While I would hardly call 2011’s “The Thing” necessary, this prequel to John Carpenter’s 1982 horror classic manages to capture enough of the shocks and paranoia of its predecessor to be successful. While it is indeed a prequel, in many ways it’s a remake borrowing more from Carpenter’s version than offering much new. But trying to recreate a tried-and-true formula isn’t a bad thing and “The Thing” almost nails it. It works more often times than not but it does fall victim to its own poor choices.

The film sets the table for the 1982 picture by detailing the discovery and unleashing of the deadly shape-shifting extraterrestrial by a Norwegian research team in Antarctica. One of the film’s biggest strengths is its desire for a fluid continuity between the two movies. Everything is connected nicely and any fan of the earlier film will appreciate the effort. Here the Norwegian team has found a UFO and a life form buried under the ice. Against wiser suggestions, the head of the group orders the creature be brought back to their base for research. After the creature reveals it’s still alive and escapes, the team learns that the alien assimilates its victims and then imitates them both physically and verbally. Soon everyone is suspected of being a host which leads to fear and panic throughout the base.

Sound familiar? Like I said, the film borrows a lot from its predecessor. It’s moody and creepy and the isolated Antarctic setting still works really well. But it never lives up to Carpenter’s version. One of the problems is the overloaded cast of characters, most of which we never connect to. Only a few characters really stand out while others feel like token kills for the alien. You could have easily cut out about five meaningless characters. They would have never been missed and the others would have benefited from it. Also while the movie does finally start to capture some of the intense paranoia of the earlier film, it seems to come and go. Carpenter’s film was driven by the paranoia and unnerving suspicions of his characters. I also thought this movie got a little off track close to the end. There’s an out-of-place sequence in the underground UFO that felt completely disconnected from the rest of the film. That was one attempt at originality that really fell flat.

On the flip side, Director Matthijs van Heijningen Jr. does effectively employ several of the techniques used by Carpenter. And while I wouldn’t call the special effects better, the availability of CGI does give this creature much more fluid motions and his assimilations are pretty grotesque. Of course I mean that in a good way. The film is also helped by some really good acting throughout. Mary Elizabeth Winstead as especially impressive as a paleontologist who becomes the lead character. The wonderful Australian actor Joel Edgerton is also quite good as an American helicopter pilot who tends to sit on the outside of the largely scientific group. Both performances are natural and true even when the material let’s them down a bit.

“The Thing” is a film that will largely appeal to a small audience. Fans of the 1982 classic will want to see it and should find a lot to like. While it trips itself up with an overloaded cast and a few scenes which feel like they belong in another film, it does deliver that almost old-school sci-fi monster movie feel. It captures some of the paranoia that I keep harping on and it’s connection to the previous picture is very well done. Top it off with some nice performances and you have a film that is very watchable. Oh, and did I mention they have flamethrowers???

VERDICT – 3 STARS

“Chronicle” is another one of those “look what I’ve captured on my hand-held video camera” movies but with a super-powered twist. It takes elements from a wide range of movies from “Hancock” to “Paranormal Activity” and everything in between then mixes them together to form a slightly unique but overall predictable 80 minute package. “Chronicle” does spark some interest early in the film as it takes a different look at the concept of superhuman powers. There are some genuine moments of humor and a wild ending filled with special effects that undoubtedly ate up most of the $15 million budget. But it doesn’t take long to figure most things out and the stereotypical, run-of-the-mill teenaged characters started to lose interest.

The story begins with Andrew (Dane DeHaan), a teenager who is somewhat of a closed off social pariah. He doesn’t have many friends, has a mother who is dying of cancer, and an abusive alcoholic for a father. He just randomly decides to start filming everything in his life with a newly purchased video camera. This develops the perspective that we the audience have throughout the picture. Andrew is convinced to go to a party by his “friend” and cousin Matt (Alex Russell). Matt has enough of a bond with Andrew to want to see him come out of his anti-social bubble, but he’s not enough of a friend to spend time with him at the party. Andrew is approached at the party by Steve (Michael B. Jordan), a popular jock and aspiring politician. Steve has been sent by Matt to find Andrew and bring him and his camera to a weird crater found in the woods. The three boys do some ill-advised exploring and stumble across something not of this planet which gives them super-powers.

The majority of the picture focuses on the three teens and their developing powers. They determine that their powers “works like a muscle” and they can tell they are getting stronger the more they use them. This leads to the obvious “we need a set of rules” (think Spider-man’s “with great power comes great responsibility”). They begin developing their own ideas about how to use their new abilities which leads to several disagreements and eventually bigger problems. You’ll see it all coming well before the ending, but that’s not to say there aren’t some good scenes in the build-up. There were some fun moments just watching the teens act like kids with a new super-powered toy. They responded exactly how you would expect them to – silly, playful, immature, and irresponsible. But they also fall into some of the overused and uninteresting teen movie stereotypes that I found disappointing.

The idea to show this from the perspective of a video camera worked for a time but after a while I was feeling that I had seen this all before. It wasn’t fresh or innovative. And in the third act of the film, the video camera perspective seems to just drop for a few shots then come back. Not sure if it was an oversight, but I found myself trying to figure out which camera perspective I was seeing before eventually saying “forget it”. But the ending action sequence is wild and quite impressive. Downtown Seattle is the location for the massive explosions, flipping cars, and shattered skyscrapers. It’s so good that it almost makes up for the film’s earlier problems.

“Chronicle” was built off of a good idea, but its one thread of originality isn’t enough to support the entire film. First time director and co-writer Josh Trank does some interesting things with his camera, but it’s mostly lost by his decision to use the hand-held perspective and video documentary approach, an approach that’s been done many times before. There are some good lines in the picture and the final action sequence is fantastic. It’s just a shame that this “fresh” look at super-powers features so many things we’ve seen before.