Anyone else not like the supernatural elements in The Green Mile?
 

I was thinking about re-watching The Green Mile again, and I wondered if anyone else agrees with me on this. I really love the movie, but the supernatural element with Coffey's healing power just bothers the heck out of me. I never read the book, so I don't know if it was in the book or not or if it just worked better in the book. In the movie though, it seems really out of place.

For the most part, the movie is a serious drama tale, until the supernatural almost drags it down into sci-fi territory. It would be like watching The Godfather with Michael Corleone doing a Matrix-style dual-pistol slow-motion dive as he guns down Solozzo and the police captain.

Those elements were in the book and, no, they don't bother me. In fact, the story would not make sense without the supernatural elements. Perhaps you should watch The Shawshank Redemption.

I own The Shawshank Redemption too. I like it slightly better just because it has nothing supernatural in it. :lol:

The story could have worked without the supernatural element. The major importance of it was just to show Coffey's innocence. The writer could have written something else non-supernatural to show his innocence. :shrug:

So, supernatural elements = bugs?

Cause I liked the bugs.

And more importantly to show that he is there for a reason.

John Coffey = J.C.

I agree that the movie wouldn't make sense without the supernatural elements. Both the movie and the book (with the supernatural elements intact) make the John Coffey/Jesus Christ connection pretty clear.

I agree, i dont think the movie would work and would not be as good with out the supernatural stuff

Yeah, his healing is a huge part of the film, so I don't mind. Mr. Jingles on the other hand...

indeed.
without it this great movie wouldn't be the same. i don't understand why it bugs you so much?
John Coffey is a man of god thus giving him the supernatural powers.

I don't know. I guess I just don't like completely unrealistic elements in an otherwise realistic movie. I knew about the Jesus Christ allusions, and maybe that is why I don't like the supernatural elements too, since I am not a religious person.

I forgot about Mr. Jingles too. The only "supernatural" thing about him that I can remember is that he is still alive at the end when Paul Edgecomb is an old man. I don't know much about mice, but I am pretty sure they only live a few years at most.

Mr. Jingles lived so long because he was healed by John Coffey. One of the side effects of that is living to an abnormally old age, being nearly immortal. Paul himself is well over 100 at the end of the book.

neither am i. i like realistic movies also more that all that other sci-fi stuff but the supernatural thing didn't bother me.

Hang on, I read the book too and although he healed them both <i>I believe</i> the reason Paul and the mouse lived so long was because John shared/gave some of his power with them. I don't think it had anything to do with the actual healing.

Mouse...accidently when John held the mouse and freaked out over Delacroix's excecution. In the movie John was releasing power during the exectuion as he held the mouse and the mouse ran away afterwards.

Paul...when John had to share his power to show Paul what Wild Bill did to the girls after Wild Bill was killed. Remember John said he had to.


Yes That's it....

I agree, the story needs the supernatural elements... and if you haven't read the book, you REALLY should... the ending is a lot more fleshed out, and a lot more powerful. It left me exhausted and devastated after finishing it.

!!! I never even made the connection that he represented Jesus! Wow!

Yeah, the story would make absolutely no sense without the supernatual elements.

Alright, so he gave them some of his power. One way or the other he's the explanation for the mouse living so long. I just haven't read the book in quite a while and couldn't remember the exact details.

The writer = Stephen King

It is a rare case when he gives us anything straight forward. Four Seasons (featuring Shawshank, Stand By Me and Apt Pupil), Misery, Girl who loved Tom Gordon & The Colorodo Kid, are about it in a 30 year career.

It's actually unusual to expect anything but the unnatural from King.

I'm surprised anyone missed the J.C. connection. I thought it was way more obvious than anything Narnia put on film and that got all kinds of flack when it came out. I guess the wild card is having Tom Hanks in your film.

Lastly, anyone who doesn't know, the movie is actually stuck to the books very well. Probably 95% of what is in the books is on film. Only a few minor things were changed, mostly the bookend aspects, which are better in the books. Probably the second best translation of a King novel next to Shawshank, but Stand By Me and Misery would be close behind on that short list.

I think the movie needed the supernatural elements but also I believe they could have been portrayed a bit more releastically. I think it should have came out of the body with a smoke like appearance as opposed to the bugs.

What a weird post.

Gee ya know, I hate when Stephen King's movies are supernatural...

Kinda like saying, gee I wish baseballl had less sports in it. If you're not religious and you don't like those type of metaphors, then watch another movie. Next you'll be saying you thought that maybe the Passion would have been even better without Jesus in it...