The Thing (2011)

The Thing (2011)

Directed by Matthijs Van Heijningen

Here’s something completely different. Like lots of metalheads, part of being a nerd is “nerding out” on great horror flicks such as John Carpenter’s classic The Thing from 1982. I also really enjoy the Howard Hawks film from 1951, and the original short, Who Goes There? by John W. Campbell (1938) is a classic that, along with The Voyage Of The Space Beagle by A. E. Van Vogt (1950) and The Body Snatchers by Jack Finney (1955), serves as the obvious progenitor of just about any story featuring “aliens biologically take us over/ become us” ever told since. Hell, I’m such a fan of the story that I once took a girl on a date to a small play in Chicago that diligently followed the original short story. The theater was cold (blankets were given to patrons), and the play’s producers did a fair job of creating mood and atmosphere. Creature appearances were handled by the effective use of lighting and auditory effects designed to evoke a sense of chaos and panic. I don’t remember what happened to the girl, though. Alan Dean Foster’s novelization of the Carpenter film is also worth your while. I still have a copy of the Bantam paperback in my library.

Naturally, I was very curious and excited to hear that a new film, a direct prequel to the Carpenter film, was in the works, but also deeply suspicious that a new film would be lousy (considering that most of the dreck coming out of Hollywood these days is just that, dreck), and would negate Carpenter’s film’s impact on younger viewers. So, a fair amount of trepidation was in my mind when I traipsed out to the Del Amo Mall in Torrance (the same mall featured in Jackie Brown) for a Saturday matinee showing of The Thing.

WARNING: SERIOUS SPOILERS: If you have not seen the film and don’t want it to be spoiled for you, STOP READING.

So, here’s my take on The Thing (2011). I liked the film, although there are some serious plot holes and a few bad moments. First, the good. The Thing looks authentic; that is, the film is set in 1982, and it shows. As far as I could tell, there were no anachronisms to be found with cues from technology, slang, and so on. Obviously, the writers will be careful in that regards, and the level of detail applied in this sense was good. For example, during a moment of celebration after finding the creature, the Norwegian camp members burst out into a song, a Norwegian song that won the Eurovision contest sometime around then, apparently (I haven't investigated too closely, though). Nice touch. Apparently, even beer labels adhered to their designs from the day.

The sets are awesome, and not just because the setting conforms to the period. The Norwegian camp layout is very obviously recognizable from the Carpenter film. The radio room where the camp member (Colin) is found by McReady and Copper sitting in a chair with his self inflicted slash wounds (his suicide is explained, but in a quick manner), the room with the block of ice containing the Thing, all done very well. The camp is smaller than the American Outpost 31 in the Carpenter film, and looks it. This enhances the claustrophobic feel of the film, perhaps more than that present in Outpost 31. The smaller camp is effectively used as the events in this film play out at a noticeably quicker pace than those at Outpost 31 in the Carpenter film.

The film is atmospheric and very creepy, particularly in the early going. The level of paranoia steadily builds as the middle acts play out, as well. The paranoia works very well, and I found myself shrinking in my seat on more than one occasion. The early reveals of the Thing are actually done VERY WELL. The Thing encased in ice is just an awesome sight to behold, and is straight out of Campbell’s original description. An early scene that depicts the camp members starting to drill into the ice block is very effective.

Most detractors of this film are going to complain about the overt CGI “look” to the Thing, and that is definitely a problem, particularly in the film’s later acts. But, in the early going, the effects work very well. The sequence prior to and during the burning of the Thing under a shed after it escapes from the ice is excellent, as is the transformation of Juliette (although I could see that one coming a mile away). I also enjoyed most of the “two-headed Thing” sequences, although, this is where the film’s later acts, and problems, really start to begin. Puppetry does appear, mostly during an autopsy sequence following the burning of the Thing under the shed.

OK, so, now the problems. Yeah, the CGI is overdone, particularly near the conclusion with the scenes set in the spacecraft. I found the tension deflating the more that I saw of the Thing, especially during these sequences. That’s an obvious problem, and the CGI is just too obvious. But, my major gripes with the film occur with some plot holes that really don’t make any sense. First and foremost, the American chopper pilots evacuate Olav from the camp, as he’s obviously in shock after the events involving the burning under the shed. Fellow American Griggs tags along, only to reveal himself as the Thing as the chopper is lifting off. Yes, main character Kate Lloyd is waving them back to land while this happens after she suspects that something is amiss with camp members, but, as far as I could see, there’s no way for her to know that specifically Griggs is the Thing at this point. The Thing should have just taken its chances if the chopper lands. Naturally the chopper crashes over an impassable ridge during this sequence as the struggle occurs.

At any rate, I also found myself bothered by the last few moments, prior to the “credit cookies.” A taken over Braxton Carter is tricked by Kate Lloyd into revealing himself as the Thing with a mistake involving his earring. The Thing would’ve been smarter than that; maybe Carter wasn’t a Thing, after all, although the sound effects suggest otherwise. Also, whatever happens to Lloyd? Does she freeze out on the ice? Does she make it out with a snowcat? Why aren’t the snowcat(s) found by McReady and company when they find the craft in the Carpenter film? Maybe Lloyd lights out for a Russian camp mentioned earlier by Carter, but that leaves the burnt snowcat left behind. Maybe the snowcat, or snowcats, are buried in snowfall prior to McReady and company’s arrival. Moments like these, and a few others involving questions such as just when were various people taken over is obviously purposeful of the writers to attempt to mirror Carpenter’s very effective use of not exactly knowing all of the events occurring within the larger framework of the story.

The Thing crashes into a glacier 100,000 years ago, activates a homing beacon, and crawls from his craft, only to freeze. Yet, the craft starts up just fine after the taken over Dr. Halvorson/ Thing leaves the remains of the camp and arrives at the craft only minutes ahead (presumably) of Carter and Lloyd. Why not just start it back up 100,000 years ago?!

A few other elements are going to bother people. The plot of the film mirrors the Carpenter film pretty closely, but I was expecting that. One could argue that people under similar dire circumstances are going to find similar solutions to problems, though. The inclusion of American characters didn’t bother me, though, as their introduction to the film in the early going fits; but, some will probably take issue with this as a plot vehicle that is similar to Sarah Michelle Gellar’s character’s purpose in the second version of The Grudge. Also quite bothersome is the fact that pilots Jameson and Carter make it back to the camp after crashing in the first place. Edvard unnecessarily revealing himself as the Thing in the rec room also bothers me, although that begins the whole “two-headed Thing” sequence of events that lead to the end. Perhaps the Thing reasoned that, at this point in the film in such a small setting, it could get away with going for broke, as it were.

There are some nice touches, all neatly tying the film to the Carpenter film, mostly occurring as a credit cookie as the closing credit sequence begins; Ennio Morricone music and all. The “two-headed Thing” in the snow, the emergence of the dog (that plot element happens in the very early going), the disappearance of Lars earlier that later leads to the final helicopter scene, etc., all are present, although some of it, particularly the dog’s emergence, seems forced. There are even two shots from the Carpenter film that occur in these moments.

So, there you have it. Is The Thing (2011) a keeper; that is, will I buy it and watch it every now and then? Yes. Will it ever attain the cult classic status of the Carpenter film (or, even the Hawks film for that matter?) Doubtful.

Dave’s Grade: B+

For all “things” Thing-related, check out Outpost 31.

OK, those of you that wish to chime in, did I miss anything?