Oct 12, 2011 by B. Alan Orange
EXCLUSIVE: The Thing Cast Interview Featurette
Just in time for Halloween, it's the long awaited return of The Thing! Matthijs van Heijningen Jr. directs this thriller, which recounts the horrific events leading up to the 1982 classic horror film John Carpenter's The Thing. Mary Elizabeth Winstead stars as a paleontologist that travels to Antarctica for an expedition, but when she meets up with her Norwegian teammates, she discovers that there is a shape-shifting parasite hiding among them intent on killing every human in sight. Our own Ryan J. Downey recently caught up with Mary Elizabeth Winstead, as well as co-stars Eric Christian Olsen and Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje, for a look at this monsterous prequel. Creative director for Halloween Horror Nights, John Murdy was also on hand to discuss The Thing's presence at Universal Studios this October. Check out our exclusive interview featurette below.
The Thing was released October 14th, 2011 and stars Mary Elizabeth Winstead, Joel Edgerton, Ulrich Thomsen, Eric Christian Olsen, Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje, Paul Braunstein, Trond Espen Seim, Kim Bubbs. The film is directed by Matthijs van Heijningen Jr..
Do you like this story?
The Thing Blu-ray and DVD Arrive January 31st
BOX OFFICE BEAT DOWN: Real Steel Takes $16.3 Million
Two The Thing Clips
The Thing Hi-Res Photo Gallery
Second The Thing Clip
Comments (47)
To leave a comment, please sign in or use
Facebook or Twitter
Denis Gadna
This is my best movie
2 years agoby @Denis-GadnaFlag
Samantha
Not really sure how to feel about this movie...I will probably wait till it comes out on DVD though
2 years agoby @8356185Flag
slysnide
@addictionnonfatel: Which is why we need to change it!!!! :P
2 years agoby @slysnideFlag
bipolarmassive
@slysnide Sequel? Seen that one coming! That's what it's all about these days. Before even viewing the movie, I knew they were going to leave the door open for MEW's character! I just knew it! I too am glad that Carpeneter's project never took off, it would have taken away from 1982's the Thing. Nothing's sacred or untouchable in movie cinema anymore.
2 years agoby @addictionnonfatelFlag
slysnide
@addictionnonfatel: "I guess you can blame the easily amused emo clad teeny boppers." That best puts into perspective my feelings on the horror genre for the last thirty years. Carpenter's proposed 2004 sequel sounded like it would be crummy, despite that he got Keith David & Kurt Russell to return to their starring roles. JC anticipated that his fee would be too high for Universal to fund, so rather than the already millionaire icon lowering his pay, he let Universal pass on it. The premise would've been that a communication was sent out by Windows before Blair destroyed the comms system, resulting with Childs & MacReady being rescued by a team. No word on who would've been the Thing, and JC never revealed any more about it. I'm glad it fell apart, as a sequel would ruin that perfect ending. The open ending for this however with the chick just driving off in a snowcat leaves the door open for a sequel, but fortunately, the opening weekend revenue is dismal enough that it probably won't happen. But they always try nowadays, to leave a door open for possible sequels in the horror genre. Imagine how much of a cult film "Saw" would've become had they just left it alone rather than sought to sequelize it to death.
2 years agoby @slysnideFlag
bipolarmassive
@slysnide That's absolutely what I expected! That's the problem with today's movies, they are watered down with CGI and looking for a quick fix, absent a story line! I guess you can blame the easily amused emo clad teeny boppers Hollywood's been catering to. I'm so over it! The only credit I can give this movie is that it wasn't a "Remake or "Reboot"! But still, I agree, a definite let down! Nothing new there!
2 years agoby @addictionnonfatelFlag
slysnide
@addictionnonfatel: The feeling's completely mutual on the effects. I just saw the prequel and it was a CGI laden mess which overused the whole thing rather than the paranoid "who is it?" thing. Like the Blair Monster version in every scene with it, with the flame thrower becoming like a broken record. Every damn scene with it had that flamethrower running. It was cool at first, but they overused it real quick. You don't even see how everything falls together in line with the original until the very end, like during the few scenes spliced between the first few end credits. Some you never see what happens to them, you just have a few shots showing what became of them which is pretty much in the same state as MacReady found them in, except now we know the context of what happened. Like ***SPOILER DONT READ IF YOU WANT TO SEE IT*** with the guy in the chair with the slit throat, he was just left hiding in that room, and the few shots at the end make it clear he committed suicide. Overall they certainly didn't use any practical effects besides the sterile corpse versions of the thing, and any they filmed ended up on the cutting room floor.
