Forums
Horror Movie Reviews
How Does The New 'The Thing' Stack Up To Carpenter's Vision? (Review)
I suppose there’s not much point diving thoroughly into the details of the plot; if you caught John Carpenter’s 1982 remake of the same title, you know what you’re in store for. The story kicks off at the Norwegian base camp from which the madness launched in Carpenter’s rendition, and thankfully, scribe Eric Heisserer wastes no time getting down to buness; we’re given an up close and personal look at the frozen spacecraft, and within 15 minutes our “surviving” passenger is pulled from the ice. The quick introduction really works quite well, and establishes a pace that runs a bit more frenetic than Carpenter’s take.
Just as you may expect, viewers are treated to some brief character development, however Heisserer only dials in on a handful of gnificant figures as the troupe meanders the camp. Unfortunately, the spotlight is really only cast upon a very, very select few players, leaving an assortment of the ensemble (there are plenty of great actors in tow, might i add) left to melt (literally) into the background. Kate (Mary Elizabeth Winstead), Braxton Carter (Joel Edgerton) and Dr. Sander Halvorson (Ulrich Thomsen) carry the burden of performance, as all eyes are fixed to these three players. Surpringly, it’s Kate who (in effect) plays the “MacReady” role, while Carter serves as the masculine back-up. As for the good Doc… well, he’s the reckless figure eager to see that the thawed beast be claimed by he and the crew, regardless of how much hell is unleashed in the process.
I admire director Matthijs van Heijningen Jr. for the attention to detail invested (you’re going to note some things in this picture that are present in carpenters 29 year old telling, but I’ll spare spoilers and details, and leave it to you Thing freaks to catch the nods), and the breakneck speed at which the film unravels, but I must admit, I was a tad disappointed with the lack of suspense the picture boasts. Don’t minterpret now, there’s some tenon that builds amongst the group, but the extreme paranoia John once brought to the screen is delined in favor of fast shocks and in-your-face action. It was a risky maneuver, altering the general mood of the film, and honestly I can’t say for sure that it did or didn’t pay off; that’s a concluon that must be reached individually, and I’m still so torn I can’t express (or grasp for that matter) my full feelings after a ngle viewing.
.<br /><br />The Thing wins in the sense that it’s a fast, fun film with a few memorable performances, some solid cinematography (that still pales in comparison to Dean Cundey’s work) and a shitload of action. It fails in the sense that it really feels more remake than prequel, despite the already established franchise connections at work. Therein lies one of the film’s largest hurdles; how do you tell a tale that is, essentially already known? The sequencing of today’s Thing serves as a virtual carbon copy to that of John Carpenter’s vion… but what the hell else could have been done to shift the story without destroying any concept of continuity?<br /><br />
http://i51.tinypic.com/2vjwlsp.jpg)
Matthijs van Heijningen Jr. did a fine job of not botching a fantastic story, but the question still lingers in my mind: just how successful was he in building upon the mythos, and how can one rightfully compare this current film to Carpenter’s iconic 1982 offering, while being fair in judgment? I suppose another viewing may help me to answer that question.
As it stands, I can say that the film is superior to a lot of the remakes to surface lately (Fright Night, Conan, Don't Be Afraid of the Dark) and I can certainly assure you I’ll catch this once more on the big screen.
At this point I’d have to rate the film…
Grade: B-
Just as you may expect, viewers are treated to some brief character development, however Heisserer only dials in on a handful of gnificant figures as the troupe meanders the camp. Unfortunately, the spotlight is really only cast upon a very, very select few players, leaving an assortment of the ensemble (there are plenty of great actors in tow, might i add) left to melt (literally) into the background. Kate (Mary Elizabeth Winstead), Braxton Carter (Joel Edgerton) and Dr. Sander Halvorson (Ulrich Thomsen) carry the burden of performance, as all eyes are fixed to these three players. Surpringly, it’s Kate who (in effect) plays the “MacReady” role, while Carter serves as the masculine back-up. As for the good Doc… well, he’s the reckless figure eager to see that the thawed beast be claimed by he and the crew, regardless of how much hell is unleashed in the process.
I admire director Matthijs van Heijningen Jr. for the attention to detail invested (you’re going to note some things in this picture that are present in carpenters 29 year old telling, but I’ll spare spoilers and details, and leave it to you Thing freaks to catch the nods), and the breakneck speed at which the film unravels, but I must admit, I was a tad disappointed with the lack of suspense the picture boasts. Don’t minterpret now, there’s some tenon that builds amongst the group, but the extreme paranoia John once brought to the screen is delined in favor of fast shocks and in-your-face action. It was a risky maneuver, altering the general mood of the film, and honestly I can’t say for sure that it did or didn’t pay off; that’s a concluon that must be reached individually, and I’m still so torn I can’t express (or grasp for that matter) my full feelings after a ngle viewing.
Matthijs van Heijningen Jr. did a fine job of not botching a fantastic story, but the question still lingers in my mind: just how successful was he in building upon the mythos, and how can one rightfully compare this current film to Carpenter’s iconic 1982 offering, while being fair in judgment? I suppose another viewing may help me to answer that question.
As it stands, I can say that the film is superior to a lot of the remakes to surface lately (Fright Night, Conan, Don't Be Afraid of the Dark) and I can certainly assure you I’ll catch this once more on the big screen.
At this point I’d have to rate the film…
Grade: B-
Matt_Molgaard
Friday 10/14/2011 at 09:12 PM | 85095
nobody caught this yet?
Matt_Molgaard
Saturday 10/15/2011 at 01:15 AM | 85108
Just caught this last night, and I pretty much agree with your perspective overall. While I will definitely be watching Carpenter's clasc again sort of as a refresher following this viewing, I can say that the suspense building was not quite as apparent as one might think going in to this. But like you said, the director made it evident to take some time to build character development (which is always a potive when you're trying to put a good story together), and the actors did seem quite charismatic for the most part.
Effects-wise, the creatures themselves (with the spotlight on our two-headed friend later in the duration) did show off some quality, gut-wrenching imagery. Despite the helicopter scene, it's a plus that CGI didn't overtake the film like so many modern effects do nowadays. Overall, a good attempt to bring the legacy of "The Thing" back to the lver screen. And as a personal rating, I'd give this a generous three out of four stars.
Effects-wise, the creatures themselves (with the spotlight on our two-headed friend later in the duration) did show off some quality, gut-wrenching imagery. Despite the helicopter scene, it's a plus that CGI didn't overtake the film like so many modern effects do nowadays. Overall, a good attempt to bring the legacy of "The Thing" back to the lver screen. And as a personal rating, I'd give this a generous three out of four stars.
buried13
Saturday 10/15/2011 at 12:57 PM | 85135
Just caught this last night, and I pretty much agree with your perspective overall. While I will definitely be watching Carpenter's clasc again sort of as a refresher following this viewing, I can say that the suspense building was not quite as apparent as one might think going in to this. But like you said, the director made it evident to take some time to build character development (which is always a potive when you're trying to put a good story together), and the actors did seem quite charismatic for the most part.
Effects-wise, the creatures themselves (with the spotlight on our two-headed friend later in the duration) did show off some quality, gut-wrenching imagery. Despite the helicopter scene, it's a plus that CGI didn't overtake the film like so many modern effects do nowadays. Overall, a good attempt to bring the legacy of "The Thing" back to the lver screen. And as a personal rating, I'd give this a generous three out of four stars.
sounds like our sentiments nearly mirror each other.
Effects-wise, the creatures themselves (with the spotlight on our two-headed friend later in the duration) did show off some quality, gut-wrenching imagery. Despite the helicopter scene, it's a plus that CGI didn't overtake the film like so many modern effects do nowadays. Overall, a good attempt to bring the legacy of "The Thing" back to the lver screen. And as a personal rating, I'd give this a generous three out of four stars.
sounds like our sentiments nearly mirror each other.
Matt_Molgaard
Saturday 10/15/2011 at 05:15 PM | 85155
