There is something fundamentally disturbing about a predator alien that can copy exactly anything it devours. John Carpenter's 1982 version of The Thing was all at once scary, disturbing, and psychological. The hysteria of cabin fever mixed with the slimy, grotesque mechanics of the alien created one of the greatest horror movies of all time. This prequel, however, takes everything that was great from its predecessor and throws it out the window.
Carpenter's film hinted at a Norwegian outpost in Antarctica that had first discovered the alien. This film gives a disappointing and predictable account of what may have happened there. The first of many flaws in the script comes when Americans travel several thousand miles to help dig up the alien space ship. Now we know they aren't cut off from the rest of the world, so what's the big deal? Much of the "suspence" seems to take place in broad daylight, which makes being scared more of a hassle than something the audience would enjoy. And as the film goes on, it becomes clear that Carpenter's building of suspense among the characters is now gone in favor of a stupid slasher plot.
The acting is dull and uninteresting—far from the bad ass, bearded Kurt Russell. Instead we get Mary Winstead, who seemingly only got the part because she acts like Jodie Foster. Heijningen's direction is so boring and dry that it becomes nearly impossible to focus on the screen. So, with a poor script, bad acting, and worse direction, what is to be liked about this film? Perhaps the Thing itself is still gruesome and disturbing?
But, of course, its not. The original version was helped tremendously by the fact that the Thing was actually there for the actors to look at. It made the alien feel more real—seeing the slime and blood covered monster as it sucked up its victim. But in the prequel all we get is a computer animated blob of grossness that is too far mobile to be frightening. Not to mention, the most boring parts of the film are when the Thing is attacking.
The Thing prequel suffers from one fundamental flaw—it seeks to answer questions from the original that were far better being left to the viewers' imagination. As a result, the movie shows us too much, and one can only leave the theater disappointed, and imagining far scarier ways this prequel could have happened.
http://thatguythatlikesmovies.blogspot.com/
Carpenter's film hinted at a Norwegian outpost in Antarctica that had first discovered the alien. This film gives a disappointing and predictable account of what may have happened there. The first of many flaws in the script comes when Americans travel several thousand miles to help dig up the alien space ship. Now we know they aren't cut off from the rest of the world, so what's the big deal? Much of the "suspence" seems to take place in broad daylight, which makes being scared more of a hassle than something the audience would enjoy. And as the film goes on, it becomes clear that Carpenter's building of suspense among the characters is now gone in favor of a stupid slasher plot.
The acting is dull and uninteresting—far from the bad ass, bearded Kurt Russell. Instead we get Mary Winstead, who seemingly only got the part because she acts like Jodie Foster. Heijningen's direction is so boring and dry that it becomes nearly impossible to focus on the screen. So, with a poor script, bad acting, and worse direction, what is to be liked about this film? Perhaps the Thing itself is still gruesome and disturbing?
But, of course, its not. The original version was helped tremendously by the fact that the Thing was actually there for the actors to look at. It made the alien feel more real—seeing the slime and blood covered monster as it sucked up its victim. But in the prequel all we get is a computer animated blob of grossness that is too far mobile to be frightening. Not to mention, the most boring parts of the film are when the Thing is attacking.
The Thing prequel suffers from one fundamental flaw—it seeks to answer questions from the original that were far better being left to the viewers' imagination. As a result, the movie shows us too much, and one can only leave the theater disappointed, and imagining far scarier ways this prequel could have happened.
http://thatguythatlikesmovies.blogspot.com/