The Thing (2011) [Blu-ray]

Actually a pretty good movie, fun to watch it then go right into the original.

*contains some spoilers*The Thing (2011) has received something of a critical drubbing in the press. Certainly, there's plenty of reasons to be cautious - marketed as a reboot (with the same title), yet tying in completely with the 1982 John Carpenter movie of the same name as a prequel. Then there was the strange gestation period where apparently, according to an interview with the writer on movie website Bloody Disgusting, various rewrites and reshoots were performed, and much of the original physical effects work was either removed or composited over in CGI.Anyway, for the laymen - The Thing is based on a classic short story, Who Goes There by John W. Campbell, Jr., written in 1938. It largely deals with the same plot - a group of Norwegian scientists literally fall onto the find of the century in the form of a giant, crash-landed alien craft in the middle of the Antarctic. Finding the crafts inhuman pilot frozen in the ice, they do what any good scientist would do and excavate it before taking the corpse back to base. Then the leader of the expedition, a doctor named Sanders, brings in an little-known paleontologist named Kate Lloyd, played by Mary Elizabeth Winstead (her character being a reference to 1951's The Thing From Another World).Naturally, things go awry on her arrival when they bore a sample of the creature from the ice-block, and it thaws out and escapes before assimilating the hapless base crew in a variety of somewhat disgusting ways. The Thing, you see, is an intelligent alien virus that can imitate any living creature.There are two ways to approach this movie - that of a fan of John Carpenters superior, and stone-cold-classic, 1982 "sequel", in which lies a path of possible disappointment, and that of someone looking for a good horror without any knowledge of it.As a horror, it works. It's actually quite a well made film, with a few problems exhibited through some over-zealous use of CGI and perhaps a little lack of imagination when it comes to the creature effects. But the point is there's very rarely a film released like this that goes quite as far out. The lead-in to the creature escaping has a great sense of dread, it's well directed visually and the actors, despite having little to play with (in this shortened Theatrical cut at least), really seem to be putting in their all. Joel Edgerton as chopper pilot Carter acquits himself well, and the various Norwegian characters are all, despite their sketched-over personalities, genuinely engaging in their performances.When The Thing does bust out, the film manages to maintain the doomy tone of the original, only at a somewhat more hyperactive paste. The Thing is a creature on the run and on the offense. Its motive seems purely to escape, attacking when cornered much like the original, only with an aggressiveness not seen in John Carpenters film. The movie gives way somewhat to a purely chase-the-monster framework towards the end, but MEW's Kate is a character you're happy to stick with and the film ends on a satisfyingly refreshing grim note.Now, I've mentioned the original a few times already - naturally, I'm a fan. Many fans of John Carpenters "sequel" are going to, maybe justifiably, loathe this film. It's pacing is too fast, I've already read unnecessary comments online about the female lead, plus it's very much a facscimile of a superior film. There are no suprises here. The motivation of the Thing might appear muddied in comparison to its need to hide in the original, but I'd argue that The Thing learns to hide after it's slaughtered again and again in this film.There are other issues, mainly of detail (how the ship is buried, how The Thing escapes its ice block etc), but a lot of complaints center on the use of CGI. Now, the effects in the original weren't perfect, but the amazing way John Carpenter turned the screw with his Kubrickian camera, long tracking shots and concentration on quiet moments of reflection and character added tension; so when it eventually bursts on screen in an explosion of rubber and vomit, you ARE genuinely shocked. And it holds up today. True, some of the effects are incredibly bad now, but they still work when the film is viewed as a whole and the surreal imagery really hasn't been beaten. Certainly it hasn't been here. Some scenes do manage to capture the feel of the beast, but overall the plastic CGI takes away some of the realism and the creature design has taken something of a dive. It's also lacking in green/yellow goo which made some of the original Thing scenes stomach-churningly horrid.I referenced earlier that there had been a lot of changes since principal photography by the studio, based on screening feedback. Now, I understand the importance of feedback in developing a movie, but Hollywood's filmmaking-by-committee has often been proved wrong, and on reading that interview I honestly feel the producers at Universal missed a trick. As a fan, I'd loved to have seen the original cut, sans CGI effects (they made them pracitcally to start) and with the extended scenes that allegedly contained far more character driven sections and gave the Norwegian cast members far more to do. For what its worth, it looks like these will be available on the Bluray disc, but it's an absolute shame that the longer, better paced and presumably more interesting to watch version will forever be under wraps. Here's hoping Universal sees fit to put out a Directors Cut.As it stands, The Thing 2011 is an above-average horror, and more than makes the grade compared to the recent glut of remakes and sequels. It might be a pale imitation of the film it segues into, but I can't say I didn't enjoy it. If you want an effective shocker with effects to make your loved ones gag, it's worth it. Just bear in mind if you're a fan of the original you might come away disappointed.

This is one of my favorite movies! 10/10

There are some things to note about this movie from the perspective of behind-the-scenes decisions and mindsets that both indicate why it failed and where it succeeded. In honest opinion this movie is worth a watch and holds up as a love letter to the original John Carpenter masterpiece, though fans of the original will find many problems with it. Even so it is at the very least worth renting for fans of the genre.The story revolves around the Norwegian base that the Americans find destroyed in 'The Thing', where Palaeontologist Kate Lloyd (Mary Elizabeth Winstead, playing the role remarkably) is called to join an Arctic expedition that has discovered an alien ship, and a lifeform frozen in the ice not far away from it. The Norwegian crew of the base, all played authentically by Norwegian talent, excavate the lifeform with the intention of thawing and studying it, only for it to still be alive and escape before going on the kind of rampage we all know and love from the original.So what went right and what went wrong? Well it is important to note here that the director was originally asked to make it a direct remake of John Carpenters movie, but refused because he knew whatever he made would never hold up to the original. He pitched the idea of a prequal instead, and the studio loved the idea. His humility here, and respect for his source material is commendable, and obvious when you consider just how much of the base he kept faithful to its presentation in the original movie; you'll find explanations for every burnt corridor, every corpse they find, the block of ice, even how individual windows smashed. It is a faithful and consistent prequal.So what went wrong? In short; studio intervention. See that awful CGI that was undoubtedly everyone's biggest complaint? Well the design team had indeed finished and prepared practical effects of almost every bit of CGI that is seen in the movie, and looking at them from behind-the-scenes, the imagination and horrific imagery holds up to the original monster designs. The studio wanted CGI, so all of that work was for nothing. See that underutilised space ship with awkward CGI effects that didn't make sense and lend nothing to the story? Well the writers and designers had planned for a reveal that the ship didn't belong to the alien antagonist but instead a different species attacked by it, a species that is seen via a corpse that was even finished, but cut, and the final alien design was going to be a mimicry of said corpse. Studio didn't like it, so cue another horrible CGI monster instead and no explanation for or even hint at the origins of the ship (something that was sorely needed to separate this movie's story from the original).Where most people think the remake goes wrong is that it is a cut and paste of the original with no respect to its source material; this is right and wrong. Everything that could have been done to make this a more faithful remake that respects and adds to the original was indeed done; the director had the right attitude, the performances of the entire cast were impressive, and the practical effects held up as a loving homage to the original. Studio intervention however led to changes that would forever make this movie a decent attempt that ultimately leaves a poor taste in the mouths of fans, and background noise for fans of the genre.

Great remake

It isn't as bad as you remember it.It may not be worth most of the price of a pint.