2 years agoby @slysnideFlag
bipolarmassive
@slysnide Damn! How'd that happen? Lol! Must get that fixed! Anyway, yes! The special effects guy did a bang up job on the film, and for what? Just so it can go unnoticed until a few years later!?! That's a travesty, but I will say this, those effects have withstood the test of time. Every time I watch the movie, I still shake my head in amazement, wondering how'd they do that? Still pretty damn freaky! I know it didn't exist back then, but all of this was possible without any CGI. Now that's Amazing!
2 years agoby @addictionnonfatelFlag
slysnide
@addictionnonfatel: Totally agreed. As I recall, Carpenter expressed his distaste over that decision in the "making of" doc*mentary on the dvd. And to think Rob Bottin spent a whole year at the studio making all those effects to have the film fail miserably. It definitely should've been released in October or December, but not November. Also, question, is your name supposed to be "addiction" non fatal? Cause the second "i" should be after the "t" and not before it. :P
2 years agoby @slysnideFlag
bipolarmassive
@slysnide I somewhat agree with you. Don't get me wrong, I Love, love the original, so far as to say it's one of the best Sci Fi Horrors of all time. That being said, I believe it was the timing of the release of the movie. An arctic themed film released in the middle of summer? That was the studios fault, not Carpenter to release the film in the summer rather later in the year, like mid winter. A pure idiotic decision by studio big wigs! They definitely screwed themselves and did a disservice to Carpenter and the Thing!
2 years agoby @addictionnonfatelFlag
slysnide
@addictionnonfatel: The final version of the thing you described sounds very similar to the Blair Monster from the first film. Also, "Blade Runner," "Wrath of Kahn," and "Poltergeist" (all released in June 1982) all failed or fell fall from their potential because "ET" (also from June 1982) annihilated the competition as the only real family friendly film of the month, for horror isn't really a summertime genre. If anything I'd imagine that Winstead would hurt the film since the dynamic worked so well when it was all guys. I liked that, but oh well. I'll see it tomorrow as I got a ticket & card which expire at the end of the month. Plus I've not seen a horror flick in theaters for some time now. The genre for the most part has been dead for decades.
2 years agoby @slysnideFlag
bipolarmassive
In 1982, John Carpenter knew how to do a remake. Take the basic idea of an older horror movie (and its source novella), radically reconceive the monster and do an original take. This "premake"-officially a prequel, but beat-for-beat pretty much a remake-is the opposite. Like the creature of the title, it offers us a juiced-up but inadequate copy. The Bigger Picture: What really happened in that burned out Norwegian camp they found in Carpenter's The Thing? Were you dying to know? Was it not sufficient to have a pretty good idea that a shape-shifting alien monster ran amok prior to taking on Kurt Russell? Not when there might be money to be made. So here we flash back to before the burning and are presented with yet another tale of a monster in an isolated place knocking off characters one by one, generally leaving the more famous names for last.
Since this movie had to exist, it was a good call getting Mary Elizabeth Winstead for the lead role, both because her performance is solid and because the complete lack of any female characters is strongly suspected to be one of the reason's 1982's iteration initially failed at the box office. Sticking to the story so slavishly, however, was a mistake that leads to massive leaps in logic. These guys discover a massive space ship under the ice, and a frozen fossil (they think) of its pilot. And yet they spend all their time on the fossil?
What about that creepy guy who's in charge of the mission? He seems to know more than he lets on, right? Could that lead to an interesting twist? No, because they never go anywhere with it; he's just a dick, apparently. As for the monster itself, we're told it can't replicate inorganic matter like metal fillings. Yet it is either capable of imitating clothes exactly, or it's damn good at putting pants on one leg at a time...for a flailing mass of tentacles and teeth.
With the advances in special effects, one would hope at least for a better beastie. Conceptually, there are some decent ideas here, albeit many that have already appeared in Resident Evil games.
Considering the material, it's to the cast's credit that they don't phone it in. But with no surprises and not much plot, it's impossible to recommend this to anyone who either has seen or wants to see the '82 model.
This version of the Thing is a creature that can exactly imitate the body and behavior of another life form - so well it could fool you into thinking it was your best friend. This Thing journeys the cosmos and mimics the aliens it encounters. Then it reveals its true appearance, which is a hideous and leaky smorgasbord of palpitating organs, claws, teeth, crab legs, lobster tails, beaks, snaky appendages and gooey dripping eyeballs. It doesn't say much for life in the universe that with whole galaxies to choose from, that's the best body it could come up with.
A Second Opinion: Stick through the end credits for the only nod to the earlier film that matters.
