The Thing (2011)

 Caution: Spoilers. Spoilers, spoilers, spoilers. I am going to be spoiling a great film that I wish everyone would spend at least one evening enjoying. And I will be spoiling an abomination that should never have gotten to a board room let alone to the editing studio. You can decide which is which.

I feel dirty. The filth coating me hasn't left for the past week no matter how many times I take a wire scrub and remove layers of skin until I am blood raw. As a birthday treat on the 2nd December I decided to take my brother to the cinema and the movie chosen to while away the evening was The Thing (2011). I know, I didn't learn my lesson with A Nightmare on Elm Street (2010) remake; I was smart enough to avoid Friday the 13th (2009) but went out of my way to watch The Omen (2006) even though I have the original on DVD sitting right next to it (hell, in the same box set). But what cuts deeper than not learning my lesson about horror remakes is I actually went into this hoping they would get this one right. I sat down during the adverts thinking that this would be it; The Thing is going to buck the tread and get me reminiscing over one of my all-time favourite horror films. I was reminiscing afterwards, but I was heartbroken at the time.

John Carpenter's The Thing (1982) has been a favourite of mine throughout my known life. Despite getting everything right (for me personally) one thing that always comes to mind after the credits start is; what happened on the Norwegian base the group travel to? And it seemed that enough people wondered this that the script was written and approved to release the prequel that will answer just what happened before Macready and crew had their world torn apart.

As a fan, I can't ignore the comparison to the original John Carpenter masterpiece. Though not being a remake, The Thing had the balls to keep the name and I plan to tear them a new one for this decision. If you have yet to see the 1982 version and would like to read an opinion based on the 2011 abomination alone, visit my friend at I want the fairy tale and she will point you in the right direction.

Now, since I feel my nostalgia, childhood and an entire range of emotion has been viciously taken advantage of I feel it is only fair I treat The Thing to the same ordeal. So to begin with, let's see how Mary Elizabeth Winstead measures up to Kurt Russell.

R.J. Macready versus Kate Lloyd

Mac wants the what?!...

I'm tackling the protagonists first because they are our gateway into the two films. Macready is almost an anti-hero at the beginning of John Carpenter's The Thing; he keeps to himself, he is blunt and he is bitter enough to shortcut a PC for beating him at chess using valuable alcohol. Despite this Macready, being the on-base pilot, has the nerves, calm and logic that aids in his development as the leader of the group later in the film. Plus, he's got a beard so you know he means business.

Kate Lloyd is a palaeontologist. She is called upon through plot convenience to visit the Norwegian Antarctic station to identify an unknown life form. Her driving force through the film as a protagonist is she's white, American and female. As the outsider of the base she hasn't much trust in anyone around her, though demands trust from her peers because she's skipped a few pages in the script and knows she doesn't die.

The people who got off the rollercoaster are still going to die...wait...

There is no contest here between the two characters. Macready has a connection to the Antarctic station as well as the men working there. You can genuinely feel friendships and emotions fall apart at the first hint that someone might be The Thing in disguise. Macready isn't even safe when his torn clothes are found in the furnace (this is explained in more detail later but The Thing is unable to copy inorganic material, therefore any clothing that cannot be worn after assimilation needed to be destroyed) and so the suspicion is turned on it's head until you can be certain the man you want to succeed is still human. Lloyd comes over as nothing more than a know-it-all megalomaniac, demanding so much from a crew who have no reason to trust her more than the men and women they've spent every day with for the last number of months. There is never that moment of genuine doubt, whether she is still human, Kate Lloyd is perfect. The bad perfect.

My genuine distaste for even thinking about her bland character throws me into fits of rage; my last paragraph took a good 20 minutes to make coherent. Kate Lloyd doesn't bring you into the story in any way, I spent the majority of the movie waiting for her to bring in the next piece of exposition to move the scene along and at no point did I feel like a part of this crew stuck in the Antarctic. Macready brought me into the story, instead of following him it is almost as if you're treated as part of their team, you feel the paranoia and suspicion and start to turn on characters you thought you would love until the end. I know that's more to do direction and the atmosphere created by the film, and I will be touching on this later. But I hate Kate Lloyd.

