Thursday, October 27, 2016

The Thing, directed by John Carpenter


No, not this The Thing

The Thing (1982)
Directed by John Carpenter

Starring Kurt Russell



The Thing. What can I say, except I really wanted to love this film. I really wanted to like this film. I really wanted to appreciate this film.

One out of three ain’t bad, I guess. I didn’t love or like the film, but I can appreciate it.

I appreciated the premise and the special effects, but the storytelling and plot didn’t work for me. From the too-long, plot hole-filled opening sequence to the too-short, plot-hole filled finale, I spent more time being mad at the movie for existing and trying my damnedest to stay awake during the expansive lulls in the story.

Let’s talk about plot holes. The movie opens with a helicopter-borne dog hunt. That’s fine, I suppose. I know I’ll learn why this guy’s shooting at a dog soon enough. But it’s about a ten-minute sequence and when they finally land the hunter turns out to be Benny Hill and blows up his own helicopter. Then he points a gun at a group of people, doesn’t say a word, and gets shot in the head. I’m pretty sure if I were chasing an alien dog, I’d be screaming something like, “Hey, that’s an alien dog! Stop him!”
This The Thing

So, that set the tone, and I tried so hard to get past that. But I hate movies dealing with paranoia. Especially when that paranoia is about who’s the secret alien. It almost always turns into two hours of, “Where were you?” and “How do I know you’re not the alien?” or “I’ve developed a test that will definitively identify the monster, though I have no way to test my hypothesis or—ahhhhhhhh! I’m dead now.”

Where was I? Oh, plot holes. There was a lot of fire, but nothing burned down. Not sure if we could classify that as a plot hole, but it was certainly annoying. Especially with all that dynamite laying around.

And there was plenty of other stuff. It was a lot of watching Kurt Russell sulking interspersed with gross-out special effects.

Okay, let’s talk about the special effects, because those were the high point of the movie. They were fantastic, if sometimes cheesy, and were executed seamlessly with the action. There was a period in the late eighties and nineties where the special effects were laid over the film in post-production, and they never came off right. The Thing was laden with practical effects and animatronics that gave the movie a realistic feel. Sometimes it was cartoonish, like when we watch a belly bite the arms off a doctor while he’s using defibrillators, but for the most part they were extremely well executed.

The alien itself is the source of the biggest plot hole for me. It’s a creature that kills and mimics. It seems to be able to take on its knowledge, which leads me to believe it’s not only sentient but also intelligent. So why, oh why, is this creature whose survival depends on his stealthy take-over of all the humans continuously expose itself? The biggest point of contention for me was when it was in dog form. It was placed in a kennel with the other dogs, and instead of biding its time until it could be alone with a human, it
immediately attacks all the dogs and exposes itself.

It does that several times throughout the movie, and it got annoying quick.

From a story standpoint, I don’t feel there was any great character arc from our survivors. They didn’t grow, but instead finally just settled down at the end.

This was my disjointed review of the film, because the film itself is disjointed. John Carpenter didn’t do a bad job, but the premise could have resulted in a much stronger film.

7 comments:

  1. Chad, it does a appear we disagree quite a bit on this film. Your impressions are understandable though. This was a film that blended sci-fi and horror which means their are elements that may be more appealing to sci-fi fans that horror ones (like the suspense of who is the monster sort of thing). I like the cross genre stories (obviously, I'm writing one) and I'm a fan of the short story that inspired this movie, which probably made me more impressed with it.

    I did want to mention that in the opening the Norwegian did say something to the effect of "that's not a dog, it's something else", but it was in his native tongue. So, he just sounded like a crazed man shooting at a seemingly innocent animal.

    The plot holes regarding how intelligent the things are is one I missed. I was just going along for the ride. You bring up a good point, if this being is smart enough to absorb and perfectly mimic other life forms, you would think it would be clever enough not to expose itself so easily. But, such covert assimilation lands this in more of a sci-fi thriller territory than a horror story.

    Still, we agree on the most important point, the effects were magnificent.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I must have dozed off during the part where the Norwegian guy tried to warn them.

      When it comes to movies, I'm a bigger sci-fi fan than horror, so maybe I put that hat on during the movie and expected something more intelligent from a sci-fi film. If you don't grab my attention early, I start to pick at it, and that's where this movie went wrong. It made me start to think too early!

      Delete
  2. Yeah, I agree with Vanessa's comments. She pretty much summarized it all up, and we do all agree that the effects are wonderful.

    But, but...it's just so damn cool of a film. I can't accept negative comments, I won't. It breaks my heart. :)

    I kid, because I can see where you and Joe-la are coming from. But I liked all the characters and the scenes in between, I think the pacing was wonderful and kept me right there with them. But, I guess i might have more of a biased perspective, as I've written a few short-stories inspired by this film.

    Anyways, it is always good to see other perspectives of the movie.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Aaron, I do agree that the pacing was about as perfect as you can get (once you get passed the dog chase).

      I haven't seen the remake/prequel, so maybe I should watch those back to back so I can see it from the Norwegian crew's POV.

      Delete
  3. Amen, Chad, amen. I was so annoyed watching this film. I had better things to do than watch Kurt "Jesus" Russel set things on fire. If they were real men they would have blown everything up and saved humanity. I feel like there's some kind of scientist protocol for shit like that.
    I disagree about the monster. I think he was a good monster in a bad movie and written poorly. I think there was a character in there struggling to be born, but because plot demanded it, the poor alien had to keep being exposed.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Gonna start calling you the surgeon because you dissected the shit out of this film! :)
    You have some interesting things (no pun intended) in your post. Although valid, I tend to give them a pass when I take into consideration that this film was written sometime around forty years ago. I think in todays world, you're right, the alien would conceal itself, and part of the task would be first discovering where it is, then last, what it is. Good post though!

    ReplyDelete
  5. Chad, I'm going to try yet again to post a comment on your blog. Blogger and Wordpress don't like to play together, it seems.
    You made a lot of good points in your review, but my favorite line of yours was when you described the Norwegian helicopter pilot as "Benny Hill blowing up his own helicopter." Hilarious.

    ReplyDelete