The Thing (2011)

[Plain Old Tele]

Discuss.

[Gazz]

Touted as a prequel to Carpenter's grotesquely terrifying adaption of J.W Campbell's `Who Goes There', Matthijs van Heijningen's The Thing is instead a poorly executed rehash, diluted and stripped of it's predecessors intelligence. Set mere days before the original, The Thing '11 sets out to answer the question as to what had happened to the Norwegian scientist who first discovered the titular creature, frozen deep in the Antarctic wastelands.

It is impossible to critique The Thing '11 without making reference to it's superior predecessor as, rather than exploring new territory or extending the current mythology, the prequel instead rushes through the salient plot points from Carpenter's film, with none of the tension and a focus on action orientated set pieces. However, due to this constant referencing it makes the task of understanding where the film went wrong somewhat easier.

Carpenter's film worked because it relied on character to create a realistic and believable environment (taking a cue from the truckers in space character dynamic in Ridley Scott's Alien). The inhabitants of Outpost 31 appear real and the idea that any one of them could be the creature, waiting for its moment to attack, is terrifying. In contrast Heijningen's crew are a Hollywood bastardisation of the original, with little of the chemistry and no believability. They wait to deliver wooden lines before blending back into the scenery. The addition of a sci-fi typical `Ripley' character serves to only further the distance between the audience and the screen. Ultimately the character dynamic could be discerned from the cast and character list alone.

With believable characters Carpenter was able to intensify tension, drawing on paranoia as they turned suspicious eyes on each other. The inevitable revelation of the monster serves as a punch line to a slow and careful build of tense anticipation. The brief glimpses of this morphing beast would have had little effect without that steady growth. Here the audience is instead thrust into the action with very little build of tension. The few characters suspected to be the creature are quickly revealed so and all paranoia is shrugged off in favour of rushing the audience to the next monster scare.

Gone are the creature's tortured transformations, replaced by fast moving CGI shadows of their former selves. And whereas stealth had previously been the creature's mode of approach, remaining hidden even when moments from being discovered, here a fart in a room is enough to trigger a change. One could have hoped that in assimilating the original film the filmmakers could have absorbed some of the key points that made it a classic of the sci-fi and horror genres.

The Thing '11 is a film that constantly underestimates the intelligence of its audience. Breaking the `show, don't tell' rule of filmmaking, Eric Heisserer's screenplay relies on repetitive dialogue to explain the various narrative developments in any given scene. It's easy to lose count of how many times the creature's method of reproduction (perfectly assimilating its hosts) is explained both on screen and through dialogue. Carpenter's film seldom underestimates the audience, providing exposition through dialogue only when absolutely necessary.

Looking beyond how the prequel compares to Carpenter's horror classic, the filmmakers still fail to establish a consistent character for the titular creature. Instead the monster acts to serve the film. Although it assimilates side characters with ease, displaying many efficient abilities to capture a victim, the filmmakers then have the creature trip over itself to excuse the heroine from being host, thus robbing the film of the little tension and fear it had. Why would any audience fear the capture of the protagonist when the filmmakers continue to make illogical allowances to ensure her survival?

Although there are few positive points to take away from the film, there is a notable attention to detail in the art direction, which perfectly captured the claustrophobic sets of the original. Also the sound design was incredibly effective in recreating and elaborating on the creature's unearthly and terrifying screams. And although the characters are very one-dimensional the cast still attempted to make them work as individuals with the very little they had.

However, of all it's faults it is The Thing's inability to shake off an inherent redundancy that cripples it most. The majority of questions posed about the Norwegian crew had already been answered in Carpenter's film as the very same fate befalls their American counter parts. This is further amplified as the prequel refuses to offer an extension of the mythology to warrant its existence. In offering the same situation, in the same place, with similar people at around the same time, Heijningen and crew appear to have simply forgotten to offer something new.

 

1.5/5

Edited March 5, 2013 by Gazz

[The Stingray]

Decent, half-entertaining, if unnecessary, prequel. Do not expect something resembling John Carpenter's movie in terms of quality and tone. This is a Hollywood happy meal product.

[Gazz]

I don't know if I could consider it anything close to 'decent' but I do agree with your statement that it's simply a happy meal repackaging of Carpenter's film. Watching the film again it really shows that the studio was pushing hard for a remake whilst the creative team wanted a prequel. The result is a film somewhere between the two. Sure it's based before Carpenter's film but it appears limited to trudging through all the same events without capturing his eye or intellect. You may as well just watch Carpenter's The Thing!