Supporting Cast versus Supporting Cast

There is a round a dozen supporting characters for each film and each play their own part in telling the tale. John Carpenter's The Thing using the full cast almost perfectly save a few examples; even then I only feel let down that I didn't get more time to know them before their untimely death. From the top of my head I can name you 6-8 individuals besides R.J. Macready, and that is because they are individuals. From Blair figuring out what happens if The Thing reaches civilisation and subsequently detained to Childs standing up to Macready’s authority, each member of the team was unique and you could sense they have been trapped together for months. There is a tolerance in the air for each other, a slim acceptance of the situation; this selection of men would never hang out as friends but in the current environment they know it is better to pull together than fall apart. The combination of personalities, the weather, the location and The Thing threatening to end their lives becomes the ideal setting for a horror film. Everyone takes their role and makes it stand out, the camera could have followed any number of them and John Carpenter's The Thing would still be one of my favourite horror films.

The Thing throws the complete opposite at you. You're given a herd to be picked off one by one until you're left with the protagonist alone at the end. I can name one supporting character, and that is purely because you can not ignore the scale and awesomeness of his beard. Hell, I had to check what Kate Lloyd's name was from IMDB; you feel no connection to anyone involved. You know they're simply fodder for the monster, a suspicion confirmed as soon as everyone on base has the exact same bland character. I swear only the names change, you could swap everyone's role and the story would still continue as normal. The length of character development in The Thing is there's a girl on base (probably to show something exciting and new since John Carpenter's American station was a sausage fest), and someone is 'the dog guy' (again this is probably a reference to the 1982 film, Clark was the dog handler and was responsible for roughly half a dozen dogs, that appeared on screen. In the 2011 feature has a total of one. One dog that was only necessary to lead onto the previous) and I can not remember which of the crew was the dog handler now. Maybe Lars? I seem to remember the conversation going something like he can't speak English so he hangs out with the dogs...sorry, dog.

You've got a fully developed and unique group desperately fighting for survival on their own terms against a useless collection of witless morons who apparently stand on the spot waiting for death to come unless a young, attractive American tells them what to do. Yep, it's 2-0. You can guess the final score but I'm having too much fun now to stop.

The Thing versus The Thing

John Carpenter's adaption of "Who Goes There?" shows The Thing as an almost perfect organism for hunting, survival and adaptation. After remaining in the form of a sledge dog, it is locked away in the kennels and begins to openly devour the other canines. This action is countered by the station crew armed with flamethrowers taking no mercy, they don't know what it is, they don't care, it's a mutation half way through swallowing every dog they own, and they will burn it until nothing is left. From that moment The Thing was methodical, it chose victims carefully, out of sight with little to no sound being made so it is able to blend perfectly back into the group and ensure survival. Only when it felt that its own life was truly at threat did it transform into a monstrous being to become the dominate component of the situation. The Thing created a true sense of paranoia and dread; the subtle approach it took to achieving its goal leaves you wondering what's happened to the guys who aren't on screen and whether they can be trusted when they come back.

This. I swear this is the only scene that the creators of The Thing saw from the John Carpenter movie. Their monster is the exact opposition from its 1982 counterpart, going out of its way to make as much commotion as possible so the flamethrowers are attracted to the scene. The only motivation through the film I figured out for the extraterrestrial is that it wants to morph into something ghastly at every opportunity. There is no paranoia or subtlety; there is an attempt to shoehorn the associated emotions into the script but right from the start you know the focus is on disgusting the audience rather than filling them with the dreaded sense of the unknown. I have seen the argument for this behaviour being it is the first time the organism has encountered humans and simple believes it can overcome the group through force. If this is so then there is no development to its behaviour. In John Carpenter's The Thing the monster quickly learns that humans and flamethrowers are a bad combination and face-to-face confrontation needs to be avoided. In this film there is no learning curve, it's simply attack attack attack until someone clumsily falls to the floor and can be assimilated.

John Carpenter's The Thing versus The Thing

There was never any contest between these two. The 1982 version nails perfectly what a horror film is about, I would class it as highly as Alien (1979). Despite the early reveal in the dog kennels The Thing does not have a true form, there are glimpses of its power and logical understanding, and it is terrifying. You never feel the extent of the threat in The Thing since from the start you know two things, the protagonist won't die and everyone else is chowder.

