Citizen.  I didn’t quite understand why this was such a hot script, and apparently neither does America’s critics.  Current rottentomatoes score?  15%!  Quoted from RT: Unnecessarily violent and unflinchingly absurd, Law Abiding Citizen is plagued by subpar acting and a story that defies reason. Ouch.

I’d go on about how I was right when I called the script a problematic mess, but then I’d just be quoting myself, and that’s rather uncouth.  Instead, you can just read my notes.

Oh, and I still contend that Aaron Eckhart would’ve been much better in Butler’s role.

David Drayton puts the finishing touches on what looks like a poster for Stephen King’s Dark Tower series.  The lights flicker off, on, then off.  It is dark, windy, and lightning flashes above the mountains.  The Mist.  The camera pulls back slowly, revealing the backs of David, his wife, and a little boy staring out a large window.  Lightning flashes illuminating the ominous reflection of Steff Drayton.  The storm rages, a tree crashes through the upstairs window, destroying David’s work.

The opening of Frank Darabont’s The Mist is brisk, skillful, and intelligent.  The mist seeps over the mountains in the near distance.  There is a moment of wonder and curiosity, but ultimately, it is only mist.  David, played with restrained confidence by Thomas Jane, nervously approaches his neighbor, high powered lawyer Brent (Andre Braugher).  Quickly resolving their dispute involving a tree and a boathouse, David, Brent, and little Billy head to town for some supplies.

Darabont: uncredited Dream Master

In case you are not familiar with Frank Darabont, please allow for a moment of introduction.  As a screenwriter, he is responsible for A Nightmare on Elm Street 3: Dream Warriors, The Blob, The Fly II, and Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein.  Only Dream Warriors, in the hands of  director Chuck Russell, is worthy of note here.   As a director of other’s writing, Darabont brought us Tim Matheson and Jennifer Jason Leigh in the truly horrifying Buried Alive, but he also bored us with the Michael Sloane scripted, Jim Carey vehicle The Majestic.  But in total control, and with Stephen King’s source material, Darabont is batting a thousand.  With The Mist, and before it  The Shawshank Redemption (1984) and The Green Mile (1999), Darabont proves his ability to translate King to the screen.

And The Mist is classic King.  A large group of characters trapped in an isolated, yet functional location, must find a way to work together to overcome increasingly threatening danger.  Like The Stand, Needful Things, The Storm of the Century, and the Langoliers, the biggest threat is always the people themselves; and with the The Mist it is no different.

Two early scenes set the stage for the battle that is ahead.  A local man runs frantically into the grocery store bleeding and disoriented.  He is screaming, “there’s something in the mist!”  Momets later, David heads to the loading doc for some blankets.  While inspecting the smoking generator, he hears strange sounds beyond the metal dock doors as something pushes against them.  He enlists a few willing volunteers who proceed, against David’s adamant, angry protests, to open the door in order to unclog the generator’s exhaust tube. 

"what the hell were those tentacles even attached to?"

Darabont’s brilliance is in the dialogue.  His characters spend time revealing themselves; during this brief scene, we learn a lot about these men, and after the tragedy inevitably occurs, David directs his anger toward Jim, played by Bill Sadler, when he cries, “You got that kid killed, and I got his fucking blood on me!”  This is a real moment in the midst of a most unreal situation; this is Stephen King’s specialty, and Darabont has mastered the art of the King.

Darabont’s events unfold quickly.  A woman, who left her 8 year old daughter in charge of her newborn for what she thought would only be a few minutes, begs for someone to escort her home through the mist.   She looks in the eyes of men, pleads with them, and is denied over and over.  Finally, in desperation, she heads out, alone, into the mist.  For the audience, it is a sign of things to come.  There are no rules in this movie.  Everyone is at risk, and this makes the impending arrival of the creatures even more arduous. 

The arrival of the creatures unleashes another beast, a beast more deadly than all of the creatures combined.  Mrs. Carmody, the brilliant Marcia Gay Harden (The Dead Girl’s tortured mom), preaches the book of revelations, setting the stage for a battle between religious zeal and rational thought.  And so The Mist transforms itself from classic monster movie to philosophical study of human nature.  And this study, although a bit too preachy at times, is thrilling to watch.  Marcia Gay Harden is shocking in her presence.  When a non-believer offers up a bit of sincerity, Harden’s character retorts, “The day I need a friend like you, I’ll squat myself down and shit one out!”  Darabont’s script plays often with the contradictions of this woman’s beliefs, and the progression of fanaticism culminates with madness and horror.

deadly beautiful

But The Mist is a horror movie in every sense of the word, and the creatures take center stage during the frenetic second act.  They are beautiful, awe inspiring, prehistoric creatures who feed indiscriminately on dog food, ice cream, and flesh.  There is violence in The Mist, integral to the films arc, and Darabont connects us with the brutality.  Each time we lose a character, we feel it.  And on one occasion, the result is so brutal, so painful you will wish you hadn’t.

