‘The Thing’ is a Remake Posing as a Prequel
This idea was always going to be problematic, because anyone who has seen John Carpenter’s 1982 version of The Thing (which is actually based on the 1951 Howard Hawks-Christian Nyby film, The Thing From Another World and the John W. Campbell Jr. novella, Who Goes There?) will know of the fates of the characters appearing in this film. But, this prequel, which is set three days before the events depicted in the earlier film, was given the green light based on the decision to reveal the intriguing circumstances that led to the startling events that open the ’82 classic. There are plenty of possibilities, but it’s frustrating to endure such a similar series of events. Sharing the same name, Matthijs van Heijningen’s version follows a team of Norwegian and American scientists who discover an ancient alien buried deep within the ice of Antarctica.
A young American palaeontologist, Kate Lloyd (Mary Elizabeth Winstead) is recruited by crack scientist Sander Halversen (Ulrich Thomsen) and his assistant Adam Goodman (Eric Christian Olsen) to join a Norwegian scientific team that has discovered a crashed extraterrestrial spaceship buried beneath Antarctica. They discover the frozen corpse of a creature, which they recover and keep imprisoned in a giant block of ice. Following a test, which establishes that the creature is not of this earth, the creature comes to life and escapes. It begins terrorizing the group, with Kate discovering that it has the ability to impersonate any life form it touches and absorbs. Sure enough, it is evident that no one can be trusted, and it is up to Kate, and the crew’s pilot, Sam Carter (Joel Edgerton), to ensure the creature remains quarantined at the remote station.
First time director van Heijningen doesn’t fare well with the actors. None of them are particularly good, but the very appealing Mary Elizabeth Winstead delivers the most impressive performance. Invited to assist the mission, though being passive in the decision-making and possessing no power whatsoever, Kate is clearly intelligent and one of the only ones to rationally react to the situation. The others, and especially Edvard and Sander (the station commander), dismiss her far-fetched theories and underestimate the creature. She becomes the gutsy, levelheaded leader much to the chagrin of some of her counterparts. Joel Edgerton was cast in the ‘Macready role’ adopted by the exceptional Kurt Russell in Carpenter’s version, but it is actually Kate who comes to the same conclusions (well, identical) as Macready’s character. Carter just isn’t an interesting character, and the fact that he is absent for an extended period of time didn’t help.
Ulrich Thomsen plays the slimy, big shot scientist who is content on collecting a sample of the creature for study at any cost, even if it means sacrificing members of his team. You know the type. Severely underused was Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje, who fans of HBO’s OZ will remember as Simon Adebisi. Here he has but a few lines and his removal from the film is lazy. It was too evident early on in the proceedings who the final players would be. What made the ’82 version so exceptional was the mystery surrounding who would be the next one sprung masquerading as the Thing. Here, there were some characters I expected to stick around.
Contrary to my expectations, I didn’t find The Thing terrible. It is a serviceable horror flick and there are certainly some commendable qualities. The CGI effects, though heavy, are often amazing, but compare that to Carpenter’s use of make-up, puppetry and naturally constructed creatures, which were groundbreaking in the early 80’s, it just can’t be praised with the same enthusiasm. The Thing is written as a prequel that can’t escape feeling like a straight up remake. Only the ending scene, which plays through the final credits, ties this film into the one it is supposed to precede. As a result, it’s difficult not to compare it to Carpenter’s version.
There are lots of scenes that replicate those in Carpenter’s, most notably the set piece where the characters are gathered in a room to participate in a test conducted to expose who’s who, and the film follows in its design (the Norwegian station resembles the American one). The efforts in this version pale in comparison, unfortunately. The heavy use of CGI, interest in cramming in shots of the creature in non-human form, maintaining a consistent stream of gore and resorting to jump scares whenever possible results in less genuine suspense and mystery, and less actual fear of one another, features that made the ’82 version an horror classic.
I’m sure I’m not alone in thinking that this creature is far scarier when it is hiding inside of a human. Most of the action is comprised of fleeing The Thing and eliminating replicated cast members. There are some clever misleads but it is never really effective in capturing the claustrophobic atmosphere of the base. We are bombarded with shock tactics, and it is disappointing to see van Heijningen end the film with an ineffective climax that seems influenced by Aliens.
In short, viewers who haven’t seen earlier versions of this intriguing and thrilling premise will likely find this version quite acceptable, but this updated version of a masterpiece is completely unnecessary, and though not in any way offensive to fans of the earlier versions, it is disappointing. To state the obvious, there are far better films out there called The Thing.
C
How did you think this version of The Thing stood up to earlier versions? Were you disappointed by how close it resembles Carpenter’s?
21 Comments
Thanks Andy for confirming what I thought all along.
Yeah, as soon as I watched the trailer I had a bad feeling it was going to resemble Carpenter’s. While there are some plot deviances, and some attempts to make it unique, it has different priorities, one is showing the creature at every possible opportunity – which doesn’t make the film scarier, and is less suspenseful.
There are some things that this movie does intelligently, like the acting (mostly Winstead) and tone in some scenes. There are also traces of humour, comments on international diplomacy and subversion of America as ‘the enemy’ but there’s just no follow through.
Oh yeah! It’s not hopeless. I thought Winstead was good, and there were times when it was atmospheric. The CGI is impressive, but we just see too much of The Thing. For people who haven’t seen any earlier versions, I think they will get a kick out of it.
Hi, Andrew and company:
Nice write up and pics!
The Thing has been done well twice.
Howard Hawks’ original The Thing From Another World is everything a superb 1950s B-Movie should be.
No name actors?… Check.
Stock footage from the Air Force?… Check.
Topic of its time, ‘Red Scare’ Si-Fi?… Check.
Military might trumping Touchy-Feely science?… Check.
What puts it apart from other attempts is its use of cramped, claustrophobic quarters, wonderfully overlapping dialogue. Margaret Sheridan as ‘Nikki’. Who always seems two steps ahead of Kenneth Tobey. Plus an eerie Theramin soundtrack and unique lighting when The Thing introduces itself to the unlit Day Room.
John Carpenter knew he couldn’t compete with those items. So he kept the claustrophobia. Added a healthy dose of paranoia, limited dialogue and went with over the top Special Effects that took the audience’s breath away!
Either film is a stand alone. Though I still prefer Hawks’ offering because it gave me nightmares as a kid.
Another attempt to realign the stars on cinematic gold is certainly not needed!
Thank you Jack. I actually haven’t seen the Hawks version, but I would like to go back and see where it all started (which would mean the novella haha). Carpenter’s version is just so great. I might be alone in thinking this, but it has one of the best endings ever in a film. This version is one to skip, for sure.
Great review, I’m pretty much in 100% agreement with everything you wrote.
I think you also made a great call on your title and the “Angle” of the piece. It definitely was a remake masquerading as a prequel, there’s no doubt about it.
Astute of you to put that front and center.
Thank you! Yeah, that’s what I immediately thought. Get the green light by pitching the prequel idea, and then just replicate what has already come before. Van Heijningen absorbed and replicated Carpenter’s and became an imperfect copy.
I have a soft spot for Carpenter’s version so I never considered watching this.
It’s a shame that Edgerton can’t find that American mainstream film to set him up. Maybe Bigelow’s ‘Hunt Bin Laden’ flick can manage that.
WARRIOR, dude. I attended the Australian premiere last night. I know it hasn’t done well in the States, but it will kill it here. I thought it was an awesome film, and all the performances were excellent.
Well you know how it is in the States. Films don’t do well here unless there’s massive explosions, cars and robots.
Ahh…too bad. I was looking forward for this. thanks for the review Andy
No problem! Hey, you still might enjoy it. It has it’s moments
Aww this is a shame!!
I really wanted this to be a good one!
Thanks Andrew for the great write up!
It’s not bad, just not all that good. It was a pretty pointless endeavour. It’s not original, and it was never going to be better than the earlier versions. Thanks Scott!
I pretty much agree with you, Andrew. Mary Elizabeth Winstead is really the one to enjoy in this… but there is way too much of The Thing shown (which makes comparing the creature from Carpenter’s seminal film unavoidable and not to its advantage). So, too (spoilers coming for those who’ve not seen it), was the overuse of the alien craft — and why for chrissakes, is it made to seem like it could work and fly off! That just introduces the plot hole of why that wasn’t done 100,000 years ago. Also, did you notice the husky at the beginning of the film doesn’t look like the dog at the end that used to tie it together with the start of the ’82 film? Bad continuity. Fans of the second John Carpenter / Kurt Russell (as I doff my hat his way) collaboration will pick up on things like this in the prequel, no doubt. A grade of C is a fair one. It does have its moments, but it’s not going to take the place anytime soon that 80s sci-fi horror classic. Thanks for the review.
Thanks le0pard13, I appreciate the feedback, and you make some excellent points. While I doubt they could have found an exact dog to use in the prequel, it is a an example of bad continuity, but the fact that they made the attempt to link the films was somewhat rewarding. I didn’t like the alien spacecraft bit, either. It felt like a different film. I did like Mary Elizabeth Winstead, but maybe I’m a little biased :-p There is no way to discuss this film with as much enthusiasm as earlier versions but there were some quality moments. It was just too close to Carpenter’s to be taken seriously as a prequel, I think!
Thanks for the clarification. I heard a few weeks ago that this was a prequel. Thenn in the reviews that came out this past weekend referred to it as a remake. Either way I will stick to the “original” versions.
I find it bizarre that some reviewers haven’t attributed it as a prequel. Perhaps they haven’t seen earlier versions and just assumed (because of the same title) it was a remake. Weird.
You were kinder in your review than we were. I found this film to be full of giant plot holes and ridiculous CGI. Similarly the spacecraft was uninspiring and the film suffered from a lack of chracter development.
I thought the film was too much like the Carpenter version. It should have branched out and given itself an entity of its own.
Trackbacks