This brings me on to the endings of both films. The obvious winner of this review has the perfect ending (only to be later ruined by the video game); Macready and Childs are left alone surrounded by the burning husk of their polar base, neither knowing if the other is human they agree to sit there, watching each other, until the inevitable happens. You know the ending, the true ending, of the 2011 version because let's face it; it has to lead on to the beginning of the previous film/sequel. Because the American team travel to the Norwegian base the loose ends had to be tied up in this film in an exact fashion so they don't enrage the die hard fans. As I've said before in my Immortals (2011) review if you ruin the ending of your film I am not going to be interested in what happens leading up to it. It's like the pointless 'show your workings' questions back in GCSE maths. You know the answer; I know the answer, so why should we show how we got to the answer?

If I'm going to compare John Carpenter's The Thing with Alien then I would have to compare The Thing to...I don't know...any other generic horror film that has been released this side of January 2000. For some reason people think that seeing the same film after 400+ attempts that we are still going to be scared of it. Eurgh, I feel dirty again, where's the pressure washer...

If you want to spend £5-£10 on an adaption of a novella by John W. Campbell Jr. then go to the nearest DVD store and buy the 1982 masterpiece. Watch it a dozen times, and then a dozen more. Forget this prequel was ever made and enjoy what John Carpenter has grafted for you.

Dreamhouse (2011)

Caution: Spoilers may follow. The very nature of the film means I don't want to give to much away, though something may slip through without me noticing while I ramble. Hell the spoilers may not even relate to Dreamhouse, I don't know...

This week has been quite eventful in regards to catching new movies. In a review coming soon I will be talking about watching The Thing (2011) on it's release in the UK but right now I'm going to head back a few days and talk about Dreamhouse (2011). I caught this midweek with a friend (I want the Fairy Tale) who I believe enjoyed the film even more than me, and who actually introduced me to it's existence; I had not heard about Dreamhouse before the decision of hitting the cinema was made. The extent of my knowledge was the synopsis on the 'now playing' website, which had swayed my opinion slightly:

"‘Dream House’, a thriller from director Jim Sheridan, follows a family’s dream as it turns into a nightmare when they move to an apparently perfect new house.

Soon after moving into their idyllic new residence, successful publisher Will (Daniel Craig) and his family make a shocking discovery; the previous occupants were brutally murdered and the killer remains at large.

Though the crime occurred in the past, Will finds that the prime suspect is very much part of the present as they become the killers next target in ‘Dream House’."
(synopsis from www.odeon.co.uk)

Immediately Amityville Horror (1979, 2005) came to mind when reading this. Without revealing too much about these films either, the general story is a family moves into an apparently idyllic new home before discovering the previous murders associated with the house and things tend to go downhill from there. My Amityville thoughts didn't die down early in the film when Libby (Rachel Weisz) mentions "There's something wrong with this house" which I could say with about 80% certainty is directly pulled out of the aforementioned films.

Thankfully, Dreamhouse ventured no where near the realms of Amityville Horror and the result is a thriller that really pulled me in past the half way point.

You may be wondering why only past the half way point and that's what I will be touching on now. I consider the reveal in the film the 'half way point' since it significantly shifts the story direction into something that really fascinated me. The unfolding of the plot past the reveal reminded me of a lot of my favourite DVDs and I was enticed to find out how they play it out. I was reminded a lot of Moon (2009) or Shutter Island (2010), both of which I love, where the development of the protagonist is the driving force of the movie. Will (Daniel Craig) and his mind set through the latter half of the film has placed Dreamhouse pretty high on my must-watch list of 2011.

But, you aren't wondering why I enjoyed sitting through this, you want to know why I wasn't interested during the first forty-fifty minutes. It really starts with the acting...

Rachel Weisz was perfect for her role, she portrayed housewife and mother with what seemed like a life-time of experience. I don't think I've seen Rachel Wiesz in a movie where I genuinely thought she was ideal for the role; I thought she was a great choice for The Mummy (1999) but ideal was a step too far. That being said, the other actors were sub-par at the best of times.

I'm...Confused? Sympathetic? Angry? Angry; I'm Angry.

My knowledge of Daniel Craig is his role as James Bond and I am not impressed by his monotoned acting. I have Layer Cake (2004) on DVD and have been told he's pretty damn good in it, but currently it is sitting in a long list of DVDs I still haven't watched and need to catch up on. Maybe I can post a few blogs around watching these movies for the first time but that's sidetracking. My opinion of Craig is that he plays one emotion, 'I am being serious', anything beyond that is a struggle for him to comprehend (I thought this to the point where, half an hour before going into the cinema, I was starting to think the father was being played by Matt Damon or Mark Wahlberg, convinced they would be better for the role) and my opinion was pretty much back up at the start of Dreamhouse. He obviously had a good chemistry with Rachel Weisz while filming but he genuinely just appeared to be bored with life; even though he is retiring from a job he hates and is moving into writing a book (which I suppose is something he loves, his interest really isn't developed at all, he just flicks through his scrapbook of memories and pretends to write a bit more) while being able to work from home and stay around his children as they grow up. Craig seems to be living his ideal life but he seems borderline depressed and playing with his children seems forced and unwanted. Even when his family is at risk during the film he seems almost half-arsed in wanting to protect him. His anger came across to me as not a natural emotion, but something he thinks he should be feeling and acts accordingly. This behaviour does seem in line with the reveal later in the film, but this is what you're exposed to without knowing better and there was a short period where I wanted the hooded figure who haunts the family to attack Daniel Craig. Saying this, post-reveal Craig seems to pick up his game and plays Will a lot better after the direction of his character changes.

I'm...Naomi Watts?...

Noami Watts; again I think I've only ever seen her express confusion in films and this is going to be no exception. Her character developement goes from scared to curious yet aprehensive onto caring but she always has a childish look of confusion going on. Even after gaining context and understanding during the film, I was so misguided by her acting that I was thinking she was having an affair with Daniel Craig through the entire film. It is revealed she might have had an affair with a younger man but there is no connection to, or acknowledgement from, Craig's character. There has to be a point of reflection when the children involved are our-acting you. Although they weren't spot on in every scene (there were a few points where I picked up on the youngest daughter look to Weisz or her onscreen sister for prompts or direction) they were spot on with their roles even considering the change of direction.

That is pretty much the extent of my problems with the film. I look to the actors to really draw myself into a film, the first 10-30 minutes being pivotal, and the hook just never came. The change in direction at the half way point was my hook; that point felt like where two seperate, different films melding together and left something that was actually coherent. Luckily Daniel Craig did pick up his game post-reveal since the entire second half revolves around him alone. I was disappointed that the house did not play a more extensive role (as things develop you really feel as if the house becomes character of it's own, but I felt restricted towards the end. There wasn't enough exploration within the house or development of it's involvement to really make me feel the importance of the location in context; especially with the ending of the film) but this wasn't a realisation until a good while after getting home and writing out my notes...Eh, okay, there was one other point but I've just managed to fit two and two together to get four and not three. Yay me!

I said it before, but I'll conclude on this point. Dreamhouse is one of the top films I've seen this year and I would be happy to watch it again just to make sure I haven't missed anything out. The chemistry of the family, not necessarily the acting, can keep you going until the reveal of the movie and Daniel Craig gets his character almost inch perfect after his story arc changes direction. Moon is my favourite film that can successfully fuck with your mind and if the acting was addressed better I would place this film not too far behind. Maybe replace Daniel Craig with Sam Rockwell, but that's just a personal fantasy of mine...

Immortals (2011)

Caution: Spoilers may follow. I try to avoid them as best as possible but some times I just need to explain why I’m so damn opinionated and annoyed.

I didn’t know what to expect of Immortals as I sat down at a slightly awkward angle to the big screen. I had tried my hardest to stay impartial going into this; avoiding news stories, reviews and even the Wikipedia page but some thoughts niggled away at my as I adjusted my 3D glasses.