Ultimately, though, The Mist is the study of the human capacity to maintain hope and it poses the question, at what point is that capacity maxed out? This story is a tragedy, plain and simple, but all of our lives, in the end, are tragic.  With The Mist, Darabont has achieved yet another masterpiece; and with so many King stories still to explore, I hope  there are more to come.

Wiadomo, że z IMDB można się dowiedzieć wielu ciekawych rzeczy… Wczoraj czytałam sobie trivia “Skazanych na Shawshank”. Bardzo zajmująca lektura, ale miejscami jeżyły mi się włosy na głowie. Chodzi o 3 konkretne informacje:

“The role of Andy Dufresne was originally offered to Tom Hanks, who couldn’t accept due to scheduling conflicts with ’Forrest Gump’” (od wczoraj jeszcze bardziej lubię “Forresta Gumpa”!)

“Kevin Costner turned down the role of Andy Dufresne…” (Alleluja!!!) “…a decision he strongly regretted later on” (jakoś się nie dziwię)

i teraz najlepsze:

“Rob Reiner loved Frank Darabont’s script so much that he offered $2.5 million for the rights to the script so he could direct it. Darabont seriously considered Reiner’s offer but ultimately decided that it was his ‘chance to do something really great’ by directing the movie himself. Reiner wanted Harrison Ford and Tom Cruise to play Red and Andy respectively” (O… M… G…!!!)

Hanks, jak to Hanks, poradziłby sobie z rolą na pewno, ale jeśli chodzi o urok osobisty, to do Tima Robbinsa nie ma startu. Costner… no cóż, ma już jeden duet z Morganem Freemanem na koncie i dobrze, że na tym poprzestał Tom Cruise w “Wywiadzie z wampirem” był najbardziej wampirskim wampirem w filmie, ale absolutnie nie potafię go sobie wyobrazić jako Andy’ego. No i Harrison Ford… nie przepadam za gościem, ale mniejsza z tym. Czym byłby film “Skazani na Shawshank” bez Morgana Freemana?? Bez jego spokojnego głosu narratora? Bardzo się cieszę, że te wszystkie pomysły spaliły na panewce.

Podobne wrażenie zrobiła na mnie kiedyś informacja, że pierwotnie w “Powrocie do przyszłości” nie było… Michaela J. Foxa. Marty’ego McFly’a miał zagrać Eric Stoltz. Co więcej, zaczął grać, bo zaczęto nagrywać i dopiero po kilku tygodniach pracy Stoltza wymieniono na Foxa.

Te przykłady skłaniają do zastanowienia się, jaka część filmu zależy od aktorów? Niby decydujące zdanie należy do reżysera, ale czy ”Skazani na Shawshank” bez Robbinsa to byłoby aż tak genialne dzieło? W końcu kilka scen i motywów z filmu sam podsunął reżyserowi. A czy ”Powrót do przyszłości” byłby tak samo porywający i uroczy, gdyby Marty’ego nie zagrał Michael J. Fox z tym swoim głosikiem? Na pewno nie!:)

SINOPSIS:

TAMAÑO: 470 MB
FORMATO: *.rmvb
RESOLUCIÓN: 512×272
CALIDAD: DVDRip
SUBTÍTULOS: Incluidos

http://link-protector.com/650790/
http://link-protector.com/650791/
http://link-protector.com/650792/
http://link-protector.com/650793/
http://link-protector.com/650794/

Stephen King writes about people. He is known for his monsters, but what sets him apart from most genre writers is the way he pens believable human beings. Frank Darabont is the one director that understands King better than anyone: his adaptations are all about King’s characters, he chose some of the most interesting stories in the writer’s canon and made them into his own vision. In The Mist, his storytelling abilities reach a new high, turning a bleak and desparing horror scenario in an ode to hope.

The movie starts by following David, a good man and an artist, whose house has been struck by a fallen tree during a storm. His paintings have been destroyed in the process, but his family is OK. Everything seems calm, apart from a thick mist enveloping everything around him. He goes to town with his son to buy groceries. In the convenience store, a man says something is hiding in the mist. Soon after the people in the store realize something horrible is happening: insect-like monsters, ranging in size from small to gigantic, are taking over the town, hidden in the thick mist. David and his son are stuck in the mall, and everyone is scared to death and unsure of what to do. What they do know is that they don’t want to leave. A woman decides to go out to get her children, regardless of the risks in going out. No one goes with her. She decides to go even if the others seems to hate her for it. She disappears in the mist.  

The conflicting personalities inside the store drive the story. The military know something happened in the night, and we eventually find out that an explosion during a military experiment opened a portal to another dimension: two of them hang themselves, another one is used by the people as a sacrifice to the monsters. Mrs. Carmody, a devout, obesessive Catholic woman, tries to convince the others that they should surrender to the will of God and the creatures; A skeptic lawyer, a frustrated clerk, a caring a strong teacher. Little by little the situation degenerates, and more and more people die as the creatures find breaches in the big store windows. It’s a claustrophobic, tense narrative that seems to have no way out. David and the few people that seem to strive to keep their sanity are cornered by Mrs. Carmody’s followers, growing in number every hour. They decide they have to leave, even if it could mean certain death.

When the group leaves the store, they try and find a safe place, but end up driving around in a desolated, mysterious world completely changed by the new creatures roaming through it. Here, Darabont adopts a very different tone. Gone is the claustrophobia and the nervous tension of the store. The music is almost elegiac, there’s a sense of wonder and amazement at the vision of some of the gigantic creatures, as if the horror of the unknown gives place to the fascination of something we never thought possible. It’s one of the most beautiful and original tribute to nature seen in a long time, a great way to pay homage to Lovecraft’s cosmic pessimism by finding what makes it magic and beautiful. The new tone of the movie puts in perspective some of the previous scene. During the first break in of the flying monsters, Mrs. Carmody, majestically played by Marcia Gay Harden, survives certain death by not fighting with one of the monsters. We realize that these creatures are just like us, and can feel fear and react to it more than anything else. 

David finds his wife’s corpse, he sees his house destroyed. The five escapees in the car end up with no gas, in the middle of nowhere. They have a gun, and the first solution that crosses their mind is the most radical: looking around, chocked by the mist, no safe haven in sight, they decide to end their lives. But there are only four bullets for five people. David, our hero, decides to sacrifice himself. He kills the others, his sleeping child first. He finds himself alone in the mist, crying, in search of a way to end his own life. And just an instant later, a truck passes him by. It’s a group of survivors and militaries, going forward in the mist, fighting for a way to keep on going. We recognize a familiar face between the survivors: the woman that first left the convenience store. She’s with her children, alive and fighting. David is desperate, and the film ends. 

It’s a bleak ending, in a way. But it’s also the perfect conclusion for a movie that is ultimately about the same theme as Darabont’s breakthrough movie, The Shawshank Redemption: never stop the fight, keep on hoping and going forward. Darabont’s ending, different from King’s, is an ode to the beauty and the necessity of human will. The only people that achieve something good in the movie are the one with a positive attitude on the situation, fear and violence are always rewarded with more fear and violence. 

It’s one of the most positive movies of the last years, disguised as a bleak and scary horror piece. It’s a great work, one that reminds us of the power of metaphors, horror, fantasy. It’s a guide to how to approach hard times, one of the most relevant movies in recent memory. 

The Mist (IMDB)

The Shawshank Redemption (1994), directed by Frank Darabont, was adapted from ‘Rita Hayworth and the Shawshank Redemption’ – a short story written by Stephen King. It is the tale of two men, Andy Dufresne (Tim Robbins), a successful young banker and Ellis Boyd ‘Red’ Redding (Morgan Freeman) a man given life for a serious crime comitted in his youth. The men first become acquainted in Shawshank prison when Andy is sentenced to serve two life sentences back to back having been found guilty of the murder of his wife and her lover. The film is essentially about the triumph of hope in a prison where hope, according to Red “can drive a man insane”.

Tim Robbins is convincing as the slightly arrogant and determined Dufresne. Unlike most of the prison inmates who have become “institutionalised” – totally reliant on the prison system, Dufrsne retains a rebellious streak that remains intact and defiant even after repeated rape by inmates and punnishments doled out by barbarous prison guards. The development of Dufresne’s character from the cold, immovable “tall drink of water with the silver spoon in his mouth” to the man utterly committed to providing education for inmates is touching. Robbins is able to convey the humbling and humiliating effects of long-term incarceration as well as the defiance of a man who will not be beaten by the system.

Freeman gives a stellar-performance as ‘Red’ the “guy who can get you anything”. He is mesmirising on screen as he brings both depth and sincerity to his role. The most poignant moment in the film is when he has his third and final parole review. It is clear that after forty years in prison he has completely lost interest in gaining his freedom “you go ahead and stamp your form sonny because quite frankly I don’t give a shit”. His short monologue underlines the absurdity of the justice system: the notion that a prisoner can be rehabilitated after a lifelong sentence. The interaction between Dufresne and Red is also very moving. Freeman as Red is able to display a deep affection for Dufresne without seeming at all slushy or sentimental.

Darabont is a craftsman of classic cinema: he weaves the story with an assurance that leads to a perfectly rounded conclusion. The villains get their come-uppance and Red and Dufresne live happily ever after.

Da er vi inne i topp 3. Inne på pallen. Inne på bronseplassen, hvis det hadde vært en olympisk øvelse, eller verdensmesterskap eller noe sånn. Det er det ikke. Det er kun en liste over yndlingsfilmene mine. Men det er fint nok det, vi trenger ingen medaljer for å kose oss. 3. plass på listen er

The Shawshank Redemption (1994)

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0111161/

Regi: Frank Darabont

Manus: Frank Darabont, basert på novelle av Stephen King.

Med: Tim Robbins, Morgan Freeman, Bob Gunton, William Sadler og Clancy Brown.

Spilletid: 142 min

Frank Darabont er en ganske flink regissør som kun har laget 4 spillefilmer. The Shawshank Redemption er den klart beste, men i likhet med den er to av de andre filmene hans adapsjoner av Stephen King-bøker. Den veldig gode The Green Mile og The Mist (som jeg ikke har sett). I tillegg står han bak The Majestic, med Jim Carrey i hovedrollen.

Morgan Freeman ble jo presentert i forrige innlegg, om Se7en. Tim Robbins er en av mine yndlingsskuespillere, og utenom denne, spiller han i Mystic River, The Player og Jacob’s Ladder. De andre skuespillerne er mindre kjente navn, som dukker opp med jevne mellomrom i tv-serier og mindre roller i filmer.

Andy Dufresne (Robbins) blir dømt til fengsel på livstid for drapet på kona og elskeren hennes, til tross for alle sine påstander om å være uskyldig. Han blir sendt til Shawshank fengsel i 1947. Der har han naturlig nok store problemer med å finne seg til rette, med en knallhard bestyrer (Gunton) som gjør livet hans vanskelig. Men så treffer han Red (Freeman), en annen innsatt. Red blir veien hans inn, og etter hvert klarer han å oppnå respekt av både innsatte og voktere. Men Andy har større planer.

Det er sjelden du får se en film som så bra som denne. Trist, inspirerende, spennende, den har det meste. Når jeg var yngre hadde jeg det inntrykket at sjangeren drama, det var kun kjedelige filmer, sånne som de viste på onsdagskvelden på TVNorge. The Shawshank Redemption var filmen som endret det for meg. Rett og slett en veldig veldig god historie, all ære til Stephen King for den. Det er også deilig med filmer som denne, der du har så mye empati for karakterene at du syns det er skikkelig fælt når dårlige ting skjer for dem, og du får lyst til å juble når det endelig går deres vei et øyeblikk. En av yndlingsscenene mine i filmen er når Andy benytter en mulighet til å låse seg inne på bestyrerens kontor for å spille Mozart over høyttaleranlegget:

Skuespillet er helt perfekt. Det er ingen jeg ville byttet ut i denne filmen. Alle passer så godt til rollene sine, og du glemmer helt ut at de faktisk spiller til tider. De får jo selvfølgelig hjelp av manuset, som er veldig fint skrevet. Mange gode dialoger, spesielt mellom Andy og Red. Det er også ganske betryggende å ha fortellerstemmen til Morgan Freeman over det hele. Det har jo blitt en slags standard å måle seg opp mot etter hvert.

Den er filmet veldig elegant, på den måten at du ikke merker mye til det. Ikke så mange flashy effekter her, men absolutt effektiv filmskaping. Som vi så i eksempelet over, mange fine kjøringer. Også veldig bra musikk gjennom hele filmen.

Jeg vet ikke helt hva mer jeg skal si. Er vanskelig å beskrive de gullkornene av noen scener som befinner seg i denne filmen. Er en av de filmene som jeg sitter igjen med best følelse i kroppen etter å ha sett. Den ble nominert til 7 Oscar, i kategoriene Beste film, Beste mannlige hovedrolle, Beste klipp, Beste kinematografi, Beste originalmusikk, Beste lyd og Beste manus basert på annet materiale. Den vant dessverre ingen, men det var et godt år. Den tapte til henholdsvis Forrest Gump, Forrest Gump, Forrest Gump, Legends of the Fall, The Lion King, Speed, Forrest Gump. Av dem er det egentlig bare Beste film jeg absolutt ville gitt til The Shawshank Redemption.

På IMDb har The Shawshank Redemption blitt stemt fram til den æren å ligge øverst på top 250, i hvertfall for øyeblikket. 9.2/10 med 382 770 stemmer plasserer den komfortabelt på topp, og nesten 60% av stemmene er 10/10, min inkludert, såklart. Se traileren nedenfor, og uansett hvem du er, vil jeg faktisk anbefale denne filmen på det sterkeste. Alle burde se den.

Har du sett den? Legg gjerne igjen din mening om den i en kommentar.

Plot: Andy Dufresne is imprisoned for life after being wrongly accused of murdering his wife and her lover and he is sent to the prison of Shawshank, where he bonds with a fellow inmate and they discover redemption and hope through their friendship.

