The Thing 2011: Sometimes, we should leave well enough alone …

15th February, 2012.

Hmmm …

I’ll be honest, it’s not THAT often I mix me posts up, it really isn’t.

But I thought I’d quietly let you know I’ve just a friend, Karen Chilvers, on Brentwood’s local radio station, speaking about the local council and how local councillors REALLY don’t seem to be a working as hard as they could be.

And putting in what I thought was a rather good showing.

Hopefully, that SHOULD serve her well: considering she’s standing for re-election as a Brentwood West Councillor, on May 3rd of this year.

‹‹•››

But that’s not what I started this post, wanting to tell you about, it REALLY wasn’t …

No, I was going to tell you about Saint Valentine’s Day.

Or, at least, what I did on it, last night.

And, yes, I’d LOVE to tell you I had a date, but to be frank … ?

Not on my money … !

No, I’ll happily admit to having the evening to meself with a movie.

Which DOES have the advantage of being cheap, emotionally uncomplicated and leaves me with clean sheets*.

At ANY rate … ?

The film I managed to catch … ?

Was the 2011 prequel to John Carpenter’s The Thing, called — imaginatively — The Thing.

Derived loosely from the John W. Campbell short story, Who Goes There, The Thing (2011) is a direct prequel to the Carpenter original, and sees Mary Elizabeth Winstead as Kate Lloyd: a young palæontologist recruited to help a team of Norwegian scientists — led by Dr. Sander Halvorson, played by Ulrich Thompson — who are investigating a very unusual crash site in the Antarctic.

Of course, those of us who’ve seen Carpenter’s original will be VERY aware of what the team find …

‹‹•››

Which, of course, is going to leave you asking …

Well, probably TONS of things, actually.

You’re probably sitting there thinking, “Come on, Nik Nak, was The Thing (2011) any good … ?”

And I’ve got to say I liked it.

But I’ve a caveat or two for you, there.

First off … ?

Firstly, yes, the 2011 film is quite good: it’s competently acted, the direction, production and effects are all very well done.

About my only complaint — on THAT front, at least — was that I felt it suffered a touch from what I’ve seen referred to as Idiot Syndrome. In other words, at one or two stages of the film, it relies on someone making an idiotic mistake. (There’s a scene where Dr Halvosen orders a tissue sample taken from the creature, for example: against quite a LOT of good advice.)

On top of that … ?

I’m not to sure about you, but if I’m watching something that’s part of a series — watching or reading, I should maybe say — I like to learn — or be told — something new about the characters and background universe: while I was never a fan in particular of — as an example — the Predator series of films, they always left me the impression that that was something the writers were trying to do with the franchise.

That’s not something I’m convinced about, with the 2011 take of The Thing.

On top of THAT … ?

On top of THAT, I’m also VERY aware that this particular movie is a prequel to John Carpenter’s The Thing.

And that, while it does tie itself quite nicely to its illustrious, and three decade old predecessor, it really DOES lack the terror, isolation and paranoia of the original.

Keep that in mind.

The Thing

★★☆☆