Quantcast
Channel: Citizen Journalism News: TheDailyPoint » Movies
Viewing all articles
Browse latest Browse all 10

‘The Thing’ resurfaces in movie theaters

$
0
0

“The Thing” is a vague and delightfully campy title that recalls drive-in movie monsters of yesteryear.

Back in 1951, movies like it and “It Came from Outer Space” brought low-budget laugh-scares, nonsensical yet entertaining movies.

The 1982 John Carpenter “Thing” remake, starring Kurt Russell, actually got some serious analysis because it created psychological games with claustrophobia and isolation. The alien creature, in all its movie versions, takes over humans by replicating their cells and acquiring a human look. You can’t tell who has been infested.

It’s the old “Invasion of the Body Snatchers” game and, in the low-budget realm, it served as a wonderful way to represent aliens, monsters, whatever by making them no more than low-paid actors. No special effects necessary.

There seems little excuse for a third “Thing,” other than developments in technology. The new film is yet again a creature feature for cold weather, set in Antarctica where it would be best to let frozen aliens lie.

Suffice it to say that the “Thing” is no E.T. A bow to “Alien” and its sequel “Aliens” includes a scampering little nasty that looks a lot like the legendary chest buster.

It is probably no coincidence, either, that Mary Elizabeth Winstead, the heroine, looks much like a young Sigourney Weaver. Her only assignment is to look tense at all times.

The new film looks great with enough snow-covered landscape to rival “Doctor Zhivago.”

The secret to success with such creature-feature films is that they have to deliver a creature that will match all the build-up. In this case, the challenge is lessened by the fact that the creature appears early on.

Perhaps the moviemakers remembered that what was considered a can’t-miss, the big-budget “Godzilla” remake, was a big flop because it strung the audience along for too long and then delivered a puny Godzilla.

This prequel, which takes place just before the 1982 film began, at least delivers in the effects category.The running time, wisely, is a quick-paced 90 minutes.

Source:-hamptonroads.com


Viewing all articles
Browse latest Browse all 10

Trending Articles