Review by Will Chadwick: I don’t think I have seen or will ever see a film again that is better than The Shawshank Redemption, it is a masterpiece of modern cinema, a film so great that it defies any other film that has ever been made. It launched the career of writer/director Frank Darabont into a world of proper, professional filmmaking, who before then had only scribed sequels to horror franchises like the Nightmare on Elm Street, The Fly and the remake of the Blob. It constantly has been an audience favourite, featuring in the top ten of film polls such Empire’s 201 & 500 Greatest Films of All Time, Total Film’s 100 Greatest Films Ever, IMDb’s Top 250 and so on. And yet on release it bombed atrociously, despite an array of 7 Oscar Nominations including Best Picture, but through word of mouth it soon became the top selling DVD rental.

Everything about the film is perfect. The acting from all of the cast is exceptional, especially Morgan Freeman as Red, the crook who befriends Dufresne, who manages to provide two great performances in his physical presence as well as his voice over, which has hasn’t been better. Tim Robbins is also amazing as Dufrense, the prisoner who manages to over come his incarceration but goes through times of hard in the prison and displays all the emotions with great ease. The supporting cast of James Whitmore (Brooks), William Sadler (Haywood) and Clancy Brown (Hadley) provide some great support for Freeman and Robbins. But the most underrated and forgotten performance is that of Bob Gunton as Norton, who plays the Warden of Shawshank with a very distinct evil which is different to anything we have ever seen before on screen for a villain. Also what is presented brilliantly in his character is the overhanging presence of Richard Nixon, Gunton clearly channels Nixon in his performance, down to the way he holds himself, the way he smiles and even the way he talks, it is an underrated and very good performance.

The stand out aspect for me in the film is the screenplay, it is one of the best screenplays that has ever been written. Not just for the way Frank Darabont unravels the plot or the brilliant naturalism of the character’s dialogue or the beautiful, personal voice over but it is how he makes the film have political and religious overtones. Obviously there is the whole Nixon thing, the film’s time scale from 1947 – 1968 is identical to Nixon’s political career from becoming a representative for the White House in 1947 to him becoming President in 1968. This is much clearer in the source material, written by Stephen King. King who is mainly known for his horror writing, is also known for having a political edge to his work. In the novel Rita Hayworth and Shawshank Redemption the time scale echoes Nixon’s political work completely being from 1947 his role as a representative to him resigning from the Presidency in 1974. There are the obvious religious aspects of the film, the theme of redemption and the very obvious idea of the strong religion of the Warden and the whole idea of Andy’s escape as a rebirth or a baptism. All of that is there but it is there to discover for yourself, Darabont never ever shoves it down your throat.

For a debut feature it is really well directed by Darabont, his strong feeling for character and plot development shows strongly as we see the ever changing aspects of the prisoner’s lives, and how he never reveals any of the plot’s twist before it happens and when we find out how Andy escaped from Shawshank it is a truly brilliant moment. The work of director of photography: Roger Deakins is also to be applauded as he uses the lighting and the camera in such a stylish and effective way, a lot of it is low key lighting in the prison giving a slightly noirish feel to film and his work on that film remains solid. It also has beautiful art direction by Terence Marsh, the interiors of the prison look realistic and cold despite them being built on sound stages. Also don’t miss out on Thomas Newman’s wonderful score much of which has been stolen from after this film.

The Shawshank Redemption constantly reminds us about what makes a film great, you don’t need big explosions, famous faces or expostionary dialogue. All you need is a great fimmaker, a great cast and some great collaborators to make a film that has got as much recognition as this film has.

Verdict
Great writing, great directing, great acting, beautiful cinematography, stunning set design, a terrific score. Basically this is the greatest film ever made. Try and convince me otherwise.

Il m’a toujours été difficile d’aborder une adaptation de livre au cinéma et notamment d’un Stephen King, que j’ai beaucoup lu dans le passé. La raison est classique : le livre permet à chacun de visualiser l’oeuvre à travers ses propres références et par conséquence un film ne pourra jamais refléter la perception de l’ensemble des lecteurs d’où le côté casse-gueule de la chose, renforcé par les contraintes en matière d’effets spéciaux pour un oeuvre fantastique.

Mais dans le cas de The mist, il se trouve que je ne l’avais pas lu, d’où une absence d’a priori en dehors de ma profonde sympathie pour monsieur King. Comme la plupart de ses histoire, elle se déroule dans une petite ville typique des Etats-Unis avec sa cohorte de personnages locaux (la vieille institutrice , la bigote de service, des rednecks…). Le réalisateur, Frank Darabont, avait déjà adapté plusieurs livres de Stephen King dont notamment La ligne verte.

The mist nous parle de la peur et des réactions de l’être humain face à celle-ci. Il nous parle aussi de la foi au sens noble du terme mais également des perversions qu’elle entraine notamment chez ceux qui se targuent d’être ses plus fidèles représentants. Ce film nous renvoie finalement à nous-même et à notre rapport à l’autre. Même si dans la forme, il y a quelques imperfections (notamment certains passages faisant très téléfilm), on ne peut qu’être interpellé par les questions que ce film soulève et remué de l’intérieur par la noirceur de son propos.

