As a fan of John Carpenter's films (I've seen all of them) the one thing that has always drawn me to them is his unique ability to manipulate our senses. Whether it's Snake Plissken (in "Escape from New York") looking for a fictitious president somewhere beneath the rat-infested Beacon Theater on Broadway or John Nada (in "They Live") wearing over-sized black glasses, walking among skinless martians from outer space or Laurie Strode (in "Halloween", still his best work) hiding from psychopaths in narrow closets, Carpenter's brilliance has always been his ability to place a thin, invisible overlay of dread and claustrophobia in a scene, then gradually thicken that dread with mounting tension that forces us to look even when we don't want to. I don't want to look, but I don't have a choice because I've figuratively been strapped to my seat, my eyes taped open as I'm being force-fed a healthy dose of terror. To me, his films are cinematic "castor-oil" where you're forced to take every spoonful, but feel better once it's over and are glad you were made to take it.
Hence we have "The Thing" 2011, a well-meant "imitation" of it's original that does some really cool things but falls short in the area that counted the most: Carpenter's spiraling sense of dread and fear that hits us from all sides. First of all, to the credit of the filmmakers, they truly did their homework - especially in the area of continuity. Given the fact that this is a prequel, not a remake or a sequel, everything that happens here must link directly to Carpenter's film. Therefore, from the design of the original space ship to the block of ice that contained the Thing itself to the Norwegian who shoots at the dog and even the frozen man who took his own life and is discovered later by Kurt Russell, this film pays attention to every detail and gives us clues along the way. It also provides an insight as to how the ship was originally discovered, who the people were in the videos and photos discovered by Kurt Russell and tells a believable, stand-alone story that is one-half of a total piece. After seeing the prequel in the theaters I came home and immediately watched the 1982 film and was shocked at how well these pieces fit. For that, I give director Matthijs van Heijningen Jr. and writers Eric Heisserer and Ronald D. Moore a LOT of credit. I also give them credit for discovering something that Carpenter never picked up on - the inability of the Thing to recreate inanimate objects. In other words, if I break my arm and have screws put in to hold the bone in place, then get devoured by the Thing, it cannot copy the screws. This concept becomes the lone source of tension that resonates through the film.
Beyond that, this movie is good, but not great. The special effects are cool, but there's something about seeing CGI versus Rob Bottin's organic prosthetics that took away from its intended result. Don't get me wrong - the various contortions of the Thing were every bit as disturbing as they were in Carpenter's film, but - not that I've ever seen a "thing" up close - it didn't appear as realistic, if that makes any sense. Carpenter is an expert on how to use space and it appeared the compound in the 1982 version had a lot more places for the Thing to hide. The original also had more scenes of isolation where someone wanders off alone, completely out of ear-shot, so when they returned to the larger group you were left wondering if they've been infected. That's missing from here. The transformation scenes come too soon and too fast to build any real suspense. A more slowed-down approach by the filmmakers would have made a world of difference here; but then again, that was what made John Carpenter such a genius. He understood the longer we didn't know what was going on, the greater the payoff when something eventually happened. Ironically, the filmmakers of this chapter failed to "copy" that aspect of Carpenter's vision, and in all honesty, the Master of Horror should have made this himself.
If you're a fan of Carpenter, I think you'll appreciate - as I did - the amount of thought that went into making this film. But also, if you're a fan of Carpenter, you'll understand exactly where I'm coming from in terms of my critique.
I give this movie 2.8 stars out of 4. See it, but save the money and get it on Blu-Ray.
No comments:
Post a Comment