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]

Introduction / Quick Review: Hӓxan

A still from Hӓxan (1922)

Ah yes, blog entry number one: it’s like the first day of class, where you nervously introduce yourself to your equally tense classmates, all in the spirit of educational brotherhood. As with most of my class introductions, I’m struggling with what to say. I can debate movies with little difficulty, yet I find it difficult to quickly sum up even the minute details about my major, minor, favorite ice cream, job motivations, what have you. I’ve always been slow to warm up to new things, but once I do, I get it done, so to speak. So in the spirit of this assignment, allow me to introduce myself and with any luck, I’ll be spouting off about the very thing that brought you here to begin with: films!

I’m Billy Goodheart and I’m a senior in my final semester at Rider University in Lawrenceville, New Jersey. I’m studying English with a concentration on writing, with a minor in Film and Media Studies. I think that you’ll find this blog to be a worthwhile read because I can analyze a movie in the abstract sense as well as examine the technical aspects. I’m fascinated with compelling characters and storylines, innuendos, gender roles, and other traits of films that require a little sleuthing in order to fully appreciate. That’s not to say that I’m a snob who despises so-called “shallow” movies; for every Rashomon I also enjoy a Freddy Got Fingered.

That said, I do enjoy films that are off-kilter, that travel away from the beaten path. Case in point: I recently watched Hӓxan, a Swedish silent film from 1922. Created by Benjamin Christensen, Hӓxan – which is Swedish for “the witch” – is a faux-documentary about the history of witchcraft. Split into seven chapters, the film uses a multitude of artwork, vignettes, and special effects that effectively create one of the most atmospheric and interesting films that I’ve ever seen. Each chapter gives a stand-alone lecture or story about witches: one chapter explains the powers of witches while another reveals – with some gruesome close ups – how to tell if someone is a witch.

Upon its release, Hӓxan was banned and censored in many countries, including the United States, which comes as no surprise considering the movie’s hefty helping of demonic imagery, nudity, possession, and torture. Of course, the horror and naughtiness depicted in Hӓxan generally seems pretty tame by today’s standards, but the visuals can still pack a punch ninety years later. I found myself particularly disturbed by the torture scenes involving an allegedly innocent old woman being interrogated by a cruel inquisitor; the close ups of the woman’s face shown in the stark contrast of black and white made her pleas and eventual confessions seem very convincing and real. Also, the set design and costumes are fantastic and recall imagery from such horror masters as H.P. Lovecraft and Edgar Allen Poe, to name but a few. The special effects are quite sophisticated for the time, as Christensen makes use of camera tricks such as playing film backwards and superimposition so that Hӓxan is especially persuasive in the pursuit of credibility.

I enjoyed the movie so much that I immediately purchased a Criterion copy from my job (I work at a record/movie store). Hӓxan is so utterly unique that I believe every student of film should see it. Further, I think a case can be made that the film should be added to the curriculum of one of Rider’s many film classes. Wink wink, Dr. Lucia.