For those of you Bidites that aren't uber nerds I will explain the definition of Midichlorian. In the Star Wars universe, Midichlorian's are chemical compounds found within every living cell that forms the bas between the connection life and the Force. Without midichlorians, life would be imposble. According to Star Wars lore, the amount of midichlorians in a life from represents it's ability to understand, comprehend, and manipulate the Force. What does Midichlorian have to do with the 2011 prequel to John Carpenter's 1982 masterpiece THE THING? It added an unnecessary element to the Star Wars universe that mply wasn't needed.
I won't go into this movie ung the term "review", this is much more of a rant. Was the prequel to JC's THE THING a bad movie? Absolutely 100% not in my humble opinion. I thought the characters were believable, the acting was on par (maybe even above average) and I didn't mind the splicing of CGI with practical effects. Did I want an entire film with nothing but practical effects? Sure I did, but I knew I wouldn't get that film and I thought the use of CGI was well done. They pulled it off without really taking me out of the film. So why then do I mply despise this film? Is it nostalgia for my beloved 1982 masterpiece that I can't get enough of? Was it the lack of Kurt Russel? Was the muc not as good? Was the film awful? I've already stated that it wasn't, so where is the hatred from?
It is mple really, they brought absolutely zero to the table in the 2011 veron. It was almost short of being a remake however we did get a prequel re-telling of the Alien ship that crashed (albeit it brief). Down to the same old tried and true things (pardon the pun) this film took the story that John Carpenter weaved and tried to do it again. It's as if someone tried to reshoot the 1978 Halloween with Michael Myers wearing a different mask. It just wasn't needed. Which brings me back to the "Midichlorian" reference. Look, chances are I wasn't going to love this film in the first place. I understood that fully going in but I was hopeful that we would get a chance to something new, something fresh, maybe even a new mytho that wasn't explored in the 1982 veron. Unfortunately, short of the last 15 minutes of the film, we were treated to the same film only not nearly as well executed.
If you went into this film blind and hadn't seen John Carnpeter's veron I don't think that you'd hate it. It wasn't a terrible film and I would even be so bold as to say it was enjoyable for the most part. I hated it with every fiber of my being because I knew what the film should have been. That is the problem with blurring the lines like they did here. If you're going to blur the lines, then blur them. Don't give us a rehash that is nearly frame for frame, or at the very least so milar to the source material that you keep comparing scenes over and over again.
If you haven't seen the film I would recommend it mply for the fact that it isn't terrible. It's much the same, which is why I personally had a problem with it. The ending of the film when the credits were rolling where by far my favorite part. Partly because it setup the film I so dearly love. Kudos on the effort but the Mona Lisa doesn't need repeating nor does John Carpenter's THE THING.