عنوان اثر : مه

کارگردان : فرانک دارابونت

نویسندگان : فرانک دارابونت ( فیلمنامه )

استیون کینگ ( رمان )

بازیگران : توماس جین – مارسیا گی هاردن – توبی جونز- لوری هولدن – ویلیام سدلر

ژانر : درام – وحشت – هیجانی – دلهره – جلوه های ویژه

محصول :  آمریکا 2007

خلاصه داستان :

 دیوید دریتون هنرمند در استودیوی خانگی خود مشغول طراحی برای پوستر فیلم های هالیوود است که ناگهان برق خانه می رود و طوفانی آغاز می شود . وی همسر و بچه خود را به زیرزمین می برد تا از مشکلات پیش بینی نشده در امان باشند . صبح که از خانه بیرون می آیند با خرابی های زیاد اطاف خانه که در روستایی محلی در حوالی نیویورک است مواجه می شوند و مشاهده می کنند که درختی که دیوید در بچگی روی آن بازی می کرده در اتاق کاری وی فرود آمده است . دیوید به همراه همسایه شان که با هم رابطه خوبی ندارند و فرزند خردسال خود بیلی به شهر می روند تا لوازم مورد نیاز خود را تهیه کنند . در شهر به فروشگاهی می روند که مدتها از همین جا خرید می کرده اند و با اکثر کارکنان محلی آنجا دوست هستند . در همین حین صدای آژیر خطر و اعلام وضعیت قرمز از بیرون فروشگاه شنیده می شود و پیرمردی با لب و دهان خونی وارد فروشگاه می شود . فضای فروشگاه آشفته می شود و مه کل اطراف بیرون فروشگاه را فرا می گیرد . پس از مدتی دیوید متوجه می شود که اتفاقاتی در این مه می افتد که غیر قابل باور است و …..

نقد فیلم :

مه ، اثری دیگر از فرانک دارابونت کارگردان آثاری به یاد ماندنی نظیر مسیر سبز و رستگاری شاوشانک است که بار دیگر به همکاری با استیون کینگ نویسنده رمان این آثار پرداخته است . آخرین اثر این کارگردان با استقبال نسبتا خوب مردم مواجه شد اما با موجی از انتقاد از سوی منتقدان هالیوود مواجه شد . عده ای از آنها اعتقاد دارند که کارگردانی نظیر دارابونت که فیلم رستگاری شاوشانک وی در رده دوم برترین فیلمهای سایت آی ام دی بی قرار دارد ، نمی تواند چنین فیلمی ساخته باشد و خیلی ها دیدگاه مثبت به این فیلم دارند . فیلم از آثار دیگر دارابونت کمی فاصله گرفته اما دارای پیام است . اینکه انتخاب داستان برای ساخت فیلم درست بوده یا نه ، بحثی است که در میان منتقدین مطرح است و نتوانسته رضایت آنها را جلب کند .

فیلم یک دنیایی فرای دنیایی که در آن هستیم را ترسیم می کند و شخصیت هایش را در غالب همان فضا می پروراند . از یک فضای باز کم کم به فضایی محدود و بسته تر می رود و کم کم برای ارتباط با تماشاگر و اینکه بیننده خودش را در آن فضا حس کند تلاش می کند . استفاده از واژه ISTM  به جای واژه FOG می تواند سوالی را در ذهن بیننده ایجاد کند که چه تفاوتی میان این دو کلمه وجود دارد که نویسنده از اولی به جای دومی استفاده کرده است . و اینجاست که کلید معمای این اتفاق غیر قابل پیش بینی راهی به سوی یافتن حقیقت به روی انسان باز می کند .

مه ، اما چیزی شبیه مرگ . بخاری که مشخص نیست ماهیتش چیست . بر اثر چه حادثه ای وارد طبیعت شده و حد و مرز آن تا چه شعاعی گسترش یافته است .

تلاش انسان برای رهایی از مرگ و اینکه هر کس به فکر این است که خودش و فقط خودش را نجات دهد . عجز و ناتوانی بشر برای قبول غیر ممکن ها و ماورای دنیای مادی و اینکه بخواهد بداند از چه چیزی فرار می کند و از چه چیزی می ترسد . ترس از اینکه بمیرد بدون اینکه چشمش را کاملا باز کند تا حقایق را ببیند. حقیقت برایش دردناک است و توان مقابله با آن را در خود نمی بیند . به بازیچه ای تبدیل شده که مانند موش آزمایشگاهی مورد سو استفاده قرار گیرد . منتها این دفعه موجود زنده تحت آزمایش موش نیست ، بلکه زندگی انسانی است که خودش را همواره برتر می داند و دست از غرور خود بر نمی دارد . غرور از طرفی و ترس از طرفی دیگر .