I will come out now and say that I haven’t seen 300 (2006) or Clash of the Titans (2010). Not all the way through anyway. Obviously I’ve stumbled over the infinite amount of internet memes involving Gerard Butler in a cape and his undies but that is as far as I’ve gotten with 300 and really, I’ve not had the urge to watch more. Clash of the Titans held my attention for about ten minutes; I tried for an extra twenty but nothing could force me to sit through the entire showing. For full exposure to Hollywood’s previous attempts to interpret ancient mythology we get to go back to 2004; Troy. Yeah, I know; it’s not a great reference point but it’s all I’ve got.

The other detail I knew going into the theatre was the director, Tarsem Singh. The only reference point I have for this man is: The Cell (2000). Leave your sympathy and pity in the comments below, please.

I’m going to stop now before I leave you with a ten page essay on just what I think about the aforementioned films and delve into the movie review. Immortals story goes something along the lines of King Hyperion is a bitter, silicone based man (Mickey Rourke) who wants to rule/destroy/impregnate all of humanity. Based on the only emotion he displays through the entire film, he wants to do this because he’s struggling to stay awake. Now, despite already having an army that can quite easily conquer the world, Hyperion has decided he needs the Epirus Bow to release the Titans so that…mumble, mumble…and he lives happily ever after. Theseus (Henry Cavill) is a peasant chosen by the Gods for his ability to…remain topless for as long as possible…to stop King Hyperion from releasing the Titans he so desperately needs to fill out the runtime of the film.

Female Demographic? Check.

Now, I’m going to hit you with a little piece of advice: If your opening scene is a spoiler to the next hour to ninety minutes of your movie I do not care what happens in the next sixty-ninety minutes, hell you’ll be lucky if you keep my attention. I’m not even kidding; the opening minutes of this film has someone with a bow approaching a cage filled with stone skinned men. Someone calls out “Hyperion!” then the guy fires an arrow at the cage. If anyone is struggling so far I’ll explain a few things:

WE NOW KNOW HYPERION RELEASES THE TITANS

We are expected to invest in characters embarking on a journey and adventure when we know the protagonist fails to stop what they set out to do. I couldn’t tell if I was laughing or dying inside after watching that scene; I can not become emotionally attached to characters when I already know how the story ends. I won’t be on the edge of my seat if Theseus’ life is in danger, I won’t feel the suspense as Hyperion inches closer to his goal. Just imagine if Star Wars (A New Hope, 1977) opened with the Death Star explosion or if in The Matrix (1999) Neo was told straight off the bat he was Jesus Christ incarnate…wait…

Unfortunately, this is a start of a hefty list of complaints I had about the film. I’m guessing a few people had noticed in my synopsis of Immortals the story was shaking at best when thought about. There really is no need for Hyperion to hunt the bow or the Titans; he already has an army that is feared across land and sea which can easily defeat any settlement or stronghold in his quest for world domination. If you probe further into why Hyperion wants to take over the world, I just don’t know. He talks about spreading his seed or revenge on a crappy plastic surgeon or something along those lines, but really an explanation is never sought after, he wants to take over the world because… of plot convenience?

How much do we expect from the acting in this film? If individual hype is anything to go by, I’m expecting an Oscar nomination or two. Frieda Pinto won over the world with her performance in Slumdog Millionaire (2008), Mickey Rourke has received awards and outstanding praise from critics for his performance in The Wrestler (2008) (including an Oscar nomination), Jon Hurt is a man who needs no introduction when he’s on screen and Henry Cavill? Well he’s the next fucking Superman. No one of these people took the film as their own though, every character had a place and they stayed on a linear path right to the end of the film.

I honestly can only think of maybe three character arcs in the film that should have done something at least to bring some more dimensions to work with but no one took hold and developed themselves beyond just being in the film. Firstly, Theseus states from the beginning of the film he will fight for those he loves and no one else. Well those people he loves end up dying, and does this affect Cavill in any way? Sure, while his mom’s on screen; the rest of the time he’s out to save the world because a pretty girl told him she had a dream. Talking of which, the virgin oracle…

Male Demographic? Check.

