Movie Review: The Thing (2011)
A glossy prequel without the atmospheric terror
Photo: Universal Pictures
Universal's The Thing is an odd mixture of a prequel/remake of John Carpenter's 1982 film, which itself was a remake of the 1951 sci-fi feature The Thing from Another World. In many ways, this new film, directed by newcomer Matthijs van Heijningen Jr. and written by 2010's A Nightmare on Elm Street co-writer Eric Heisserer, plays like a bastardized version of Carpenter's film as things tend to play out in very much the same way they did 29 years ago and yet just as each scene is about to be a complete carbon copy it changes course, and not necessarily for the better.
The cast includes Mary Elizabeth Winstead, Joel Edgerton, Eric Christian Olsen and Adewale Akinnuoye-Agabaje. For more information on this film including pictures, trailers and a detailed synopsis choose from the following menu.
Review
"The Thing" is a Universal Pictures release, directed by Matthijs van Heijningen Jr. and is rated R for strong creature violence and gore, disturbing images, and language. The running time is 1 hour 43 minutes.
Van Heijningen Jr. and his production team did their very best to recreate the sets and locations from Carpenter's film and have done so with amazing accuracy. In that sense, the film's coda was one of my favorite pieces of the entire feature as it ties the two films together even if a few continuity errors do sprout up along the way.
This prequel begins as a group of international scientists head to Antarctica to explore an alien ship believed to have crashed and been buried beneath the ice for more than 100,000 years. The find becomes even more intriguing upon the discovery of an alien preserved in the ice, and as anyone that's seen Carpenter's film knows, the alien doesn't stay frozen forever. After it busts free, the shit really hits the fan as this "thing" can absorb and replicate any living creature. Meaning anyone in the camp can be "the thing".
In its transformative phase the creature holds many of the same characteristics as those from the Carpenter film, only they've been amplified and "perfected" with computer graphics. As fake as the effects in Carpenter's 1982 feature looked, the same can be said for the modern era's digital equivalent, but for different reasons.
For me, the difference between a CG creature and a practical puppet is in the way my mind differentiates between the two. The fact a practical puppet is there on set and is a real thing the actors are reacting to, for some reason, registers as more frightening for me. It gives it a sense of reality and existence. Comparatively, the glossy perfection of the CG creature somehow renders it harmless in my eyes, making it something to examine rather than be afraid of.
To the point of practical over CG, the best parts of this film are the moments when the CG creature isn't on screen. Mary Elizabeth Winstead plays a paleontologist who slowly begins to figure out just what the alien is doing when she finds discarded, non-biological pieces of the people the alien is attempting to replicate. For example, when she finds five or so bloody teeth fillings on a bathroom floor and a shower slathered in blood you're talking about one of the more frightening scenes in the film as the implication of what she finds is more frightening than the computer generated end result.
Other moments, such as when Kate's performing an autopsy on the remains of one of the creatures, are equally disturbing because you know she's cutting into something "real". But when I see a two-headed creature created entirely in the computer, running after these characters it's no scarier than the last time I saw a similar creature in the lackluster 2009 PG-13 thriller The Unborn.
All things considered, 2011's The Thing is more of a passing curiosity. It's a mild exploration of events hinted at in Carpenter's original and hopefully a film that will encourage modern day audiences to seek out the far better 1982 feature. The characters here lack in personality and the actors aren't doing much more than going through the motions, fulfilling their character's obligations to the plot rather than taking part in the event.
I didn't dislike this movie as much as I was left unmoved by it. The ending leaves a lot to be desired, but, like I said earlier, the scene that plays during the film's credits will bring a smile to the face of any fan of Carpenter's feature. In fact, watching this prequel urged me to watch Carpenter's The Thing as soon as I got home. If for no other reason, I hope today's moviegoers do the same because there is no harm in finding a way to introduce new audiences to a horror classic.
Links from Other Sites You May Like
Showing 10 Comments
~ PLEASE NOTE ~
If, in any way, your comment is an attack on the author of this post or a previous commenter, your comment will be deleted without question.
Add a New Comment |
Click to Read Our Commenting Rules & Guidelines
First thing I did when I got home was watch the 1982 version as well. Great review and exactly what I had mind; also rated this a C+.
Just rewatched Carpenter's Thing on Netflix. Such a great movie! A really good lean and mean horror flick. I really forgot how gnarly it is!
The review's fine….but calling the exceptional practical effects of the 1982 version " Fake " is an insult…i dare say that even today the transformation scenes in that one look better than most similar CGI visuals…its like saying the creature in Ridley Scott's Alien is a man in a suit…well, of course it is…but its much more than that….
I think the effects in Carpenter's The Thing are phenomenal, that doesn't stop me from thinking they look fake. Are you actually going to say they look real? It's the illusion of reality that's being sold whereas CG is attempting to convince you something IS real and remains why the illusion created by practical effects remain preferable in most every instance.
Hmm, upon discovering what would be the biggest find of mankind, as in proof of alien life, are we to believe that the people who found the mentioned species would go approach a neophyte 24-year old paleontologist over the services of a seasond scientist?
I think the reasoning there is a younger person would be more willing to go with no questions asked in advance and be more willing to take orders.
So, basically the movie has all the same flaws as the Carpenter version? Gotcha.
I didn't like the original film…maybe it's because the effects from the past don't match the ones seen today. But I just didn't feel any "thrill" from it. I may or may not pass on this one, but Winstead sure is enticing.
yea I saw it and I was pretty disappointed. That being said, I saw some behind-the-scenes footage that revealed that they did, in fact, use a lot of practical effects. Unfortunately, the fucking digital effects people went on to layer over any good practical monsters with CGI, creating the overly-shiny pieces of crap you see in it.
I read a lot of stuff about how the director and actors all wanted to create something that fans of the '82 version would like, and that they intended to use practical over CGI whenever possible. This leads me to believe that upon seeing the final product, the actors were probably just as disappointed.
Anyway, despite its obvious flaws, I did enjoy this movie. The scene where the Two-Face Monster
was created was amazing. Very reminiscent of Carpenter's film.
Awesome! It was like an alien entity took over one of my favorite films and turned it into an alien turd from outer space! Terrible, terrible job effects crew! Winstead sure is pretty though…