Saturday, 31 March 2012

The Thing (Prequel - 2011) - Home Cinema Review (6.5/10)

Hey, Sweden!

Although the name has been left confusingly the same, this 2011 version of 'The Thing' is in fact a 'prequel' to the 1982 film 'The Thing'. Firstly, I'll state that I'm a big fan of the original. In fact, it's high in my top ten films of all time, equal to 'Alien'. When I first heard they were creating a prequel, I'll admit I was disappointed they weren't giving John Carpenter (Director of the original) a chance to create the sequel he'd always wanted to, but I wasn't averse to the idea of a prequel either.

Both films are set in 1982, Antarctica. A Norwegian research base has discovered an ancient spacecraft buried deep under the ice for as long as 100,000 years, along with the corpse of a creature that froze to death trying to escape the wreckage. They make the mistake of digging it up...

In the original film, the events at the Norwegian camp serve as off-screen back story. They enhance the mystery because the main characters see the results of what happened, without yet knowing why. The prequel tells the tale from the Norwegian camp, leading up to the original film.

Setting aside plot holes and contradictions and general film flaws for a moment, I found the biggest problem with the prequel is that it adds almost nothing to the story. Prequels by definition aren't necessary (since whatever story they're linked to obviously functioned before their existence), but if you're going to make them, you may as well truly add to the world they exist in. Regardless of what you think of the 'Star Wars' prequels, for example, there's no denying they add to the mythology of that universe. 'The Thing' is clearly not set in such an expansive realm, but there is more than enough room to grow the story. This film commits the sin of having that opportunity and not taking it. The only 'new' element is an interesting alternative to the 'blood test' scene from the original film. We do see inside the alien craft this time, but it is done in such a way as to add no information for the viewer, thus rendering it fun but pointless.

So what about the film in general? The acting is actually good. Unfortunately the script and direction gives the cast little to work with. The original film takes a team of several men, and over the course of the film each has a distinct and individual personality, partly through script, partly through direction, partly through picking a range of wonderful character actors. The prequel fails by not defining any of them in detail.

The lead character, played by Mary Elizabeth Winstead (Die Hard 4.0, Final Destination 3) fares the best, but what little definition her character has, can be attributed to her acting and not the script. The film jumps into the 'horror' side of the story far too quickly, cutting out time to establish the other characters, with the possible exception of the lead scientist who plays a part reminiscent of his parallel in the first B&W version of the story, 'The Thing from Another World'.

All-in-all it feels like a film on fast forward. It lacks the atmosphere or tension of the original film precisely because it does not spend time setting up the horror moments. Instead they just 'happen', and we are expected to be scared because of 'gory creature'. The original film worked so well, because it was really about the fear of isolation and the paranoia of not knowing who you could trust. The horror, superb as it was, merely emphasised this. The prequel is robbed of any such moments. You never feel isolated and lonely, and you never have time to join the characters in worrying who is a creature and who isn't, before the next one is revealed.

The story never seems to know whether it wants to be a prequel, a homage or a remake. Sometimes things are introduced as if we should have the prior knowledge of the original (which alienates new viewers). Other moments are directly copied from the original in such a way as to imply a remake.

As for the creature effects themselves, we have another problem. The original is seen as a landmark in practical horror effects, that stand the test of time. They are beautiful and repulsive, created practically and filmed on-set. For the most part they feel utterly real, and even when they aren't perfect (though pretty damn close), they still work because the things were actual physical props dripping in fluids and tearing apart in front of our eyes.

The new film instead uses CGI effects, which while excellently done, stand out as CGI effects. This isn't a fault of the budget or the people who created them, it's simply a problem with modern CGI. It can do a great many things, but it still cannot recreate blood and gore and flesh as effectively as traditional effects. As a result, the creatures are never actually creepy or unnerving because the feeling in our gut tells us they aren't really there. It seems strange to think that in another twenty or thirty years, people will watch the original film and still feel that sick revulsion in their stomach at the realistic horror of the beast's transformations, while the modern big-budget film will look terribly fake.

Strangely enough, the sound is also a problem on the prequel. The original had screaming creature sounds that genuinely sent a shiver down the spine. The new film could have used the same sounds, but, apart from the occasional use, resorts to creating new ones that simply aren't as effective.

The musical soundtrack is also a disappointment. It's not bad, having been composed by Marco Beltrami, veteran of many a good film soundtrack (including a lot of horror films). Unfortunately the original film once again had an iconic and incredibly atmospheric score by veteran composer Ennio Morricone (Heavily influenced by the film's director, John Carpenter, who often creates his own scores), that Beltrami never matches. I don't like to criticise Beltrami, because I like a great deal of his other soundtracks, but I suspect he was told to create something different for the film, rather than emulate the original. It's just a shame that by doing so, it lacks the sombre and moody atmosphere it could have had.

Then we come to the continuity. This really is a head-scratcher. On the one hand we have a film that appears to go out of its way to carefully link itself to the original. For example, when the characters visit the burnt-out Norwegian camp in the original film, they find bodies and items in the camp that the prequel goes to great bother setting up. Then we have an absurd and glaring plot-hole. (Please stop reading if you want to avoid spoilers). The creature at the end of the prequel, escapes to the buried spaceship and by starting the engines, melts the ice above it. This creates two problems. One, the first film establishes with video footage that the Norwegian crew used Thermite charges to melt the ice above the buried craft, and reveal its surface. Two, if the crashed ship was still capable of flight, why did the creature not race to it earlier and why did it even leave the craft 100,000 years ago to freeze in the ice, instead of just taking off again? It makes no sense, especially in light of the efforts made to match continuity in other areas.

Finally, I shall comment on the direction. John Carpenter, director of the original film, had an unmistakeable style that suited the building of tension and atmosphere, having already made classic films such as the original 'Halloween' and 'Escape from New York'. The prequel, while functional, never gives us anything that stands out. There are moments in the original where just the composition of a shot can create a wonderful sense of foreboding, or character, or story. This new film seems to suffer from a problem symptomatic of many recent movies, where the directors and/or editors appear afraid to linger on any one shot. Unfortunately it is usually such carefully composed shots that create tangible atmosphere.

I've spent a lot of time outlining the problems with the film, so it may come as a surprise when I say I didn't hate it. In comparison to many recent horror movies it is surprisingly not bad, and even quite effective during its middle portion, between a rushed beginning and a muddled finale. Its problems occur when compared to the original, which still towers far above it. The new film has many, many problems, but when taken on its own, it is an enjoyable enough experience. Over all, I think it is not unlike 'Predators'. A film that takes so many of its best moments from its progenitor but adds so little, that it becomes ultimately pointless. It serves simply as a reminder of how great the original was and makes you want to go back and watch that. It's a shame, as it could have been so much more.


All work is the © copyright of W.D.Lee and/or the respective companies, individuals or organisations to which the work is related. No infringement is intentional. No reproduction or copying is permitted without express permission.


  1. It’s no great thing, just a better Thing than expected. It’s not incredibly scary but has the same tense and paranoid feel that the Carpenter version went for, and it works in a way. The problem is that on own it’s own, it doesn’t really work. Good review Duncan.

  2. Thanks for the comment! :-)

    I thought the paranoia crept in a little in the middle, but unfortunately not enough. I agree, though... It doesn't function on its own, but equally doesn't justify itself as a prequel. It's a shame, because in many ways it's not bad.

    I think it's best summed up as "Difficult to hate, but impossible to love", I think.

    Glad you enjoyed the review!