CMoon wrote:OK, I went and saw this despite what everyone here (and elsewhere) has said. I went in with lowered expectations and it allowed me to enjoy what worked in this film.
First off, if Carpenter's The Thing did not exist, I don't know if we'd be trashing The Thing (11) so heavily. It is a flawed (at times deeply) enjoyable monster/horror/sci fi film that doesn't cover any new ground. Outside of context, I'd give it a C- (good for one viewing.)
Now on to problems with the film:
a. Lack of characters you can relate to (or even care about.) Truth is, I don't even remember the characters' names now. The Thing (82) took special care to ensure that each character was memorable with their little quirks--and these too made you more likely to suspect certain characters over others. I felt no attachment anyone in The Thing (11), and it is a glaring mistake on the part of scripting. I can't even blame the actors here as I don't think the film ever allowed screen time for character development.
b. Following directly from (a), lack of charm. Regardless of its serious subject matter, The Thing (82) rarely felt deadly serious, and when the going got tough, the characters' seriousness really hit you. There is an attempt early on at a sex joke, but by the end of the first minute, all humor is gone from The Thing (11). This might sound absurd, but Macready's sombrero is sorely missed here.
a & b corollary. Impossible to disentangle bad scripting, bad direction, bad acting, but all come together to emphasize points a & b. Basically it is a charmless film where no one on staff has made any real attempt to connect with the audience. Bleargh!
c. Too much monster, too fast. The thing is on the screen a lot, and it doesn't look particularly good. Every shot of it diminishes the sense of terror and dread. There were some girls screaming in the theatre at the beginning of the film, but by the end they weren't screaming. Why? Because the film had exhausted everything it could muster an hour before the end.
d. Too long. 2/3rds of all the monster screen time probably should have been cut and replaced with (good) characterization, and then the whole thing should have had another 20 minutes edited off of it. Go back and look at The Thing (82) and it works because it is brief, shocking, and leaves you wanting more.
e. Crappy CGI. LOTS OF IT. Very little real effects. Bleargh again.
f. Too normal. Surprisingly in a world with Resident Evil and Silent Hill, big fleshy things with tentacles has been done a million times. The Thing (82) still works because its vision of horror is surreal and sometimes borderline absurd. The weirdness is so much, sometimes characters just stare in disbelief ('you gotta be fuckin' kidding me!'). This is not to say the monster designs weren't at times worthy, but I never felt that first experience of the dog splitting in half and having the plant/flower thing come out of it. This may have been diminished by the CGI. Perhaps these designs would have been incredible if done with practical effects (though I think most would have been impossible.)
g. Too much jump-scare-tactics, not enough dark revelations. Where The Thing (11) ultimately fails to emulate The Thing (82) is its deviation from Carpenter's creeping horror (Lovecraft overtones intended). Instead, this is about things jumping out at you: build, fake jump, relief, real jump. Again and again. Seriously, fuck that. I'm not a teenage girl. The Thing (82) is horror in the sense that it slowly, piece by piece, strips away all humanity, blurs the line between what is human, etc. Perhaps because there are no secrets to be unveiled in this film, the directors might have thought there is no room for hideous revelations, but I think they've made a terrible oversight--being how the disintegration of those characters they never invested in is where we work our way back to 'who goes there?'
Those were my big complaints with the film. All that said, you might think I hated it, but it really wasn't that bad; just so many wasted opportunities. I still don't get why the end got high-jacked by Alien, but honestly, there's nothing in this film that really justifies it being made to begin with. It does feel entirely like a labor of love/fan-fiction project. A film where you care because you already love the source material, not because of the story/characters. If this was meant to build up to some sort of sequel (The Thing gets into the cities), it isn't something I'm terribly interested in seeing if it just means more lame special effects and mediocre acting.
Your review reads like an F-
