The Thing (2011)
I wrote an article back in 2009 as to why I felt a remake of The Thing was a bad idea. At that time, the project was in development hell and didn’t look like getting off the ground. Subsequently, the production evolved into a prequel and managed to find financial support, culminating in a theatrical release in late 2011. Like many interested parties, I watched the initial teaser trailer with a mixture of curiosity and trepidation. Then when the red band trailer arrived I felt that the shark was well and truly jumped. Too much was shown (a common problem with modern trailers) and there the internet was awash with discontented mutterings from John Carpenter purists. Hence I refrained from watching this movie for several years. When I finally got round to doing so, I was not well disposed towards it. However, over the Christmas holidays, I decide to give this prequel a second viewing and see if I could approach it with a less partisan mindset.
Watching The Thing prequel and trying to maintain an open mind is an extremely difficult task. I have made no bones about the fact that I’m a greater admirer of the 1982 movie and that I consider it one of the best genre pieces of the decade. It is what I call a “blue print” movie as every aspect of its production is a textbook example of how to do things right in cinematic terms This is not simply fanboy adulation. Do some research and you’ll see that Carpenters film is very well respected by his peers and those that study the craft of filmmaking. So from my perspective, for this prequel to work, it needs to add something new to the themes and ideas established in the previous film. The story and ideas need to be advanced rather than just repeated. There are several good sequels and prequels that have done this successfully. Psycho II, Mad Max 2 (AKA The Road Warrior), Aliens and X-Men: First Class. Sadly, The Thing prequel struggles to do this.
The prequel explores the story of the ill-fated Thule Station in Antarctica. Mary Elizabeth Winstead plays an American Palaeontologist, Kate Lloyd, who is flown in to assist a Norwegians scientific team with a curious discovery. Specifically, a crashed alien spacecraft and a body frozen in the ice. As you would imagine, the narrative is rather constrained by the fact that we know the inevitable outcome, as seen in the opening scenes of John Carpenter’s original movie. Yet there are attempts to vary the direction of the story, within the limited confines. There is some exploration of gender politics of the period. Also the titular creature spends more time in transitional states rather than in human form. Another positive factor is the degree of continuity between both films. There is also a great deal of visual similarity in the creature design and the overall production design.
Director Matthijs van Heijningen Jr. is unfortunately handicapped by a somewhat pedestrian script by Eric Heisserer, a writer with an uneven track record. He was responsible for the awful A Nightmare on Elm Street remake and the amusing Final Destination 5. The film is therefore somewhat perfunctory, rather than tense. Marco Beltrami’s score telegraphs forthcoming shocks, undermining any suspense. Yet the Norwegian actors and dialogue do lend a welcome difference to the proceedings and there is just enough levity for a picture of this kind. The film uses the language barrier effectively. The lack of any major “star” also keeps the attention focused on the proceedings. Sadly, although a great deal of the visual effects were created by Amalgamated Dynamics using traditional physical techniques, these were replaced with CGI in post production.
There are indeed things to like about The Thing Prequel and it is not a total disaster. It is well paced, shot on 35 millimeter film and edited in a comparable idiom to the original. There is a sense of continuity present. But it ultimately fails because it is essentially a redundant enterprise. It would also appear that studio interference was an issue, with the ending being reshot and the decision to replace the practical FX with computer animation. There simply isn’t enough variations on established themes or scope of vision to make this production stand out sufficiently as being different from the original. I am still at a loss as to why someone thought making a prequel to The Thing was a good idea to start with, let alone keeping the title identical. Overall, this film is similar to Gus Van Sant’s frame for frame remake of Psycho in so far as there simply isn’t any need for either of them.
