Loading ...So, the phenomenon of the ‘remake’ film is nothing new. The thing is marvelous! Everything begins in Antarctica, an extreme place, lonely, who keeps a secret. Kate Lloyd paleontologist – played by Mary Elizabeth Winstead – she goes on the expedition of her life. This character joins a team of Norwegian scientists that have stumbled [...]
So, the phenomenon of the ‘remake’ film is nothing new. The thing is marvelous! Everything begins in Antarctica, an extreme place, lonely, who keeps a secret. Kate Lloyd paleontologist – played by Mary Elizabeth Winstead – she goes on the expedition of her life. This character joins a team of Norwegian scientists that have stumbled upon an alien spacecraft buried in the ice with the ship, is also a dead body that opened years ago. Thanks to the efforts of scientists, the creature awakens from its long sleep, endangering everyone. The thing is a parasite that mimics every touch. Soon scientists will wonder whether your partner is really human.
Since the early days of cinema, at the beginning of the twentieth century, new technologies have inspired the idea to retell a story using new tools, and of course, printing the supposedly improved vision of a new production team. Even Cecil B. DeMille remade his own “Ten Commandments” in 1956, perhaps unhappy with the results she got when the first film in 1923.
The disadvantage of this practice is rarely the remake is better than the original. And if we put this phenomenon in the context of American cinema of the early twenty-first century the results are not only bad but even tragic. Have any concrete fantasy films like “The Haunting” and “The Planet of the Apes” whose respective remakes not only taint the memory of the revered original, but replace them in the minds of young audiences, so now the words The not evoke a haunting masterpiece of horror, but a high price joke, everlasting testimony that new technological tools are not replacing interesting stories.
That’s why the remake of “The Thing” should have a special place within the horror genre. The original film, directed by Christian Nyby and premiered in 1951 was based on short story “Who Goes There?” John W. Campbell Jr. and became a kind of Frankenstein the ambiguous threat story was replaced by a conventional monster (played by James Arness) of vegetable course. Although the film is very competent (especially considering the sorry state of fantasy films of the time) and manages to produce some suspense, we can say that has not aged very gracefully.
Then, 31 years after the famed director John Carpenter, supported by the recent economic success of “Escape From New York” and “The Fog”, tapes made independently, away from “research” was a screenplay written by Bill Lancaster ( Hidalgo Pirate’s son himself, Burt Lancaster) who proposes a new version of “The Thing” much more true to the original story and making use of the fantastic special effects that advances in plastics had just promoted. Carpenter, remembering the taste which was the original version, accepted the project and embarked on what would be his first film “study”, technically and financially backed by Universal Pictures. Carpenter was harshly criticized for failing to no women in the film, and the level of blood and guts led one critic to call the director “a pornographer of violence.”
This pornographically violent history is a variation of the concept “house of terror”: a Norwegian team working scientific research in Antarctica discovers a flying saucer buried beneath the eternal snow, and one of its original occupants. Being escapes and is pursued by the Norwegian camp until another scientist, is occupied by an American team. Before the dangers the Norwegians die, leaving the Americans puzzled by the apparent frenzy with the Norwegians tried to kill a dog. The dog, of course, is the extraterrestrial entity that has the ability to absorb and imitate any life form, thus disguised in any environment and attack their victims, not with stupid malice of a classic monster, but with the cold and ruthless instinct of reproduction and survival. By the time Americans realize the situation many of them are already infected … But who? If the creature mimics their victims, and if it was played, how to know who is human and who is not?
That question, the dilemma of trust and mistrust among friends, this impending paranoia, is the central core of the film. The actors, all fantastic, albeit some with more juicy roles than others, begin to resent the stress of the situation in almost total isolation, as they are trapped inside the research center, one of the most hostile environments for humans; and on another level they are trapped inside their minds, they do not know even if they themselves would be recognized if the creature had assimilated.
But this is not a psychological thriller, yet, it is based on those principles. On the contrary, this is one of the most visceral horror films (literally) that have been made. With the help of the great Rob Bottin, Carpenter reflected in the screen some of the most disturbing and surreal scenes of horror.
“The Thing” belongs in the Hall of Fame with horror films like “Dawn of the Dead”, “Videodrome” and “The Fly” (the Cronenberg – another notable remake), all making great use of the conventions of horror, but provocative and interesting ideas in support of his disturbing images. Confirmed classic, worthy to be seen by the general public and essential for fans of the genre!
Incoming search terms:
