--Kate Lloyd, The Thing
The 2011 film The Thing, unlike the 2018 Halloween, the 2019 Black Christmas, or the 2021 Candyman, is not a strong reboot of or sequel to an original movie of the same name. It is a prequel with a credits scene that leads right into the events of John Carpenter's The Thing despite having an identical title. As a background story setting up the original, it has some series significance, especially given that Carpenter's movie is now widely praised (not that praise signifies quality). As a horror movie, it is a mixture of generic, undeveloped side characters and a clever lead character whose plans lead to several scenes of great uncertainty. This prequel is kept afloat mostly by Mary Elizabeth Winstead, a handful of strong supporting performances, and the epistemological dilemma of the characters as they deal with not having any way to prove that their companions have or have not been made into copies of an extraterrestrial monster.
Production Values
Other than some flame and snow effects, most of the aesthetic side of The Thing calls for typical effects work in movies where the majority of the runtime is spent with people simply talking. The alien ship, shown on the inside and outside in one part as it is powering up, is one of the only things that calls for special effects besides the titular creature and the flames used to attack it. Most of the film really does focus on the human cast as the characters struggle with their newfound appreciation for how one person cannot see into the minds of other beings. Mary Elizabeth Winstead, Joel Edgarton, and Game of Thrones actor Kristofer Hivju are some of the best performers here, but even Mary Elizabeth Winstead's main character Kate Lloyd has little to do besides occasionally figure out ways to attempt to identify who the creature is impersonating. There are far better movies or shows where each of these aforementioned cast members get the opportunities to truly showcase their skills, like It Comes At Night for Joel Edgarton and Game of Thrones for Kristofer Hivju. At the very least, the film intentionally or unintentionally avoids the cliche of having the black character die first in a horror movie!
Story
Some spoilers are below.
The discovery of a seemingly extraterrestrial spacecraft in Antarctica prompts joy and then terror when an exotic organism found nearby begins to consume a scientist. Though it is burned, the creature is given an autopsy and what appears to be the remains of the scientist are seen inside its body--but his skin looks as if it is being remade. Analysis of the alien's cells shows it is still alive and actively imitating the cells of the deceased scientist. The creature is able to eventually mimic living or once-living beings by replicating them from a cellular level up, and it even can adopt their mannerisms, speaking patterns, and memories. Its inability to copy implants or fillings for teeth is one of the few clues the remaining scientists have in trying to identify who it is impersonating.
Intellectual Content
The moment a character calls something that does not contradict itself or logical axioms "impossible" even though it is happening right in front of them or even though they could easily realize it is entirely possible, a work of entertainment has the chance to address actual logical possibility. It appears that any characters who initially mistook the concept of a shapeshifting alien entity for a logical impossibility quickly changed this part of their worldviews! The following heightened focus on how they cannot know with absolute certainty if their companions are another host form for "the thing" spurs assumptions, paranoia, and threats.
However, everyone could realize with or without such traumatic circumstances which bring the gulf between human minds to the forefront that there is literally no way to even know other minds exist, or that they are having particular thoughts or experiencing certain intentions, without a metaphysical nature that goes far beyond human limitations. Either non-rationalists have vaguely recognized this and only face the truth when a situation forces them to dwell on it for the sake of safety, or they are too philosophically incompetent to realize this in any sense before a situation brings it to their attention. In either case, the inability to know if other people are being honest about anything but an admission of strictly logical truths that could be discovered or verified with or without the words of others constantly follows one all throughout everyday life.
Conclusion
The Thing is not among the best contemporary horror movies to borrow the name of the first in the series. Halloween and Child's Play are superior examples of how to equal or surpass the original. Its premise is a valid extension of John Carpenter's horror universe, but its lackluster characterization holds it back from true greatness. After all, it already has a philosophically important and artistically useful setup with the epistemological dilemma at its core, and its effects are not awful for its time by any means, so the execution and characters would be the other major aspects that need to be handled well. The philosophical story elements and quality effects (for the most part) are there; the execution and emotional depth of what we see from the characters could have been far stronger. What results is a very mixed movie.
Content:
1. Violence: The creature impales people and visibly merges its body to theirs in a seemingly painful process. Some humans repeatedly burn it with flamethrowers.
2. Profanity: "Shit," "damn," and "fucking" are used.
No comments:
Post a Comment