The Thing

Starring: Mary Elizabeth Winstead, Joel Edgerton, Ulrich Thomsen
Directed by: Matthijs van Heijningen (debut)
Written by: Eric Heisserer (“Final Destination 5”)

The continuing epidemic of remaking and rebooting films has overtaken Hollywood and shows no signs of slowing down.  That many of the films selected for a modern treatment have been dormant for decades and aren’t crying out to be re-told seems to be of no concern. Coming nearly 30 years after John Carpenter’s version (a remake itself), “The Thing” serves as a prequel to the cult classic and tries to turn the original’s lasting appeal into box-office success. Unfortunately, the movie itself is a cheap imitation of the original, leaving out much of what made the 1982 version effective and failing to add anything to the mythology.

When a Norwegian scientific team stumbles across a creature frozen in the ice of Antarctica, leader Dr. Sander Halverson (Ulrich Thomson) and his assistant Adam Goodman (Eric Christian Olsen) seek the help from paleontologist Dr. Kate Lloyd (Mary Elizabeth Winstead) to excavate it. The team is flown in by helicopter pilot Sam Carter (Joel Edgerton) and awakens the frozen alien, which they soon find out has the ability to replicate DNA and take the form of a human. Paranoia and terror set in as the team tries to figure out who among them is not who they appear to be.

Winstead is solid as the flame-thrower wielding Kate. Her character, who is thrust into a role of leader when no other options arise, is really the only one who shows depth and growth as she is transformed into a strong and unforgiving leader when her life and the livelihood of others is threatened. Unfortunately, the rest of the supporting characters are underdeveloped and don’t add much to the overall story. Even the second-billed Edgerton isn’t given a strong character to work with, as he is off screen for significant portion of the movie and becomes just another pawn trying to survive when he finally finds his way back to the narrative. Part of the reason that no characters have the chance to develop is that they are picked off before the audience can muster any sort of feeling on them.

In contrast to the original installment, “The Thing” makes use modern CGI technology for its creatures, attack scenes, and effects. Strangely enough, the tired and bland special effects aren’t anywhere nearly as effective as the primitive makeup seen in Carpenter’s version. Groundbreaking at the time, Carpenter’s usage of makeup was perfectly disgusting, oozing with slime and finding that perfect mix of grotesque and creepy. In fact, because the aliens sometimes looked primitive and moved awkwardly, it was perhaps even more unsettling. With this 2011 version, the effects do little to separate themselves from anything else seen in any other science fiction or horror film. Simply put: the new creatures aren’t nearly as disturbing as their predecessors.

There is an underlying feeling of redundancy that goes along with “The Thing.” Although touted as a prequel, and not a remake, it is only so in a chronological sense. The premises, tones, and character arcs are extremely similar, and even borrows a few plot points from the original. The third act of the film very briefly toys with the idea of delving deeper into the origin, but quickly abandons it in a confusing and unnecessary scene. Sure, there are a few cheap jump scares and plenty of action and kills, but the film never makes the audience tense enough to create a true sense of dread.

While there is a post-credits treat that ties this film with the 1982 version quite nicely, fans of Carpenter’s version are given something they’ve seen before. The slick, computer-generated effects are no improvement on the grisly classic, and the film’s odd placement between a remake and a prequel makes it an unimaginative and forgettable.

Drive

Starring: Ryan Gosling, Carey Mulligan, Bryan Cranston
Directed by: Nicolas Winding Refn (“Bronson”)
Written by: Hossein Amini (“Killshot”)

As the final frame faded and the credits rolled, the silence in the theater was deafening.  An almost palpable sense of confusion hung in the auditorium as moviegoers tried to comprehend what they just saw. Where was the adrenaline filled heist movie that all of the trailers and TV spots promised? What happened to the quiet and sweet Ryan Gosling from the first half of the movie? How many ways can a human head be split into pieces, and did we have to see all of them? In many ways, “Drive” almost feels like two movies, as it takes a pretty innocent, by-the-numbers first half and then catches you off guard with some of the most graphic violence seen this year.

Gosling plays an unnamedHollywoodstunt-driver who moonlights as a getaway driver. His mechanic friend Shannon (Bryan Cranston) decides to go to mobsters Nino (Ron Pearlman) and Bernie (Albert Brooks) to secure their investment in a racecar team headed by Gosling. As “the driver” forges a relationship with neighbor Irene (Carey Mulligan) and her young son, their bond is quickly threatened when her husband Standard (Oscar Isaac) is released from jail. In order to protect Irene and Benicio, Gosling agrees to help Standard with one last job. After the robbery is botched, Gosling is finds himself on the run from the mob, entangling all of the characters in a bloody mess along the way.

Ryan Gosling’s performance as “the driver” is a difficult one to evaluate. For the first half of the movie, he is a soft-spoken man of few words who can’t seem to stop smiling at the girl he is crushing on. But midway through, he exchanges his smiles for piercing stares as he morphs into a very familiar revenge-driven tough guy. The character comes off as shallow, as most of Gosling’s performance relies on emoting with his eyes rather than true character development, which is more of a fault of the script than his. Carey Mulligan isn’t given much to work with, but her beauty commands the screen and there is decent chemistry between her and Gosling. As for the other supporting roles, Albert Brooks and Ron Pearlman prove to be unmemorable as a pair of mobsters, with Pearlman being almost comical in his delivery at times.

One absolute positive about “Drive” is the skillful direction by Nicolas Winding Refn. His deliberate style is marked by perfectly-constructed shots with fantastic camera work and well-composed scenery. In a single scene, and in some cases a single shot, Refn shows beautiful images juxtaposed with brutal violence in ways that are completely unique to his style. The pacing of the film is purposely very slow and matched with plenty of lingering shots, sometimes of people just gazing at each other. The script itself is filled with clichés from several film genres, however Refn infuses stylized violence to break them up, a move that is executed well from a technical standpoint, but is perhaps better in theory than in the context of the film. One thing that is clear is that Refn was able to achieve his exact vision for the film, even if its results vary in success.

For a movie that boasts one of the most popular young actors inHollywood, and has a marketing campaign that implies a car-chase filled thrill ride, the unorthodox presentation of “Drive” leaves it with such minimal mainstream appeal. While Refn should be applauded and respected for attempting such a bold film, this strange and unique art-house take on a heist movie lacks the substance and character strength to match the level of quality of the direction.