As a long time fan of John Carpenter’s The Thing (at least, long enough to know I was way too young to see that movie for the first time), I approached the new version of The Thing with some trepidation. Sure, Carpenter’s The Thing was already a remake of the 1951 film (which is a decent film in its own right), and at the time of its release did poorly and was not well-received. However, it has since gone on to become a classic of the horror genre because of its creepy special effects, fine acting, and a fear that has nothing to do with the onscreen gore: that one’s friends might no longer be friends, but murderous killing machines just waiting for the perfect moment to strike.
That paranoia is the driving force of the film and what makes it so enduring. But what else makes it successful is that both the 1951 film and the 1982 film are completely different in tone and structure; The Thing in 2011 is so wedded to the 1982 film’s premise, and so faithful to the source material, that while it is technically well-made, it is almost a note for note copy of its predecessor and that lack of originality hurts it quite a bit.
When a Norwegian research station finally tracks down a mysterious signal under the ice in Antarctica, they think they’ve made the find of the century: a spaceship over 100,000 years old, and the frozen body of its pilot. To dissect the body and find out more, the head of the project, Dr. Sander Halvorsen (Ulrich Thomsen) calls in specialist Kate Lloyd (Mary Elizabeth Winstead) to head up the project. There’s a bit of a culture clash at first, but that soon gives way to an intergalactic clash: the alien body isn’t quite as dead as they originally thought. Searching for the elusive creature, one of the researchers is attacked and half-digested, and Kate makes a horrifying discovery – the alien survives by absorbing its prey and then imitating them exactly. Worse still, the creature is more than capable of splitting into many pieces, making it almost certain that more of the team has already been replaced with a killer duplicate. Already tense, the researchers begin pointing fingers at one another as they try to find out who is who…and if survival is even possible.
As a prequel to John Carpenter’s tale, what happens in the end is all but obvious to those who have seen the earlier movie. Still, it tries to throw in one or two surprises as it tries to explain the events that Kurt Russell and company stumble across (one of them an interesting if somewhat bloodless explanation of the twisted remains that pop up early in the Carpenter film) so that the viewer isn’t shocked by what happens, but by how. By the end, pretty much every iconic image of the camp is in place…and in a sense, that desire to be faithful leads to the very problem with the film. The film not only sets up what is to come in terms of visuals, it also hits the same narrative cues in the 1982 film beat for beat. While wisely not choosing to replicate the now infamous “blood test” scene, there is still a test conducted in a similar, if cruder fashion. The stand-off between people trapped out in the cold and people inside the station is here. The tests being conducted on the first victim are here. Joel Edgerton’s attempts to channel Kurt Russell are here. There are moments (that I won’t spoil) that go to great lengths to be “gotcha!” moments…which would be fantastic, if they weren’t just recreations from the Carpenter film. Don’t get me wrong, there’s enough different to tell the two films apart, but with so much unexplored terrain to cover, to fall back on what came before…and what was already done so well…seems like just a little too much of an homage. Why make the prequel at all, if the film is merely ripping off everything that made the 1982 remake so memorable?
The other shame is what has become a staple of today’s movie-making: the CG. While the monsters are well-designed (and capable of much more movement than could be accomplished in 1982), they are so obviously CG means the visceral impact of the Thing creature is lessened. Sure, nowadays we don’t have to cut away from an actor to show him suddenly burst into a mass of tentacles and teeth (or tentacles with teeth), but the lack of something tangible makes watching a human being transform into something straight out of a nightmare less frightening. If you’ve never seen it, go and compare the two films head to head; maybe you can see the strings, or shake your head in amusement at one or two of the puppets, but don’t tell me that those effects, with their dripping slime and exploding viscera, can’t compare with the CG of today in terms of sheer ick factor. Sure, the CG might not look bad, but it’s just less…impressive. No amount of CG drool can compare to the real thing.
Mary Elizabeth Winstead in The Thing. Photo by Kerry Hayes.
© 2011 Universal Studios. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
For all its faults, though, The Thing is not an incompetent film. While it may not take risks and relies too much on CG for its blood spatter and squirming tentacles, it still does an effective job of conveying the suspense and atmosphere of the Antarctic. While it can be seen coming a mile away, there is still a great sense of trepidation when Kate becomes aware that she is alone with one of the Things, and director Matthijs van Heijningen Jr. keeps a good pace throughout. The tension between the Norwegians and the American scientists is actually elevated above the original thanks to the cultural differences, which makes one of the standoffs particularly fun to watch. And even as things start getting out of hand (pun intended), the cast keeps things relatively subdued; even Eric Christian Olsen, normally used to playing broad comedy roles, restrains himself admirably, and humor is used sparingly to keep things from getting too dark. And even if the CG monsters aren’t quite as grotesque as their practical effect counterparts, they are still inventive enough to make the average audience member squirm.
Overall? Compared to a lot of stuff I’ve sat through this year, The Thing is not bad, not bad at all. Compared to John Carpenter’s remake, it suffers tremendously, not so much from what it is as to what it could’ve been; instead of a fresh take on the monster and the havoc it wreaks on an even less prepared research team, what we get is closer to a remake disguised as a prequel, only with less potent effects. In other words, to all the fans of the 1982 movie, this isn’t Carpenter…it’s imitation.
Seth Paul
Latest posts by Seth Paul (see all)
- Box Office Weekend: Eight Figure Box Office for Magnificent Seven - September 26, 2016
- Box Office Weekend: Sully Rides High for Second Week - September 19, 2016
- Box Office Weekend: Sully Lands On Target - September 12, 2016
