The (Unnecessary) Thing (2011)

My tagline: It's not necessary. Ever.

Being that The Thing (1982) is my favourite Carpenter film (and is still to this day, in my opinion, the best use of practical effects in a horror film), I shuddered when I heard that it was being remade last year. I suppose it's not in any way surprising given that Hollywood has nearly given up on creating new IP in the horror genre, but I had thought that The Thing might be safe. Foolish me. The bloated and festering cash cow has struck again!

When production began it was announced that this Thing would not be a direct remake, but instead a prequel, intended to both be it's own film and to setup events for Carpenter's original. That immediately posed problems in my mind and I avoided it in theatres, yet now that it's out on video I thought I'd give it a go. Here's my truncated thoughts on the film:

Totally pointless. 

This guy must have seen the dailies...

I suppose I should briefly explain why I find it so pointless. First and foremost, it's very existence nullifies the fantastic intro of Carpenter's original. The slow build of the first half of the '82 version begins in the very first frame of the film. Why is there a dog running across the tundra? Why are crazy Norwegians in a helicopter trying to blow it the hell up? Why is this minimalist synthesized Morricone soundtrack so incredibly awesome? The answers to two of those questions are spoiled by the prequel's very premise, as it tells the story of what happened at the Norwegian camp just prior to the start of the original. Call me crazy (go ahead), but I much prefer the mystery that the '82 version builds on, as before the alien even reveals its presence there's already the interesting issue of mad Scandinavian scientists at hand. Not to mention (spoiler ahead) that the prequel ends with the survival of a main character who plays no role in Carpenter's film yet would presumably still be around the Norwegian camp when the Americans investigate. But what if, you might ask, I've never seen Carpenter's version and have no intention to? Would the 2011 Thing be less offensive? After berating you I would answer no, no it would not.

"Help! I've been photoshopped to a low resolution monster!"

I will say that the 2011 Thing isn't an awful film in its own right. It isn't a hokey supernatural mash-up with teenagers and it doesn't rely on ridiculous plot twists or torture porn to get an audience reaction. It's fairly straightforward, and if you're going to crib material, you can do a lot worse than Carpenter's version. The problem is that it pushes aside much of the paranoia and horror found in the original in lieu of showing the "creature" over and over and over again. And man alive is the CGI bad. As I mentioned, Carpenter's version has some of the most impressive and disturbing practical monster effects I've ever seen. Sure they have their moments of iffiness, but they have a concrete, real presence that the prequel completely loses. If this movie had been made 6 or 7 years ago it would have been passable, but I've seen episodes of TV with more impressive effects. A suggestion: if your creature models are incredibly complex yet you do not have the money to fully realize that complexity, perhaps consider showing them far less frequently. It'll reduce the laughing and head-shaking syndrome your audience appears to have contracted.

So if you're a fan of Carpenter's The Thing, there's very little reason to watch this "prequel". It destroys the mystery, retreads exactly the same ground, and does so with far less finesse. If you are still oddly compelled to watch it, watch the original first and treat the prequel as a mildly interesting aside.

A final thought: testing blood one petri dish at a time to weed out an alien creature? Tense and effective. Checking each character's mouth for fillings instead? Not so much. Healthy teeth, the number one sign someone is a murderous shapeshifter from space.