Alien The diligence and respect with which the original painting by John Carpenter was approached by Mattis van Heinigen Jr. in creating the backstory of The Thing is worthy of high praise. Combining essentially two films into one dilogy, due to the placed in the credits of the final scene, he achieved an incredibly successful relationship between the paintings, as the action progressed, he left memorable pieces of the first picture, such as the corpse of a two-faced humanoid creature, an axe with non-human blood on the blade and much more, and at the same time here finally corrected the main disadvantage of the original picture - the absence of female characters. Two girls, one of whom is played by Mary Elizabeth Winstead, perfectly dilute the male team, making the picture even more pleasant.
Very bright and memorable characters also turned out to be one of the significant advantages of the picture. And although you know in advance that if this is a prehistory, then everyone or almost everyone here is destined to die, you really worry about many as the action and the bent atmosphere develop. But the drawbacks should include total predictability, which of the heroes is his, and who is someone else's.
The cockroach-shaped creature that jumped out of the alien ship and was found in the ice has a tendency to mimicry, copying the characters of the film with accuracy to the cage, except that inorganic elements such as false prostheses, dental crowns and earrings in the ears of this creature can not be reproduced. And one way or another, by behavior and deception, you always know exactly who is about to open the second or third mouth, release tentacles and break up into a bunch of arachnid limbs, and almost never once we are shown how this person was infected and why. Stupid surprise they try to hide the wildest banality, predictably everything here from beginning to end. But on the other hand, wasn’t it predictable, say, “Texas Chainsaw: The Beginning”, where we also knew who would be sawed off, who would be stabbed and in general, it just as looked not so much a backstory as a remake, and it didn’t hurt to become a successful and amazing film.
However, hardly a new version of the "Thing" shines the status of the cult of at least the same prehistory to the "Texas Massacre", and even more so the glory of the original from Carpenter. The picture actually resembles the youth "Faculty", but among teenagers it is unlikely to reach the same popularity and status. There are no youth actors and drug addicts here, but in the scene when the main character with all seriousness and horror declares, a hundred aliens are one of those present in the room, instead of the proper tension, you notice light laughs, saying “all this has already happened, how much can you exaggerate such a topic?”
And the monsters of the original picture impressed much more. However, in the new picture there are very successful scenes of all sorts of naturalistic abomination, just in memory are likely to remain hulking episodes with graphics, rather than really good man-made finds. Computer monsters in the movies are not at all impressive, unless it comes to the scale and size of the type “Monster” (and even where some Cloverfield to Godzilla, Gamera, Hydora and other giant movie creatures). For all this graphic abomination, it was probably worth spending much more money and time, giving the fabrics of creatures the same realism that looks absolutely believable metal designs of Transformers and Living Steel, but not turn the creepy, meaty and cruel horror into a multi-million-dollar blockbuster for kindergarten about alien attack. By the way, if really about the nasty PG-13, aliens and blockbusters - the aliens from Spielberg's "War of the Worlds" just looked incredibly naturalistic, although outwardly not as creepy as the creatures in "Something."
At least we managed to preserve the abundance of cruel and spectacular murders. Let them because of the computer blood and the holes in the bodies of the dead are not so frightening at all as the Alien in the most famous cosmo-horror, but still quite pleased with the entertainment and ingenuity and, despite the graphics, they still look something better than graphic models for a computer game.
You can see the efforts of authors and actors. Mary Elizabeth Winstead is as brilliant as she is. But the horror film hardly deserves to be ranked higher than just "good." This is a decent pastime for 1 p.m., and the picture looks really nice. It is possible that it sometimes even want to reconsider in a spike with the tape of Carpenter, immediately swallowing both films in one go, but to enter the history of the genre of such a picture, alas, does not shine. Even if the pros are much more than the cons.
Original