دارابونت از ابتدا زیر لفظی سیاسی کار کرده و این بار هم هدف مورد نظرش عوامل نظامی و سیاسی و دانشمندانی که زیر نظر این عوامل کار می کنند تا آنها را به اهدافشان برسانند . اهدافی که آسیب های جبران نشدنی و بسیار مخربی دارد و با جان انسانهای روی زمین به خصوص نسل جدید  بازی می کند . نمی توان به استفاده دارابونت از جلوه های ویژه در کارش ایراد گرفت . مهم هدف کارگردان است و اینکه سوالی در ذهن بیننده در رابطه با اینکه چرا دارابونت و کینگ این داستان را برای ساخت فیلم انتخاب کرده اند . مسیری که در آن قصد اعتراض داشته چقدر هموار بوده و تا چه اندازه به روی تماشاگر تاثیر داشته است .

هر کدام از شخصیت های فیلم به نوبه خود سهمی در رساندن پیام کارگردان و به طور کل پیام فیلم داشتند . خانم کارمودی که مذهبی افراطی بود و هیچکس جز خدا را دوست خود نمی دانست در طول فیلم با دیالوگهایش داستان را روایت می کرد و با جمله هایش بیننده را به تفکر وا می داشت . از این شخصیت برداشت های متفاوت می شود اما در واقع این کاراکتر فقط در یک مسیر حرکت می کند و آن این است که او فرستاده خداست و از اینکه پیش بینی هایش درست از آب در می آید لذت می برد و بیش تر به خود می بالد . راه رفتن روی ذهن عوام و ایجاد ترسی که آنها را از هر حرکتی برای جست و جوی حقیقت باز می دارد . در تک تک کاراکتر های این فیلم عنصر خود خواهی و غرور به وضوح دیده می شود . حتی در قهرمان داستان دیوید  که در میانه فیلم می توان به وجود رابطه بین او و زنی که از بچه اش نگهداری می کند در گذشته پی برد . با وجود اینکه در ابتدای فیلم صمیمیت انکارناشدنی بین او و همسرش دیده می شود . و این خودخواهی باز هم در پایان به سراغ  دیوید می آید و پایانی باور نکردنی رقم می زند .

به نژاد پرستی هم در لایه های نازک فیلم اشاره می شود و دو همسایه از دو رنگ پوست مختلف را کنار همدیگر قرار می دهد و به نتیجه ای تا حدودی قابل قبول می رساند .

نویسنده : احمد مستوفی

این نقد قبلا در وبسایت http://www.movieland.ir سرزمین سینما منتشر شده است

I’ve never actually been kicked in the balls, but in my estimation, last night was the closest I’ll ever get to receiving such an incredible, gut busting shock.

I’m talking of course about The Mist, Frank Darabont’s latest Stephen King adaptation following The Shawshank Redemption and The Green Mile, but his first such foray into King’s expansive horror catalog.  In it, a small Maine town is covered in a mist after a storm, and strange, bloodthirsty creatures come with it.

I don’t like spoiling endings in reviews, but this film leaves such a surprising taste on the

I'm as confused as them about the ending.

pallette when the credits begin rolling, one can’t help but talk about it.  But I’ll leave that for later.

Sadly, the film seems to reduce characters down to caricatures of stereotypes.  Thomas Jane (The Punisher) stars as concerned, heroic dad.  Marcia Gay Harden (who should’ve been nominated for an Oscar) stars as religious nutjob.  Andre Braugher stars as the skeptical, grumpy lawyer. There’s also a red-eyed, concerned woman, a budding teenage romance, an old woman that can hold her own, and a closed-minded redneck.  You get the idea.  Also, there’s really no development.  I guess that’s fine, but I feel like more could’ve been done with the characters, instead of simply throwing them into situations that they have to deal with.

The part of the film I did like was the sense of hopelessness that sets in for the viewer once the mob mentality begins to take hold over the character trapped in a supermarket.  It hits close to home in a post 9/11 world where the ‘threat’ of terrorist attacks seems to be eminent, seeing that once civilization breaks down, people tear each other apart.

The film works as a horror, but not enough for me to call it scary by any stretch.  If you could call this a horror, it is pure and simple a creature feature, with creepy crawlies thrown in to give you chills.  If bugs don’t bother you, you’ll likely be laughing at some of the greusome deaths rather than covering your eyes.

However, the part of the film that will leave you really reeling is the ending.  From here on out there is a

***SPOILER WARNING***

In it, Jane is left driving away from the town with his son, the red-eyed woman, the old lady, and an older man.  They drive until they run out of gas trying to escape the mist.  If they get out of the car, the monsters will eat them.  Oh, you know where this is going. Jane has a gun with four bullets.  Five people.  And yep, he kills them.  Left alone after sparing the others, he goes outside to accept his fate as something’s dinner.  You hear a roar.  And.. a tank with soldiers and flamethrowers drives out of the mist as it clears.

What is the point? Why? Why?? Is Darabont saying that courage goes unrewarded? Are heroes always scorned? Is there a political message? Is the defeatist liberal attitude being mocked here? I have no idea.  Perhaps Darabont just wanted to punch us in the gut, and throw the ending in for shock value.

Whatever the reason, I know I’ll be thinking about this film for awhile, it’s shortcomings aside.

MaxReview: out of 4

ATTENZIONE:
DI SEGUITO VENGONO SVELATI I PARTICOLARI DELLA TRAMA

Allora, questa è la mia opinione su INDIANA JONES E IL REGNO DEL TESCHIO DI CRISTALLO: a distanza di tutti questi anni essere riusciti a fare un film conservando ritmi e atmosfere dei film originali è un MIRACOLO. Spielberg è riuscito dove molti hanno fallito (vedi Lucas con Star Wars). Dobbiamo poi aggiungere che si tratta di un QUARTO episodio! Molte trilogie degli anni Ottanta a cui eravamo abituati, solitamente erano riuscite fino al secondo episodio, mentre già il terzo faceva cagare, nonostante era girato non più di due-tre anni dopo il precedente. Qui invece sono passati vent’anni dall’ultimo Indy! E nonostante ciò abbiamo un film che ha tutte le carte in regola per essere magari non all’altezza de I predatori dell’arca perduta, ma sicuramente per essere un OTTIMO quarto episodio, non so se mi spiego. I personaggi funzionano, il ritmo c’è, non ti annoi mai, godi a vedere un 90% di scene girate senza effetti digitali (dimostrando che si possono fare ancora film così; le uniche scene in CGI sono quelle finale con gli alieni e l’ufo), le battute sono simpatiche etc. etc.
Ovviamente il film ha i suoi difetti. I personaggi non tutti sono all’altezza dei precedenti: di MARCUS, SALLAH, e soprattutto di HENRY JONES SR. si sente decisamente la mancanza. Ma ripeto, è un quarto episodio, e quindi va più che bene. Indy è attorniato comunque da personaggi che riescono ad interagire con lui alla grande, se la cavano, sono simpatici, degni di condividere le sue avventure… insomma vorresti essere lì con loro, e sicuramente questo è un tipo di sensazione che Spielberg ci tiene a comunicare, uno dei motivi per cui un film d’avventura riesce o meno. A differenza di molti, mi è piaciuto il personaggio di MUTT WILLIAMS, secondo me è riuscito. Molti hanno detestato la scena alla Tarzan, ma secondo me è che i tempi sono diversi e quindi siamo tutti più critici. Il film è infatti costellato di trovate che oggi giudichiamo ingenue ma che quindici-vent’anni fa non avremmo avuto problemi ad accettare. Ad esempio la scena della bomba atomica… Ma la verosimiglianza qui DEVE essere sacrificata a favore dell’avventura e del divertimento… E’ un film di Indiana Jones, e Indy se la cava sempre. Spielberg è stato bravo a capire questo e a fare un film in linea coi precedenti. Non convince del tutto il McGuffin della storia; l’arca dell’alleanza e il Graal erano più affascinanti, c’era un che di mistico, vedi le prove che Indy deve affrontare nell’Ultima crociata per salvare il padre… Ma d’altronde ci siamo spostati dagli anni Trenta ai Cinquanta, e Spielberg e Lucas con questo soggetto hanno comunque fatto un furbata (parentesi: Indiana Jones e l’ultima crociata per me è il migliore della serie, con quell’incipit eccezionale in cui il compianto River Phoenix interpretava il giovane Indy). GIUDIZIO: Un ottimo film, Spielberg è sempre Spielberg e sa come fare il suo lavoro. Ma poi, mettetevi nei suoi panni: fai conto di essere uno scrittore, e ti dicono: devi fare un libro in base al tuo stile di vent’anni fa! Ma nel frattempo tu sei cambiato, scrivi in maniera diversa. Spielberg va ammirato solo per questo. E lo stesso vale per Harrison Ford che ha saputo cavarsela alla grande. Insomma, esperimento riuscito.

NOTE: Spielberg, Lucas e Ford al festival di Cannes hanno annunciato che se il film andrà bene non avranno problemi ad andare ancora oltre con la saga… C’è in giro il rumor secondo cui il sequel sarebbe incentrato più su Mutt Williams che su Indy, un po’ come avveniva nell’Ultima crociata dove c’era Sean Connery che faceva il padre. Effettivamente a me questo nome così immediato e incisivo – Mutt Williams – mi ha fatto subito pensare a possibili titoli di futuri film i cui “Indiana Jones e…” potrebbe essere sostituito da “Mutt Williams e…”. Staremo a vedere.