2 years agoby @addictionnonfatelFlag
bipolarmassive
...and shame on Quentin Tarantino for thinking the bitch could sing! HA HA!!!
2 years agoby @addictionnonfatelFlag
Ghostman
@slysnide Well good for you :) I just finished reviewing Saw III and will continue reviewing IV tomorrow and I'll do V and VI Saturday, and wrap things up with the last film Sunday before seeing (hopefully The Thing on Monday)
Watch this behind the scenes video Caution, it contains some spoilers, but it shows the mixed use of practical and CG effects used in the film
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qb-u34nsVb4&feature=player_embedded
2 years agoby @ghostmanFlag
slysnide
@ghostman: hahaha! lolz! You NEED a few Americans to help. :P I just watched the trailer and it looks like it'll be a digital gore fest, but I'm up for seeing it. Gonna try and review the last two Moore Bond films today, then the Dalton ones tomorrow, followed by the 4 Brosnan films over the weekend. It'll be hard, but I'll go for it to get to reviewing this.
2 years agoby @slysnideFlag
Ghostman
@slysnide Don't judge a film by what other critics think. See for yourself and then make ur own opinions about the film. I've seen clips where they use practical effects, not all of the movie is CGI. And about that 'seamless' assimilation, trust me, it looks pretty painful from what I've heard. I'm sure the movie will have plenty of Norwegian yelling in hysteria. It's Antarctica, and you need a few Americans to help you know?
2 years agoby @ghostmanFlag
slysnide
This movie's been getting pretty dismal 50% ratings, with only Winstead's casting being praised. That's not a good sign. Nor is that the thing is shown seamlessly transforming into a person in the trailer, whereas it was a very messy process in the original film, involving bloody & gory seizures and freak outs. NOT seamless digital transformation. And why are the two headliners American? This is supposed to be a Norwegian station staffed with Norwegians! :P
2 years agoby @slysnideFlag
Moviedirector
I have to admit I'm excited for this film, seeing it this weekend. Will be watching Carpenter's afterwards.
2 years agoby @FilmlegacyFlag
Ghostman
Check this game out for anyone who thinks they have steady hands to play this Thing maze:
http://www.break.com/games/maze-reflex-test.html
PS the ending scared the crap out of me
2 years agoby @ghostmanFlag
Bawnian©-Dexeus
@addictionnonfatel Everything that happened to Kurt Russell and his team happened the same way in which this prequel will show us.
2 years agoby @bawnian-dexeusFlag
Bawnian©-Dexeus
It just wasn't funny
2 years agoby @bawnian-dexeusFlag
skywise
@ghostman i never read the comics either but enjoy Edgar Wright's highly energetic style.
2 years agoby @skywiseFlag
Ghostman
@skywise I never read the Scott Pilgrim comics, but I love the movie for the way it was styled/themed after and @slysnide Trust me, when you are a 12 yr-old boy watching Sky High in theaters, you can't deny how cheesy fun it was! But nowadays when that movie's on Disney channel I just change the channel...find it too annoying now :/
2 years agoby @ghostmanFlag
bipolarmassive
For it being labeled a "Prequel" and not a remake, it sure is doing everything to do it's best to mimic 1982's The Thing! Pun intended!
2 years agoby @addictionnonfatelFlag
skywise
@slysnide no surprise there. I would say that most people were not that interested in this film from the get-go except those who appreciate Edgar Wright's directing style. And as i am sure you could tell from all that hype you mentioned there are a lot of prfesional Wright fanboys out there. Also i am no Cera hater (and boy can he catch some serious hate). But i never tried to beat anyone over the head or defend my views. I enjoy reading about other peoples opinions. Why else would i be here.
All i can say is that if you dont like Edgar Wright or Michael Cera its not going to be worth your time.
2 years agoby @skywiseFlag
slysnide
@skywise: I thought that film was well hyped here. Or at least it seemed a lot of people saw it or wanted to see it. Guess the reception wasn't that well for the majority. I didn't see it, nor did I pay attention to any reviews it may have gotten as it didn't interest me at all.
2 years agoby @slysnideFlag
skywise
I knew i should have wrote it out the first time
2 years agoby @skywiseFlag
skywise
@slysnide Scott Pilgrim vs. The World
2 years agoby @skywiseFlag
slysnide
Pfft. No @ghostman I figured from her resume that you were referencing that flick from 2005! :P Horrid. Saw 3 minutes of it, had to change the station. Couldn't take it.
@skywise: SPVTW????
2 years agoby @slysnideFlag
skywise
i you sure you dont mind if i watch it ONE more time????
o.O
2 years agoby @skywiseFlag