The Thing Underwhelms

Theatrical poster for The Thing

Imagine stumbling upon a mysterious alien creature in the ice caps of Antarctica while going on about your everyday job as a Paleontologist. As you begin to further investigate this strange “thing,” you soon discover a terrifying truth: it can replicate human DNA. 

“The Thing” serves as prequel to the 1982 John Carpenter’s “The Thing.” But don’t be fooled into thinking this is a remake because of the same title of its predecessor.

The film starts off with a trio of Norwegian scientists, who accidently find themselves beneath the ice caps and encounter an unknown spacecraft. Soon after this discovery, Paleontologist at Columbia University, Kate Lloyd, and along with her research assistant, are summoned to help Dr. Sander Halvorson and the rest of his crew to shed some light on this new creature. Do I need to further explain what happens?

            Nearly three decades after the release of “The Thing,” Universal Studios decides that it would be a wonderful idea to re-vamp the series. As great as it sounds, the problem is that only fans of the original will likely know what in the world is going on the film. But newcomers may be welcome to enjoy it. 

Mary Elizabeth Winstead plays Kate Lloyd

“The Thing” is riddled with special effects and computer generated imagery (CGI), but it’s kind of what one would expect living in an era of technology. Carpenter’s film took a more “raw” approach since the film used practically no special effects or CGI because of the time era it was made in.

            The 2011 film effectively makes use of technological capabilities, which is apparent during the transformation scenes, making the movie-going experience twice as gross and fun to look at.

            But the problem here isn’t the age gap of both films or the “exploitation” of special effects and CGI; it’s the cheap scares and clichés that are riddled throughout the entire film. 

When a campy horror film uses formulaic rules of a typical horror film, it’s fine because it doesn’t take itself too seriously. But when films as anticipated as “The Thing” is released, it’s hard not to roll your eyes when the character says “I’ll go check out that sound outside in the middle a snowstorm all alone.” With all the hype, we ask ourselves, “Is this the best they’ve got?”

            I couldn’t help but predict when something bad was going to happen in the film. The clichés were, should I say, “right around the corner.” Effective in a theater? Sure, but only because the volume is blasted. Effective at home? Nope.

            “The Thing” does not boast a big-named cast but there are some relatively known faces including Mary Elizabeth Winstead and Joel Edgerton.

            The majority of the characters don’t really serve a purpose other than to supply a list of kills, which is needed in a film like this and it does clear some ambiguity for the Carpenter version. We have the female heroin that is somewhat relatable to Ellen Ripley of the Alien series, but does not live up to horror standard’s expectations.

            The second and third act of the film primarily focuses on character trust and deceit. As members of the excavation group begin to transform into the “Thing,” characters become skeptical of one another and find themselves in quite a debacle.

            By the end of the day, it’s a matter of what we would actually do in the situation like this.

Leave the site and possibly open the gateway for the “Thing” to get out into society? Or forcibly quarantine everyone who is involved with the “Thing?” But how can we be so sure that everyone in the room isn’t already infected. For Kate Lloyd, though, risk isn’t an option.

            What made the film effective for me was the story itself more so than its execution. Certainly, I would be terrified being stuck in Antarctica with no way out and being trapped in a room with twelve other people who might be an alien. But what’s worse is that these little deviants act like your friend and then get you when you are alone and vulnerable. Sounds scary, right?

“Underwhelming” is the proper word that corresponds to “The Thing.” It’s not necessarily a bad movie but it is far from “great.” I commend “The Thing” for its ambiguous subplots, which is essentially what draws you into the film. 

Unfortunately, the film becomes a routine after the first hour and it’s only a matter of time before you look at your watch. But for what it is, it gets its job done.

Grade: C+

Drive (2011)

The Theatrical Poster for Drive.

Think Grand Theft Auto: Vice City [video game] meets Taxi Driver.

Ryan Gosling stars as "the driver" in this epic vignette of a film.

Drive is set in modern day Los Angeles, California, and follows an introverted young man who works as both a stunt driver for Hollywood films and mechanic at a car shop. But here’s the catch, he also has third job, where he drives criminals around the block as they do their dirty deeds. Oddly, Gosling’s character’s name is anonymous, so we shall refer to him as the “driver.” Well, the “driver” meets his neighbor, Irene (Cary Mulligan), an innocent woman who has had a troubling past with her ex-con boyfriend, and her son. As their relationship begins to cultivate, it becomes disrupted when Irene’s boyfriend is involved in some dirty deeds upon his release from prison and endangers both Irene and her son. It’s now up to the “driver” to end it all, but can he fight his own demons to what is the “right” thing?

You sure this is a good idea?

 While watching Drive, I couldn’t help but feel a strange inexplicable sense of nostalgia. Here, we have a protagonist, but at the same time we question if we can label him as the protagonist because of his actions. But let’s play the devil’s advocate in this one. The film centers around the driver, but has a few interesting additions, as well, including the driver’s one and only friend, Shannon, who primarily serves as a contradicting character and stirs up trouble unknowingly. Then we get the group of mob, who serves as the antagonist of the film. Irene’s purpose is seemingly to play the innocent side of the driver. 

Hey, it's Christina Hendricks from Mad Men.

From the start of the exposition, we are given the idea that the driver is skilled at what he does as he is able to escape from the police. However, we, the audience, are not given enough to know too much about him, but all we know is that he is a troubled man who seems to be trying to run away from whatever sin he has committed. As he intertwines himself into this bloody mess, the entire plot begins to dwindle into a path of twists and turns.

This is going to get ugly.

 Director Nicholas Refn certainly proves to the audience he can direct a movie with a combination of subtlety and brutality. Drive also echoes an 80’s backdrop with its electro-pop score and soundtrack, sort of taking us through a neo-Grindhouse kind of experience. Violence is not to be taken lightly in this subject matter. We have it all you want -- and shocking at that, as well. But, most importantly, it is used effectively as a storytelling device. With each blow, stab, and kick, we experience his solidarity and concealed anger, which gives us at least some clues to who he is as a person and what’s his motivation: psychopath or sociopath? Or perhaps something else? It’s up to.

Cary Mulligan and Ryan Gosling share a moment of "truth."

Drive is not movie for everyone; it's dark subject matter may push some audience members away, but maybe we can learn something from a film like Drive. The film strongly and implicitly revolves around the theme of personal conflict and uncovers something about the city of Los Angeles: the true L.A. where paparazzi and celebrities are not walking around; the gritty side of L.A., where drug inhabits and social issues continue to persist. I wouldn't necessarily label Drive as a typical revenge film, but more of a redemption film. But with an experimental film like this, it reminds us of the dangers and beauty of life with the ambivalent personal shadow that seems to inhibit over everyone subconsciously. In the end, we ask ourselves: how far are we willing to go end it all? To start new? Think of the meaning of the word "new."

However, that said, being familiar with works of Scorsese or the 80’s gangster films is not a necessity to enjoy Drive. Refn’s new addition to the modern genre is an undiscovered treasure of cinematic bliss for both the younger and older generation of audience members. That said, Drive is a dark film with a heart (oxymoron, right?). Performances are terrific all around; soundtrack is great; and the styli-sized violence makes the epic experience feel like it’s 1985…well, I wouldn’t know since I wasn’t born until 1993.

Grade: A