The Thing

2011 ***

Let's just talk about the big mutated elephant in the room: No, the computer-generated monsters just aren't the same. John Carpenter's The Thing has a visceral quality that is still unmatched. That movie turned the very notion of shapeshifting into pure horror. The creature's transformations are somehow a violation of the flesh, not just that of its victims but all flesh in general. In this year's The Thing...

Has anyone addressed how boneheaded it is to use the same name when it's not a remake? "If you want to see what happens after the events of The Thing, then check out 1982's The Thing!" If this new movie takes off and they decide to do an updated version of the 1982 movie, what will they call it? That Thing? Man...

(Since writing that I've actually found the answer; it's posted below.)

Moving on: the monsters don't have the same punch as they do in the 1982 version, not nearly. More on that later.

Curious about this flick, I asked some friends who saw it before me what they thought. There were two related gripes that I took with me to the theater: 1) That this story was never meant to be told, it's better as a mystery attached to JC's version, and 2) It's basically the same story anyway. These are both valid points, but when I got to the theater myself I realized something early: I like this story, the idea of finding something horrible in the Antarctic ice. I didn't really mind seeing it "again," and I didn't mind having some of the mystery of the earlier film displayed in the open. For me it doesn't ruin anything about the first movie; I can recapture the feeling of a question unanswered.

As the crew descended into the ice cave, I looked at the blue ceiling and thought how the ancient ice has been a the Earth's protective shield for thousands of years. Later, in some of the movie's best shots, the indistinct view of the dark, mad shape entombed in the ice is compelling in the same way... the shield is allllmost breached, but nobody suspects because they can't imagine it's still alive in there.

My favorite mystery of this story (both versions) has always been what The Thing looked like before it started imitating humans and dogs. While you do see it, its complete shape remains mostly a mystery -- a crazy cacaphony of weird flesh and insectoid limbs. The practical model of charred alien corpse was a high point for me (surprise surprise), because the reality of the object brought all of its gooey strangeness to the fore.

I will say this in praise of the monster effects: you get plenty of them. Perhaps too much, if you're still craving mystery, but as I often bitch about monster stinginess (Blood Beach, I'm looking at you this year), it's worth pointing out. And of course CGI monsters do provide more opportunity for complicated actions like chasing someone around. The designs are worthy as well, and there are two details that stood out for me. First of all, it's all about mouths. Since the Thing's main goal is consumption, its first order of business is to fashion as big a mouth as possible to suck you in. Secondly, there's one critter formed from a person that still retains human ingredients even as it morphs, opting for deformed bone and sinew instead of bug parts. It's not a hard rule by any stretch, but I thought it was a good touch.

Other features that worked for me: The Thing will talk like a person just long enough for purposes of deception, but once its identity is revealed it has absolutely nothing to say to you. No speeches about humans being puny or stupid, no throwbacks to whatever relationship the intended victim had with the person now transformed, nothing. It's just "I'm gonna eat ya!"

And while I thought Mary Elizabeth Winstead's acting was limping along at the outset, once things start cooking she manages to pull it off. I particularly liked the bond that formed between her and the non-English speaking Lars, and the way her voice of reason quickly assumes command of the camp (the critique that she's rendered Ripley-like is valid, but isn't that the right model to use?).

Here's what I didn't like. In addition to not being as good, there were times when the CG was not good enough. Since I perceive CGI as being kind of full of itself, I like it to be as perfect as possible, and I didn't get that feeling here. Or maybe I never do, and this is just a gripe about CGI.

This next dig might apply to 1982's beastie as well, but the 2011 Thing just doesn't always play to its advantages. If you can infect another being starting with just one cell, why ever go all monsta? Just hide and wait, casually infecting along the way, and everyone is consumed without knowing it. Each time the Thing goes on the attack, it usually winds up getting burned. Which brings us to the next item: why do they never team up? My favorite moment in the 70s Invasion of the Body Snatchers is when two women share a look at a party, and you instantly know they're both pod people, and that they just silently let each other know. This strategic opportunity never happens in a Thing movie, because the Thing can't keep its mutated tentacles in its pants. Next item: there's a scene in which a character is hiding in a duct, juuuust out of range of monster tentacles. How can there be an "out of range" with a shape shifter? Just make 'em longer! Or form an eye on the end and see where they are (50P's idea), or detach a dozen little bug monsters, or whatever! Dude!

Finally, here's the answer to my earlier question, from imdb:

"The producers convinced Universal Studios to allow them to create a prequel to John Carpenter's The Thing instead of a remake, as they felt Carpenter's film was already perfect, so making a remake would be like "painting a mustache on the Mona Lisa". However, the prequel still has the title of the original film, because they couldn't think of a subtitle (for example, The Thing: Begins) that sounded good."

It's nice to see such devotion to the original, but this is one of those times the devotion becomes forced and awkward; as with Superman Returns, this is too slavish to its source material, and misses some chances to forge its own identity. It performs its prequel duties with nerdish precision; all the bodies are in the right places, there's even an ax jammed in a wall where it should be. But the final tie-in is clumsily tacked on, which left me feeling that they did have a stand-alone movie in there but they were too whimpy to go through with it.

Perhaps that's a little harsh; I am giving this the three-star seal of approval (although as Trevor said, do NOT start with this one; see the 1982 version first). I like to think of it as a decent version of the story, but it's a pale reflection of a horror classic.

My parting shot: they should have called it Thing. It's simple, it connects to the 1982 movie, and it avoids the pitfall of a subtitle. Maybe it's a dumb idea, but it's got to better than twin brothers with the same name. Duh.

Bonus: Here is a pdf of "Who Goes There?", the short story on which all the movies are based. I tried to read it before writing this, to get perspective on some of the details, but it was written in 1932 and the style's a bit clunky.