Here's THE THING

You might recall I've been anticipating the new movie of The Thing.  I'd been interested for another reason beyond the desire to see more of a good (cough) thing.  What really attracted me is the attitude, promises and vision of the man who brought it to the screen, Matthijs van Heijningen, Jr.  In a nutshell:  When the time came that they wanted to remake the property, he came along saying 'Not, a remake... a prequel.'  It would be the same premise, so in essence, a remake, but it would tie into the famous and beloved version by John Carpenter by showing the events of the Norwegian base that the Carpenter characters come across.  And then, end as the other movie began.  All done with utter respect and accuracy out of love.

I'm happy to say that Matthijs van Heijningen, Jr. delivered.  Exactly what he professed to do.

Funnily enough, I longed to see how that axe would get lodged in the door.  And when it finally happened, I wanted to applaud.  I wouldn't have guessed that to be the scenario.  Such clever use of a cherished aspect of the original film to achieve it, too.  And a wee bit of a joke made out of it to boot.  But so much more made me love it than inventive axe usage.

Is it a remake?  Well, yes, but decidedly NO.  The idea of being trapped/isolated in a harsh frozen environment and not able to trust anyone because they might be the Thing remains.  So in that sense, it's the same movie over again.  But other elements make it new and fresh.

For one (cough) thing, it is in fact the prequel.  We're treated to finding the Thing and the joys and eventual horror that come with such a discovery.  Most importantly, though, it enabled the incorporaton of a classic storyline.  The monster movie!  It worked very well.  Since it deals with previous events, it only makes sense that the creature would run around "out in the open."  After all, it's a potentinally giant contorted beastie with huge set (or sets!) of jaws with the ability to grab victims with tentacles or claws.  I mean, really, who would challenge it?  As you probably know from the first movie, a flamethrower is the humans' friend.  Torching the hell out of the Thing happens a lot (again, in both movies.)  If YOU were the Thing, you'd eventually learn that being burned up in this place is a fact of life.  Thus, it would adapt.  Safer to remain hidden and hide AS other beings.  Don't get me wrong, it does that as well in this movie.  The "could be anyone of us" theme is core.  But again, the Thing tries running amok as a monster, chasing the humans through halls and such.  A welcome dimension to the film/concept/story and a terrific delight.

Matching up all the visuals, both sets and items (like the burnt up twisted mass of human and monster that the Carpenter folk found) all were executed beautifully.  When we entered the room that had the giant block of ice, yeah, I got the chills.  And it all felt like the original film.

And when they also began to rehash (more like homage) a part of the original story/movie, namely the "test" for how to determine who the monster is... they then took it away.  Something happens resulting that they are unable to proceed.  But the scene remains.  How?  A believable alternative solution as to how to expose the monster arises.  However, it again adds another dimension to the familiar tale.  The new method is not foolproof.  All it can say is this person might be the monster.  What a great extra level of psychological torture, no?

It had been great not just to see the reason for the axe, but how other key incidents/objects in Carpenter's played out.  Yet it didn't answer all the questions.  I'm glad.  I don't think it should.  Mystery and the unknown is essential to this story.  We also don't have a clear picture of what the Thing looked like when they found it.  It's in ice, remember?  So it's not all that easy to see.  And when it escape, boy howdy!, is it quick.  Quick enough to make me use the words "boy howdy!"

Reportedly this new movie would utilize the same type of special effects as the Carpenter movie.  The tendency nowadays is to just CGI it.  But van Heijningen, Jr. didn't want that.  It had to have the same look as the original if it were to be accepted as on par and part of it.  So they went with animatronics and laytex and all the old school wizardry.  A little CGI, yes, but only when it couldn't be done otherwise or to "clean up" an existing effect.  And it's truly, for my money, exactly that.  It has the same beautiful ickiness of the original.

I also must give credit to Mary Elizabeth Winstead.  I knew her as Ramona Flowers in one of my absoulte favorites Scott Pilgrim vs. the World.  But she's not an elusive cute chick in this flick.  She's a downright action hero.  And she looked taller, to be honest.  van Heijningen, Jr. had been right.  Using a woman as the main character to counter balance the inmitable Kurt Russell helped seal the deal.  Winstead played it with gusto.  Showing the character's vulnerability but ability to rise to the occasion and take charge.  Brava! 

Unfortunately, Buttercup didn't like as much as me.  She had trouble articulating her point of view, but she felt there were no new ideas presented.  Not in the sense of newness that' I've already mentioned, but in terms of it seemed "just any old monster movie," or so is my take on what she'd meant from how she expressed herself.  My response is, well, it's meant to be a backwards extension of Carpenter's film.  Thus, it should have been in a "as before" kind of mode. 'Tis a shame she didn't love it, too, as Buttercup and I usually agree.  But she didn't hate it.  She said she isn't sorry she went.  And thought the F/X were good and such.

I'm going to see it again.  I texted a college friend of mine that I haven't seen in years.  He's a HUGE fan of Carpenter's The Thing.  He said he's been curious about it... and now I get to go with him and hope that he, too, feels the joy of its horrors.

For me, though:
All in all, a triumph.  It's rare when you receive exactly what you wanted.  Especially from Hollywood.

A Few Things...

So that new The Thing movie?  That's the thing.  It's also (and still) called The Thing.  They're not sure what else to call it.  In that article I quoted in the last post Marc Abraham talks about the difficulty in naming the movie.  Call it The Thing Begins and someone will balk that it began with John Carpenter and how dare they call it as such.  The Thing Prequel?  Nah.  So, right now it's just called The Thing.  Again.  Although keeping that the title is somehow appealing, it smacks too much of a remake.  I have a suggestion.  After jokingly going for the obvious Another Thing, I realized a very viable solution.  Since the movie Carpenter used as a springboard had been The Thing from Another World, why not call this one: From Another World.  Yes, I realize the order isn't right to continue from/as the original title (meaning that the new film is a prequel) but it does work in the sense that the new film will be more so about the thing that came here a la the crashed ship and removing the lifeform inside only to have the same type of chaos ensue which, as we know, will lead directly into the Carpenter film.  So how about it?  From Another World.   Any takers?

Bart, Buttercup (who has not seen it) and I are going to watch it tomorrow night.  She's excited.  I am, too, since it's been a great while for me since I last saw it.

Meanwhile, I'm still tossing around ideas and researching for the new novel.  I now have all the character names.  Okay, okay, that's a lie.  I have all the main character names.  To be honest, I'm not exactly sure the supporting characters are going to have names.  I'll have to see if I can get away with it, but right now I'm thinking it could work even better to just have them observed by the principle players.  It seems as if what those around them are called would be of little interest to them.  So, if the principles don't know their names, why should we?  I'll see how it plays out and works best, of course.

Anyway, with the characters named, their personalities are starting to come through and they've started, just started, to help me understand their story.  I'll keep figuring, listening and poking up some research to find out what their spiritual (ha!) journey turns out to be.  Hmm.  That just gave me an idea.

Doing the Right THING

Okay, this is the kind of (ahem!) thing I love to hear.  But first, what I'm talking about:

Another movie of The Thing is currently filming.  It's not a remake, actually, but an extension of the original in the form of a prequel.  It even promises to end the way the original movie begins.  I've known about it for some time now... and after my initial uninformed eyeroll, I wound up very intrigued and interested in the project.   Truth is I could use a little more of The Thing myself and it sounded like a fine idea, especially since those involved really seemed to care.  It's also good to know the paleontologist whose presence is needed in (and thus comes to) Antarctica is female.



New Movie



All righty, back to what I'm happy about hearing.  A new interview/report has just come out which gives some more insights into the production.  Music to my ears.  Matthijs van Heijningen Jr. seems like a man, as they say, after my own heart - a dedicated and purist storyteller when using another's work as a base. Said in this article at MovieWeb:  You find the axe in the door in this movie, there's an axe in the door and you see how the axe got in the door.  The interviewer says: It's obvious to anyone that steps foot on the set that the filmmakers are bending over backwards to make this film connect to the original as best they can. 

WELL HOSAH!  Marc Abraham (the interviewed) goes on to talk about the process of Hollywood, just shy of saying it's shame the way it is.  But they're taking the opposite approach.  With The Thing they're sticking to their guns as well as to the original.  Thus, they're able to be super-inventive while oddly locked into many restrictions... like that axe.  On a purely creative level we knew it would be difficult. On a much larger bird's eye view you say to yourself, hey that's the deal. I think that when we looked at it, it was more of a challenge. Its kind of fun that you see an axe in a door, an ice block, a spaceship or this mayhem in this radio room because it's like CSI, it's a crime scene. What happened? We had to go back and go, at one point someone picked up an axe thinking...

Original Movie

And if that's not dedication enough for you, Abraham said:  Matthijs van Heijningen Jr. has it on his laptop. Not only screen captures of it but the entire movie and there isn't a moment when he doesn't go back to the original. He's so careful about where the axe is in the door, what the ice block looked like, or the spaceship, where they stand when we see the spaceship. Because we can do so much more, so many things we could do, but when it came to being anything that was referenced in that movie, we have absolutely stayed with it. Thousands of hours he's spent looking at that movie. He knows and is respectful of every aspect.

Bravo!  Shouldn't it always be like that?  The real shame is that respect such as this is the anomaly.

And you know what?  I don't even remember an axe in a door!  I guess it's been a while since I've seen John Carpenter's half of The Thing.  I'll just have to watch it again, I suppose... hmm, I wonder if Buttercup has seen it.

(And yes, I'm well aware that Carpenter's isn't the "original" but it is in a sense.  He didn't just remake the 1951 original The Thing from Another World, he thoroughly reinvented it.)

Just the THING You to Want to Hear

Dash - Raise - Wild!

Thought I’d keep you up to date with my thoughts on some Hollywood rumblings (oh boy!)

It’s reported that Thor will feature some other characters from the Marvel Universe as well. At first this upset me, but then I remembered: I had already deemed the same crossover technique quite cool in their other movies. (Granted, I have not seem many of them, as superheroes have worn on me of late.) Thus, how could I be miffed about them creating the very inter-connectivity of their comic books onto the silver screen? I can’t. Then I realized what actually made me sad. The only aspect of the movie I looked forward to had been the Norse mythology. You might recall I’m quite eager to see a big-budget well-crafted film using the Norse epics. So, I shall ride along, seeing how it plays out.

On the other side of the coin is a movie I had rolled my eyes at when I first heard of its forthcoming. A remake of The Thing. No no…don’t roll your eyes just yet. It’s not really a remake. It’s along the lines of a “quel” as I describe in this post. The opening scene in John Carpenter’s wonderful horror flick is being expanded. We know the Kurt Russell character and his camp had an adventure, but it begins with people from another camp. Thus, the new movie is their story. A prequel, but not quite. A gaiden adventure, nonetheless. If they tackle it with care and have a good script – just might work.

And, as if you couldn’t tell, the new poster for Where the Wild Things Are is here. The trailer is coming very soon. I’ll post a link when I can.

So… to recap: hopes dashed, an eyebrow raised and the wild things escape.

UPDATE: I've posted the trailer in Lil' Updates...