You know what; let’s talk about this girl as a whole, not just her arc. She is nothing more than an exposition giver; she has no other use in this film. She has a premonition Theseus saves the world, she tells Theseus he saves the world, she then has to tackle that old problem of falling in love with Cavill because he’s topless…or because he’s the protagonist; I forget which. She has sex with Theseus just because (Genuinely, the scene goes from lovingly gazes into each other’s eyes, building suspense for a possible loving embrace, she drops her dress and asks that he have sex with her so that she doesn’t have visions anymore) and she’s never spoken of again. Her only job was to tell Theseus he needs to stop Hyperion and save the world, but she hangs around for the entire film telling Theseus he needs to stop Hyperion and save the world. Her inclusion annoys me as much as the opening scene spoilers as neither are needed at all and if I’m frank, if it wasn’t for her peachy backside I can not think why she was written into the script.

The only other development or arc in the story I can think of involves Zeus (Luke Evans) and his children. After Zeus’ big reveal and return to Mount Olympus he specifically tells his children that if they try to interfere in mortal troubles he will personally kill them. Time goes on and they grumble to one another before Poseidon (Kellan Lutz) decides he’s going to interfere and help the mortals, obviously condemning himself to death. No. There’s no mention of Poseidon’s actions or indeed their consequences after this scene, hell Zeus even decides to save Poseidon at the end of the film by zapping him back to the skies. The next of his children to interfere are Athena and Ares; Ares saves Theseus and his gang from a particularly tricky situation while Athena provides horses to help them get to the next scene in time. Zeus actually turns up this time and…only kills Ares. And this is never spoken of again.

Despite what I’ve said about the acting, I borderline loved Luke Evans as Zeus. I would have fallen for him completely if he was just given a bit more screen time. His was the only character who really demonstrated any kind of emotionally attachment to events or any development through the story. Zeus had chosen Theseus to lead the mortals to victory; he has also made the decision to allow the mortals to settle the conflict alone, no matter how much he wanted to join the fight. I’m actually saddened that he wasn’t given more screen time as I was completely caught up in the subplot of the Gods’ involvement in mortal affairs (This could be to do with that opening scene destroying the plot for me, but…) and I wanted to know more about Zeus’ struggle with his children wanting to help the mortals and him wanting the mortals to prove to the Gods and themselves they are able to face the adversary alone and succeed.

I could go on more but we're going to end up with the same conclusion, Immortals was poorly executed. After saying all of this I can’t tell you this was actually a decent film, but despite the butchery of mythology, acting, scriptwriting and directing; I could easily watch Immortals one more time at least. Hopefully a director’s cut DVD will give Luke Evans some much needed face time; if so they’ve got a customer already. I will say if you’ve bought into the hype surrounding the film, you’re going to be disappointed. I don’t mean like Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows (2010/2011) doesn’t live up to the hype purely because the hype will never be matched; I mean the trailers are creating hype for a film Immortals is trying, but failing, to be. As an Epic tale, you expect an epic experience and Immortals just doesn’t push far enough into the realms of…epicness. And the 3D was shoddy in places too.

A man wondering what ever happened to that Oscar nomination...

If you'd like an alternative view on Immortals, or to listen to someone a little more coherent than me, go on ahead and visit www.i-want-the-fairy-tale.blogspot.com.

Welcome to my World.

I suppose you're all wondering why I've started a blog. Even if you don't care I'm going to tell you anyway.

Over my many years, I have experienced a certain amount of the good and bad of all things entertainment based. Unfortunately I've built up a wanting for experiencing the worst of the bad and the result is a lad with a opinionated mind on how to get things right. From time to time I get the chance to express myself to friends and family but I find this just isn't enough, so I will write everything else down here.

My opinions vary, I love bad films though good films made poorly tend get the brunt force of my rage. But it doesn't stop there, television shows, console games, maybe even the ocassional personal experience will get a post or two. I could defend my love of Starship Troopers and why everyone should adore it just as much, and then demand hatred towards Transformers and how it could be a masterpiece. Starting with a change of director...

I'm going to aim for at least a post each weekend. There may be a few surprises during the week depending on cinema trips or television listings, but the majority of my rants will be thrown towards my DVD collection which, for some reason, contains a lot of movies that I will out right refuse to sit through again. I am willing to put my personal vendetta aside and dig deep into why certain stories will simply gather dust on a shelf.

So sit back, relax, throw on your reading glasses and I hope you enjoy yourself while I experience things that will surely open the gates of hell beneath me...or at least hurt my head for a while.