The Thing (2011)
Starring: Mary Elizabeth Winstead, Joel Edgerton, Ulrich Thomsen
Writers: Eric Hesserer, John W. Campbell Jr. (short story)
Director: Matthijs van Heijningen Jr.
Before I get into this, let me explain why I go out to see a movie in theaters like once or twice a year. My girlfriend and I passed on going to see The Thing over the weekend, because we hate the crowds and lack of respect people have for those of us that expect to see the film with little to no annoyances. So, we go on Monday at 1 p.m. There's about ten people other than us in the room, but I guess they all thought the seats we chose to plant our asses in were the best, because damn near every one of them just had to sit in the same vicinity. Anyway, I still figured, eh this will be fine. Other folks that go to a Monday matinee probably do so for the same reason we do.
But no. We get some old bitch in front of us texting during the whole film, some lady on the left of my girlfriend that deemed it necessary to provide a fucking commentary the entire time and some dude behind us scrunching his candy wrapper for, I shit you not, the whole movie. Are you serious? Not much I can do about the candy wrapper guy, and I can actually find the wrapper noise acceptable, but I detest the shit out of talking and texting during a film. It's not cheap to go to a movie anymore, even a matinee. We didn't pay $9 a fucking piece for your lame ass commentary lady, and I don't care to see your bright light cell phone screen every five minutes, bitch in front of me. I used to say something, but that got me in an almost few predicaments I'd rather not be in. Sure, we could have gotten up and relocated, but we shouldn't fucking have to. These rules are explained before the movie starts; “Don't fucking text and keep your damn mouth shut”. Sure, it's put nicely, but maybe that's the problem. I've had friends tell me “You should expect this when you go the first week of a movie's release.” I should? Fuck that, no I shouldn't. What I expect is for people to be considerate and shut up, and that's how it should be. If you have an emergency phone call, that's one thing; if you are back and forth messaging Sally about your plans for the weekend, that shit can wait.
Sorry, but this shit happens every time my lady and I go out to the movies, and people wonder why the fuck we are home bodies. Anyhoo...
Synopsis:
Paleontologist Kate Lloyd travels to Antarctica to join a Norwegian research crew after they find a massive structure buried underneath the ice.
Rant:
I almost passed on doing a review for this, because back in my message board frequenting days the ridicule of liking such a largely hated project annoyed the shit outta me. In the past, I've been called a poseur for enjoying Zack Snyder's Dawn of the Dead. I've have been told that I have no true appreciation for Hooper's Texas Chainsaw Massacre if I managed to enjoy the remake and its prequel. I've gotten a heavy amount of bullshit for liking Alex Aja's The Hills Have Eyes on an equal level to Craven's film. You know what, different strokes for different folks. This doesn't make me less a fan of horror films, opinions vary. I like what I like, whatever.
So anyway, The Thing 2011, from my point of view. Is it amazing? No. Did the film makers lie when they said it would largely consist of practical makeup FX over CGI? Yeah, they kinda fucking did, because there is just as much if not more computer imagery here as there is makeup. Is it truly a prequel? I gotta say I found enough here to not straight up call it a remake, but it's a bit of both. Was it necessary? Hell no. Still, I was entertained for the entire runtime.
Judging the film from a visual standpoint, it's obvious to me that director Matthijs van Heijningen Jr. is just as much a fan of Carpenter's film as anybody, as well as having an appreciation for the Christian Nyby/Howard Hawks The Thing From Another World. There's even props given to John W. Campbell Jr's Who Goes There? story in the title credits. But mostly, this tries to serve as a companion piece to Carpenter's film, all the way down to the text design of the title credits and how the film's name creeps onto the screen --which it also does in the original. Cinematography tries its best to match the 82 film with many shots of endless snowy mountain landscapes. The set design of the Norwegian base seems to have been made with as much care as possible. We only see the Norwegian base in the original from an aftermath of the events point of view; here, we see that it's a very similar setup of the base in Carp's film. Is that lame? I dunno, I have no knowledge on how much this type of shit differs from one another in reality. It looked good to me, and that's all.
Acting is pretty on point from the whole cast. There is a fuckload of people on board here, so it doesn't contain as much character development as I'd like it to, but it was a minor hindrance to me. I guess a lot of people were put off at the thought of having a female lead, as Kurt Russell is pretty much an irreplaceable element of Carp's film, but I didn't see Mary Elizabeth Winstead's character quite like that. I was more in fear of a female being used to give male viewers something sexy to look at. Thankfully, it never goes down that road, which I commend highly since I do think Winstead is hella attractive. As much as I enjoy seeing sex in film, I do appreciate when a movie doesn't resort to sex just for the sake of it. She plays paleontologist, Kate Lloyd, flown in to join a Norwegian scientific team on a recent find once buried deep under the ice of Antarctica. She's never once over the top, whether she's performing to emit fear or if she's trying to take charge. I thought she was a great lead for the film. If anybody is like MacReady, it's Joel Edgerton as Braxton Carter, one of the pilots that flies Kate and a few others to the site. Anyway, I don't wanna get too deep into anybody else, in case anyone plans to see this. Just wanted to say I thought acting was solid.
Alec Gillis and Tom Woodruff Jr. handle the creature effects here. The work is in no way on the epic level of what Rob Bottin created, but they certainly aren't a lamebrain piss upon his designs, either. If anything, they do seem to be in respect to his work. It is visual effects heavy, though. Now, before I receive American History X shower scene treatment for sticking up for computer animation, let me confess that I do prefer practical effects over CGI. I grew up on that shit and makeup took a large role in the deciding factor of why I liked horror films anyway. But I can't say I hate computer animation, and I don't think a lot of it is nearly as bad as it's made out to be. Of course, though, this is just my opinion of it. In The Thing, it's about half 'n half, in terms of quality. A lot of it's used as a mix to give more to the practical FX designs; sometimes it helps, sometimes it kills. I highly enjoyed the ideas behind most of the designs here, ****Spoilers→and I like the fact that we see this monster in a form we never saw previously. I also may be the only person on the planet that wasn't put off by the final 30 minutes of this movie, which details a showdown inside the alien ship. The monster looks fucking awesome, and there were honestly a few scenes where I couldn't tell where CGI was taking over for practical FX. I think the excellent use of lighting for that. Lastly, there's a lot of creature designs here that are made to match some of Bottin's work on an identical level. It's not perfect, but I thought it was pretty fucking good.←Spoilers**** I definitely appreciate the brass balls of the SFX crew for attempting such a task and not making complete asses out of themselves while doing so.
Marco Beltrami tries to match Ennio Morricone's atmosphere with the music score, and it honestly only works when you actually hear the main theme from Carpenter's film. There's mimicry of that slow heartbeat like bass boom throughout the entire film, but every other tone surrounding it doesn't have the same bleak feeling of Morricone's work. As for rock songs, there's use of Men At Work's Who Can it Be Now? used early on, and I thought it was a fairly humorous and witty idea that certainly adheres to the story of the film.
Ultimately, I do not hold this up on the same plain that I do Carpenter's film, I don't think anyone in their right mind could. I'm just saying that I enjoyed it. I'll watch it again, but definitely not on an annual basis like I do the 82 film. Many of the same type events occur here, so there's not a whole hell a lot by way of originality or new elements and that's also why this will be dubbed a premake. I knew this going in, and never really expected too much a difference when the film is set merely a week before Carp's film. Could they have attempted to not make so much of a re-tread? Of course, but it is what it is. I do love the ways it ties itself to the 82 film in the last half. I'd go as far as saying that shit was genius.
