Pulling off a successful movie remake is difficult to do, and prequels are almost as tricky. Any time you add to an existing story, you invite comparisons to the original work. And when the original work has a massive cult following, failure and disappointment seem practically inevitable. In this sense, I applaud the producers of The Thing (Prequel) for attempting such a herculean feat.
After viewing The Thing, however, it seems Universal had only a mild interest in pleasing fans of John Carpenter’s original. This film, it appears to me, was not created by a team with strong appreciation and respect for the source material. Sadly, it’s just another money-grab.
Directed by Matthijs van Heijningen Jr., written by Ronald D. Moore and Eric Heisserer, and staring Mary Elizabeth Winstead, Joel Edgerton, Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje, and Dennis Storhoi, The Thing invaded theaters on October 14th.
Read my review after the jump…
John Carpenter’s The Thing and its prequel are both effects driven pieces of cinema. The effects used, and the approach taken with each film, however, couldn’t be more different. John Carpenter’s film came from an era before CGI, so yes, there were times when the creature effects seemed kind of fake. But what today’s filmmakers seem unable to realize is that CGI makes EVERYTHING look fake.
Sure, John Carpenter’s film might be a bit dated, but the effects were real. What I mean is, if The Thing squirted blood and slime all over a character, that Actor had to take a shower after the shoot. Someone else had to come in with a mop to clean the set after these scenes as well. It was a drippy, gooey, sticky, disgusting mess—and that’s what made it so fucking good.
While there are some decent gross-out effects in today’s The Thing, there was no mess. When the CGI Thing went on a rampage, for example, nothing putrid oozed from its skin. In fact, there was a distinct lake of slime of any kind. The charred alien corpses in John Carpenter’s The Thing all dripped a thick, clear, mucus substance (like warm KY jelly). But today’s Thing is bone dry, sleek, and so obviously computer generated. Even the blood was fake.
So it’s not long before this entire film is just feels—fake. The snow, the fire, the storm outside—they’re all fake.
Listen, John Carpenter’s Thing didn’t fool anyone over 10-years old. No adult actually believed that this creature was alive. But the effects were so outrageous, so over the top, so extremely gory that it didn’t matter. There was still a concrete, visceral effect on the viewer—a reason to hold your hand over your eyes, and a reason to scream. Know how the prequel tries to make you scream? Loud noises. For shame!
Worst of all, this CGI just make the film seem—lazy. Everyone knows you can sit behind a computer for hours fixing every perceived imperfection. It takes real effort to create a physical beast and to encourage the actors to interact with it in a believable way.
After watching John Carpenter’s The Thing, I remember feeling like my eyeballs needed a shower. What happened to the old school special effects artists, the mad scientists who weren’t afraid to make a bloody mess? Where are today’s puppeteers, sculptors, and artistic visionaries? Why don’t today’s filmmakers realize that no matter how much CGI blood you squeeze into a movie, the final result still feels sterile?
Another thing about CGI that filmmakers seem unable to accept: It’s not a perfect technology. On a large scale, CGI is awesome for making buildings fall, or airplanes crash. But on a smaller level, like in cramped quarters for example, CGI is cartoonish. Unless you’re trying to make a film that looks like a graphic novel (like 300) it’s not good to look cartoonish. I remember hearing someone comment recently that the 3 Star Wars prequels already look more dated compared to the originals—and it’s true. That CGI Yoda can’t hold a candle to Jim Henson’s physical creation.
This prequel does a fine job of fitting into John Carpenter’s universe with an ending that flows seamlessly into the original. Unfortunately, it doesn’t match the intensity or the vibe—not by a long shot. I realize that this is less of a review than it is a rant against CGI, but with no outstanding performances or great revelations, there’s really not much else to talk about.
If this film existed in a vacuum, perhaps I could be more forgiving. But it doesn’t. So I can’t.
2 and ½ out of 5 Skulls.
Saucy Josh writes a blog for intelligent Horror Movie aficionados called Blood and Guts for Grown Ups: https://bloodandgutsforgrownups.wordpress.com/
Incoming search terms:
- the thing cgi
- the thing film
- cgi the thing
- thing prequel cgi
- woman from underworld movie
- storhoi the thing
- the thing cgi 2011
- the thing cgi to fake
- movie called alive
- i love being a bboy
Related posts:
