In 1982 John Carpenter remade (or just made a more faithful adaptation of the original story depending on your point of view) Howard Hawk's film "The Thing From Another World". Howard Hawks film was a decent B-sci-fi film, but Carpenters was fantastic. Now the film industry today learned that "remake" is a dirty word...people don't like em! So they've created and used every other word they can think up to avoid using the term "remake" yet keep making them. The word they chose this time was "prequel". Don't let them fool you...this is only a prequel in the flimsiest of senses...its a damn remake. Why? Plots the same, a lot of the plot points are recycled, and visual it bears resemblance to Carpenter's fantastic film. Yes there are certain aspects that are lead into the 1982 film, but the title and everything else just lead me to calling this exactly what it is: a REMAKE. Beyond being a remake though, it is also a mundane film. Carpenter's was a master work of the ensemble cast. It has like 11 or 12 characters yet most got development and I understood who everyone was. I could barely remember the name of the main character five minutes out of the theater (it eventually dawned on me that it was Kate). The characters are grossly underdeveloped. Add onto that the suspense, tension, and paranoia that ruled Carpenter's film is all lacking. The movie just wasn't as much fun or as entertaining as Carpenter's film, and if I'm being honest: even Howard Hawks film. The thing while there was plenty of mystery about the Norwegian outpost at the beginning (and throughout) the 1982 film, the truth is it doesn't matter what happened...you can guess it was similar to what happened to the US outpost. And this movie showed that it was almost EXACTLY the same.
Thursday, November 24, 2011
The Thing (2011)
In 1982 John Carpenter remade (or just made a more faithful adaptation of the original story depending on your point of view) Howard Hawk's film "The Thing From Another World". Howard Hawks film was a decent B-sci-fi film, but Carpenters was fantastic. Now the film industry today learned that "remake" is a dirty word...people don't like em! So they've created and used every other word they can think up to avoid using the term "remake" yet keep making them. The word they chose this time was "prequel". Don't let them fool you...this is only a prequel in the flimsiest of senses...its a damn remake. Why? Plots the same, a lot of the plot points are recycled, and visual it bears resemblance to Carpenter's fantastic film. Yes there are certain aspects that are lead into the 1982 film, but the title and everything else just lead me to calling this exactly what it is: a REMAKE. Beyond being a remake though, it is also a mundane film. Carpenter's was a master work of the ensemble cast. It has like 11 or 12 characters yet most got development and I understood who everyone was. I could barely remember the name of the main character five minutes out of the theater (it eventually dawned on me that it was Kate). The characters are grossly underdeveloped. Add onto that the suspense, tension, and paranoia that ruled Carpenter's film is all lacking. The movie just wasn't as much fun or as entertaining as Carpenter's film, and if I'm being honest: even Howard Hawks film. The thing while there was plenty of mystery about the Norwegian outpost at the beginning (and throughout) the 1982 film, the truth is it doesn't matter what happened...you can guess it was similar to what happened to the US outpost. And this movie showed that it was almost EXACTLY the same.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment