Review: The Thing (2011)

The Thing (2011)
Director: Matthijs van Heijningen Jr.
Starring: Mary Elizabeth Winstead, Joel Edgerton

After ignoring The Thing’s theatrical debut this past October and procrastinating about viewing it as a rental, I finally succumbed to my curiosity over spring break. Being a fan of the 1982 version by John Carpenter, I fully expected to be disappointed by this new incarnation. Lo and behold, my expectations held true: the remake doesn’t hold a candle – let alone a flamethrower – to Carpenter’s version.

            

Directed by Matthijs Van Heijningen Jr. (Red Rain), Thing ‘11 is actually a prequel to the Carpenter version, and therein lies the film’s greatest strength. Fans of the 1982 masterpiece will chuckle quietly to themselves as they notice the little nods to the plot’s source material; it’s obvious that the filmmakers took special care with tiny details so that the events of this version line up with the story established by Carpenter’s version. Corpses fall precisely where they are found in Thing ’82, and it is admittedly quite creepy watching the dog-thing escape near the film’s end, seamlessly transitioning to the superior story of Thing ’82.

            

Additionally, the set-design and lighting are reasonably well done. Much like its predecessor, the interior sets of Thing ’11 are dark and spooky, their darkness broken only by the cold blues and whites of fluorescent lights that mirror the bleak tundra outside. Whether inside the compound or out in the snow, the movie does a good job in maintaining the feeling of utter helplessness established in Thing ’82. As a result, you never believe that the characters are safe, and expect a nasty surprise at every corner.

Unfortunately, the film’s careful focus on mise-en-scene is derailed by the fact that Thing ’11 is a fairly mundane horror-thriller that can’t seem to establish its own identity. Many of Thing ‘82’s story elements, such as the cerebrally terrifying blood test, have been cannibalized and retreaded by Thing ’11. Instead of burning blood with a heated wire, the protagonist Kate Lloyd – played with robotic zeal by Scott Pilgrim’s Mary Elizabeth Winstead – grabs a flashlight and checks each person’s mouth for fillings to determine which person is actually the monster; the logic behind this being that the creature can’t replicate non-organic material. A decent twist, but the tension is destroyed by the absurdity of Kate dutifully checking teeth like a militant dentist searching for rogue cavities rather than hunting for a shape-shifting alien. “So, I’m gonna die because I floss?” asks Finch, a camp resident who’s sarcasm reflects the cartoonish feel of what is supposed to be a pivotal scene.

            

Speaking of Kate Lloyd, I applaud the effort by Thing ‘11’s makers in having a female protagonist who isn’t subjected to a barrage of breast jokes and sex scenes. Kate eventually becomes hell-bent on alien-slaying, and her gusto would make Ellen Ripley beam with pride. Beyond the character’s resolve and sexual neutrality, however, there is little to nothing of value at all; Kate’s dialogue is hardly engaging and Ms. Winstead’s acting is as stiff as a frozen cadaver. In light of the film’s place as a cultural product of the twenty-first century, it seems as though Thing ‘11’s filmmakers failed to create a convincing analogue for the R.J. MacReady character in Thing ’82. Kate Lloyd is an ambitious, intelligent young woman, but Ms. Winstead isn’t convincing in the role. While the MacReady character isn’t exactly Charles Foster Kane, Kurt Russell certainly fits the role well enough to disappear into the character, something that Winstead couldn’t deliver. Granted, the writing was rather abysmal, so it may not have been completely her fault.

            

The creature itself constantly teeters on the edge of acceptability and complete ridicule. The CGI Thing looks like something out of a bad computer game and the fact that it is seen so often and clearly throughout the film is detrimental to its terrifying nature; the main reason why the Carpenter monster is so damned scary was because you hardly ever see it in its true form, and when you do, the disgustingly contorted look of its ever-changing body flash-freezes you into a glacier of terror - and this monster is actually a puppet, mind you. While on the topic of embarrassing CGI, one scene involving the Thing attacking some researchers on a helicopter is especially laughable: as the chopper spins out of control, the CGI model is so awful that it wouldn’t be out of place in a SyFy channel b-movie.

The sub-par CGI of The Thing's (2011) titular monster.

For the gore-hounds, Thing ’11 does deliver a moderate amount of blood and viscera. One scene has a hapless researcher being ripped off of his feet and whisked away under a porch, resulting in an explosive splash of hemoglobin and stomach-turning pain-shrieks. Later, Kate exposes another researcher as an imposter, prompting a revolting transformation from human form into a gaping, incisor-laden mouth with legs. The special attention to exorbitant gross-outs is where Thing ’11 could have succeeded as a semi-passable sci-fi horror flick, but there is too little of these transformations and too much terrible CGI to pull it off.

One can argue that it’s a bit unfair to compare the new Thing to the superior Carpenter version; after all, aren’t remakes meant to be aimed at a new, younger audience? I say that since it is billed and shot as a prequel and not a remake, then comparisons are not only fair, but also necessary. Thing ’11 is an admitted addition to the canon established by Carpenter’s Thing twenty years ago, and it’s a rather poor addition at that.

[Revised on 4/26/12]

Rider Film Symposium: A Reflection

Rider University’s Film Symposium has come and gone, and now I feel that it’s appropriate to reflect upon the discussions that transpired during this superb two-day event. For those readers who are unfamiliar with the Film Symposium, it is an annual film event that requires both faculty and students to come together and show and discuss a variety of films. Each year, the Symposium takes on a different film genre as its central theme. In 2010 – my first experience with the event – horror films like The Exorcist were the main showcase, while 2011 saw the Symposium turn its focus toward independent films, such as Tarnation. This year, the Symposium’s think-tank decided that it would be a nice gesture to honor the Liberal Arts and Sciences department’s 50^th birthday by celebrating the cinematic offerings of 1962.

Like many of my Seminar in Cinema Studies classmates, I personally participated in a panel involving a motley crew of ’62 staples: Cape Fear, The Sword in the Stone, Gypsy, King Kong vs. Godzilla, and of course Dr. No. Being a big Godzilla fan, I naturally presented on King Kong vs. Godzilla. In retrospect, I must say that being a part of a panel is quite exhilarating; I felt that each of my co-panelists had something unique and fascinating to say about their respective movies. As I listened to their presentations, I noticed that we all seemed to automatically acknowledge the 1960s as a milestone of change for not only the world, but in film as well. I find it intriguing that many people, especially of this generation, see the 1960s as synonymous with the idea of great change. With that in mind, each film that was showcased in the panel exhibited some radical shift within the plot or during the creation process. For example, Danielle’s presentation on The Sword and the Stone centered on the film’s animation style and how it reflected the changing ideologies of Walt Disney Productions at the time. Disney’s neglect of The Sword and the Stone’s drafting and coloring not only marked a change for the studio, but also for the rest of the industry, as many competitors imitated the animation style.

The idea of change can also be applied to film critic Dr. Gerald Peary’s keynote address and the subsequent roundtable discussion. An English major at Rider in 1962, Peary explained during his speech his belief that film today has taken a creative nose-dive, and as a result, the current generation does not actively seek out variety in the films that they watch; foreign films are especially neglected by youngsters due to the lack of diversity in America’s movie theaters. Instead of movie dates to current offerings like Michael Bay’s Transformers series, Peary said that it was once hip and “sexy” for young couples to go and see films by directors like François Truffaut. Additionally, Peary said that there are little to no options when it comes to deciding what to see at the local multiplex, since television and internet ads only serve to promote the same dull action films. I tend to agree with a lot of what Dr. Peary said; when it comes to movies (as well as a great many other things), this generation is practically brainwashed by marketing tactics and the movie studios’ vertical integration of theaters.

I think that Peary would agree with Charles Taylor’s assessment of the general public attitude toward film critics. In regard to the masses of amateur film critics on the internet, Taylor says that “not only was film criticism in better shape in the print era, but good work stood a greater chance of making an impact” (1). As a result, Taylor believes that “what a critic actually thinks about the movie is often drowned in the ongoing publicity deluge” (1). I, however, tend to disagree with Taylor; I think that the accessible nature of the internet allows for people to become exposed to films of better quality, especially through the methods of social networking. The problem that I think Taylor, Peary, and I would agree on is the capitalist stranglehold that Hollywood has on movie theaters. If vertical integration could be eliminated today, much like it was in the 1948 Supreme Court case United States vs. Paramount Pictures, Inc., only then could American audiences be treated once again to the wonderful assortment of films that the world has to offer.

So there you have it: the Symposium did its job. Any good discussion will lead one to ponder topics that are too often ignored in this roaring age of speed and demand. It is through events like the Rider University Film Symposium that we can embrace the magic and beauty of motion pictures while also guarding ourselves from the seductive qualities of profit and fluff.