Like most people, I was horrified when I heard they were making a prequel to The Thing. John Carpenter's landmark sci-fi horror film was a remake itself, but is so near perfect that the idea of making another feels like sacrilege. I was positively stunned when I finally got to see the film and have adored it ever since. Despite my admiration, the prequel idea still managed to intrigue me. Was there really a story to tell about the Norwegian crew that discovered the alien?
In remote and desolate Antarctica, a "specimen" has been discovered. The specimen, an alien life form, has been frozen under a thick sheet of ice for what is believed to be hundreds of thousands of years old. It is taken to a nearby Norwegian research base for further study, and while the group that inhabit the base celebrate, it breaks free. After a hostile encounter, the group slowly discover that this alien, this titular thing, has the ability to infiltrate a host and imitate its structure near perfect – to the point where they would be unable to tell the difference between the real person, and the thing that is pretending to be them.
Rather miraculously, this new rendition of The Thing maintains the same stellar amount of suspense and dread that plagues Carpenter's film. The film plays its cards carefully, toying with the audience just as much as it does with the characters. Who is really themselves, and who has been transformed? It is a question that the film picks up after a surprisingly lengthy opening set-up, and one that never lets up afterwards. It just keeps packing more on, always maintaining the dreadful atmosphere it sets up for itself. It even manages to throw in a few fairly scary moments, even if the majority is made up of jump scares. While some shots are eerily reminiscent of Carpenter's work, director Matthijs van Heijiningen Jr. manages to make the film feel fresh enough both for those nostalgic for the original and those totally new to the film.
van Heijiningen should also be praised for how effective the film works as a prequel. My initial fears were put to rest after the film started, and I was pleasantly surprised at what I saw on-screen. The film is set in Winter 1982, and you can see the immense amount of painstaking detail put in to make everything appear like they came right out of that exact time period. The film could easily be watched side-by-side with Carpenter's, and it would look like they belonged together. Rather surprisingly, it also adds in a few new tidbits and details Carpenter's did not, making for a few interesting new ideas.
But this manages to also be the film's undoing. On more than one occasion, it paints itself into a corner and forces the storyline to conform to the continuity set in Carpenter's film. It makes for a great many turns that should not be taken, and a few elements which feel like they were simply added just to point out to discerning fans how certain things came to be. It really lessens the effect of the film, and makes it a lesser work than it should be. I like that they decided to make a prequel instead of a remake, but they should not have been hindered by what came before it. I know some changes would not have been forgiven (especially the ending), but I think a small few easily could have been if they were done creatively.
What also could have been done a bit better were the effects. Some are just as astounding as they were in 1982, but others just look silly and overdone. I enjoyed seeing the alien when it was not imitating a human, but van Heijiningen shows it a bit too often. The beauty of Carpenter's film was its makeup effects and how little you actually got to see the monster. Here, it seems like makeup effects come secondary to seeing the alien appear and disappear. It takes away from the mystery of it all, and in some cases, it feels just like any other generic monster/alien movie (albeit, one with a great atmosphere). Much like the overactive need to fulfill continuity, it dampens and lessens the effect it has on the film.
Acting wise, there are sadly no particular standouts. While it was enjoyable seeing Mary Elizabeth Winstead as a strong female lead in the vein of Ellen Ripley, she lacks the charisma and spunk to really carry the film from beginning to end. She has moments of greatness sprinkled throughout, but I do not think she has quite managed to lead a film. Joel Edgerton is great in small doses, but the script never really gives him any moments to shine. He seems like a significantly scaled back version of Kurt Russell's character MacReady, and his appearance and actions do not seem to entertain the idea that he is not trying to be. Much the same goes for Eric Christian Olsen, the only other recognizable actor in the film. He works when he has something to do, but he never seems to get enough.
While there is a lot to like about this prequel to The Thing, there is quite a lot to dislike as well. It is surprising to see all the detail put in to make the film a genuine and faithful predecessor to Carpenter's original masterpiece, but there is a lot done to make the film a lesser picture. It is a really uneven experience, and one that fans may find the ability to appreciate more so than people who have never seen the film it is based off of. It is worth giving it a chance, but just do not expect a lot to come out of it.
7/10.
(An extended review also appeared on http://www.geekspeakmagazine.com).
In remote and desolate Antarctica, a "specimen" has been discovered. The specimen, an alien life form, has been frozen under a thick sheet of ice for what is believed to be hundreds of thousands of years old. It is taken to a nearby Norwegian research base for further study, and while the group that inhabit the base celebrate, it breaks free. After a hostile encounter, the group slowly discover that this alien, this titular thing, has the ability to infiltrate a host and imitate its structure near perfect – to the point where they would be unable to tell the difference between the real person, and the thing that is pretending to be them.
Rather miraculously, this new rendition of The Thing maintains the same stellar amount of suspense and dread that plagues Carpenter's film. The film plays its cards carefully, toying with the audience just as much as it does with the characters. Who is really themselves, and who has been transformed? It is a question that the film picks up after a surprisingly lengthy opening set-up, and one that never lets up afterwards. It just keeps packing more on, always maintaining the dreadful atmosphere it sets up for itself. It even manages to throw in a few fairly scary moments, even if the majority is made up of jump scares. While some shots are eerily reminiscent of Carpenter's work, director Matthijs van Heijiningen Jr. manages to make the film feel fresh enough both for those nostalgic for the original and those totally new to the film.
van Heijiningen should also be praised for how effective the film works as a prequel. My initial fears were put to rest after the film started, and I was pleasantly surprised at what I saw on-screen. The film is set in Winter 1982, and you can see the immense amount of painstaking detail put in to make everything appear like they came right out of that exact time period. The film could easily be watched side-by-side with Carpenter's, and it would look like they belonged together. Rather surprisingly, it also adds in a few new tidbits and details Carpenter's did not, making for a few interesting new ideas.
But this manages to also be the film's undoing. On more than one occasion, it paints itself into a corner and forces the storyline to conform to the continuity set in Carpenter's film. It makes for a great many turns that should not be taken, and a few elements which feel like they were simply added just to point out to discerning fans how certain things came to be. It really lessens the effect of the film, and makes it a lesser work than it should be. I like that they decided to make a prequel instead of a remake, but they should not have been hindered by what came before it. I know some changes would not have been forgiven (especially the ending), but I think a small few easily could have been if they were done creatively.
What also could have been done a bit better were the effects. Some are just as astounding as they were in 1982, but others just look silly and overdone. I enjoyed seeing the alien when it was not imitating a human, but van Heijiningen shows it a bit too often. The beauty of Carpenter's film was its makeup effects and how little you actually got to see the monster. Here, it seems like makeup effects come secondary to seeing the alien appear and disappear. It takes away from the mystery of it all, and in some cases, it feels just like any other generic monster/alien movie (albeit, one with a great atmosphere). Much like the overactive need to fulfill continuity, it dampens and lessens the effect it has on the film.
Acting wise, there are sadly no particular standouts. While it was enjoyable seeing Mary Elizabeth Winstead as a strong female lead in the vein of Ellen Ripley, she lacks the charisma and spunk to really carry the film from beginning to end. She has moments of greatness sprinkled throughout, but I do not think she has quite managed to lead a film. Joel Edgerton is great in small doses, but the script never really gives him any moments to shine. He seems like a significantly scaled back version of Kurt Russell's character MacReady, and his appearance and actions do not seem to entertain the idea that he is not trying to be. Much the same goes for Eric Christian Olsen, the only other recognizable actor in the film. He works when he has something to do, but he never seems to get enough.
While there is a lot to like about this prequel to The Thing, there is quite a lot to dislike as well. It is surprising to see all the detail put in to make the film a genuine and faithful predecessor to Carpenter's original masterpiece, but there is a lot done to make the film a lesser picture. It is a really uneven experience, and one that fans may find the ability to appreciate more so than people who have never seen the film it is based off of. It is worth giving it a chance, but just do not expect a lot to come out of it.
7/10.
(An extended review also appeared on http://www.geekspeakmagazine.com).