The Thing (2011)
3/4
Starring: Mary Elizabeth Winstead, Joel Edgerton, Eric Christian Olsen, Ulrich Thomsen, Jorgen Langhelle
Rated R for Strong Creature Violence and Gore, Disturbing Images, and Language
In 1982, John Carpenter, who directed the horror classic "Halloween," released his remake of the 1951 chiller "The Thing From Another World" (which in turn was based on the short story "Who Goes There?" by John W. Campbell). I haven't seen the 1951 film, but I have seen Carpenter's version, which is by all accounts wildly different. In 2011, the body-morphing creature returned to the screen.
This version is not a remake. It is a prequel. As everyone who watched Carpenter's gorefest knows, the movie begins with two Norwegians in a helicopter trying to shoot a dog. This film is about what happens before that.
Paleontologist Kate Lloyd (Winstead) is invited by her friend Adam Finch (Olsen) and his boss Dr. Sander Halverson (Thomsen) to come with them to the site of a reportedly amazing discovery. She, along with the Norwegian team, discover an alien ship buried deep under the ice of Antarctica. Close by are the frozen remains of the creature from the ship. What none of them realize is that the creature, which has been buried for 100,000 years, is not dead, and it has the ability to perfectly mimic its prey. Now Kate and the others have to figure out not only how to stay alive, but which of them, if any, is still human.
Apart from the same basic premise and a reference to the most infamous scene from Carpenter's film, the 1982 cult classic and this film are almost entirely different. Carpenter's film was infamous for its gore, but it was built upon suspense. This film is more action oriented. The storylines are also different, sharing little with each other.
The acting is effective, with most of the cast being Norwegian character actors. The exceptions are Mary Elizabeth Winstead, who at the time was famous for playing Bruce Willis's daughter in "Live Free or Die Hard" and the female lead in "Final Destination 3," and Joel Edgerton, an Australian actor making his way into Hollywood (he would star in "Warrior," which made my Top 10 list that year, a few months later). Everyone is effective at their roles, and no one tries to mug the spotlight or do any showboating. That's a good thing because it keeps things on an even playing field.
Carpenter's film was flawed in its own way, and so is this film. For one thing, there are too many characters. While most of them are only present to fill body bags and spray blood all over the place, there are so many that we don't know who is who of the minor characters, which leads to confusion. Also missing is the bleak oppressive feeling that the first one did so well. Carpenter was a master at atmosphere, and the only horror movie that I've seen that matched his film for grimness is "The Descent." While no one is going to describe this as a happy movie (horror movies never are when they are played straight), it doesn't feel as alienating.
Of the two films, Carpenter's version is better. But this one is good enough in its own right that it's worth seeking out.
Starring: Mary Elizabeth Winstead, Joel Edgerton, Eric Christian Olsen, Ulrich Thomsen, Jorgen Langhelle
Rated R for Strong Creature Violence and Gore, Disturbing Images, and Language
In 1982, John Carpenter, who directed the horror classic "Halloween," released his remake of the 1951 chiller "The Thing From Another World" (which in turn was based on the short story "Who Goes There?" by John W. Campbell). I haven't seen the 1951 film, but I have seen Carpenter's version, which is by all accounts wildly different. In 2011, the body-morphing creature returned to the screen.
This version is not a remake. It is a prequel. As everyone who watched Carpenter's gorefest knows, the movie begins with two Norwegians in a helicopter trying to shoot a dog. This film is about what happens before that.
Paleontologist Kate Lloyd (Winstead) is invited by her friend Adam Finch (Olsen) and his boss Dr. Sander Halverson (Thomsen) to come with them to the site of a reportedly amazing discovery. She, along with the Norwegian team, discover an alien ship buried deep under the ice of Antarctica. Close by are the frozen remains of the creature from the ship. What none of them realize is that the creature, which has been buried for 100,000 years, is not dead, and it has the ability to perfectly mimic its prey. Now Kate and the others have to figure out not only how to stay alive, but which of them, if any, is still human.
Apart from the same basic premise and a reference to the most infamous scene from Carpenter's film, the 1982 cult classic and this film are almost entirely different. Carpenter's film was infamous for its gore, but it was built upon suspense. This film is more action oriented. The storylines are also different, sharing little with each other.
The acting is effective, with most of the cast being Norwegian character actors. The exceptions are Mary Elizabeth Winstead, who at the time was famous for playing Bruce Willis's daughter in "Live Free or Die Hard" and the female lead in "Final Destination 3," and Joel Edgerton, an Australian actor making his way into Hollywood (he would star in "Warrior," which made my Top 10 list that year, a few months later). Everyone is effective at their roles, and no one tries to mug the spotlight or do any showboating. That's a good thing because it keeps things on an even playing field.
Carpenter's film was flawed in its own way, and so is this film. For one thing, there are too many characters. While most of them are only present to fill body bags and spray blood all over the place, there are so many that we don't know who is who of the minor characters, which leads to confusion. Also missing is the bleak oppressive feeling that the first one did so well. Carpenter was a master at atmosphere, and the only horror movie that I've seen that matched his film for grimness is "The Descent." While no one is going to describe this as a happy movie (horror movies never are when they are played straight), it doesn't feel as alienating.
Of the two films, Carpenter's version is better. But this one is good enough in its own right that it's worth seeking out.
Comments
Post a Comment