The Thing isn’t a disaster.
It doesn’t betray the spirit and tone of John Carpenter’s masterpiece, nor the Howard Hawks original. Its special effects choices marry well with the practical work done by to perfection in the early 80’s by Rob Bottin. Those were the biggest fears about the project. Considerable ones, as if any of the above weren’t true this would be a film with a massive target on its back and something whose existence was a scourge against all things good and worthy.
With that said, it’s not great either. Though it dovetails very neatly into the 1982 classic, Matthijs van Heijningen’s ‘prequel’ is as much a remake as it is anything else. Which is odd, since it makes every point to connect the dots to a film with the very same name. The prequel to The Thing is called The Thing. Does that mean if this is a hit there will be a sequel to the Carpenter film also called The Thing?
Don’t worry, this won’t be a hit.
For those unaware, the Carpenter film is also a remake and an adaptation of John W. Campbell Jr.’s ‘Who Goes There?’, filmed in the sci-fi heyday with James Arness as The Thing from Another World. It tells the story of a group of people stuck in a claustrophobic and remote location pitted against an alien threat. What was more straightforward in the early incarnation became an exercise in tone, pacing, and creeping dread in the 1982 film. Additionally, the body horror and grisly violence was cranked to the max. It was a flop upon release but it has done nothing less than emerge an undisputed genre classic and a rare film that hasn’t been sullied by age (aside from some questionable stop-motion during the climax). Though there have long been rumors of additions to the canon aside from a few decent Dark Horse Comics it was was always one of those properties most likely better left untouched. From music to performance to effects to the distillation of the famed Agatha Christie “and then there were none” staple, it’s almost perfect.
This new film is all about what happens to create the predicament the American outpost endures in the 1982 film, focusing on a nearby Norwegian base who discovers a massive and ancient alien craft and whose decision to retrieve the passenger of the craft leads to carnage aplenty. It’s an interesting reverse engineering with the filmmakers doing capable work establishing the scenario which would ultimately have a Siberian Husky charging through the frozen tundra with a helicopter in pursuit as the film ends. And where the Carpenter film begins. Unfortunately most of the smart decisions happen in service to the earlier film rather than giving this film a life of its own. There’s not a set piece or moment that doesn’t feel similar to the original and none of the characters are interesting and iconic enough to not make a fan of the original feel served.
Worse, the film is saddled with an uninspired prologue and a climax that has so little punch that it felt as if it was leading towards a more rewarding climax that never comes. The big confrontation is as anticlimactic as any in recent memory and it harkens back to the 1990’s where sequels seemingly always dropped the ball in terms of ending well. As a result, the film’s somewhat strong midsection fades fast in the memory. It’s a shame too, because from minutes ten to about seventy it’s pretty effective.
Mary Elizabeth Winstead tries to be a suitable action heroine as the American paleontologist and voice of reason who is brought to Antarctica to assist the Norwegians with their discovery but she more often than not exists to be there to further along the exposition rather than providing anything meaningful. Her deductions come fast and he ability to figure out exactly what the creature is and how it does it cheapens the conceit. And there’s very little energy in her performance, as if the idea of casting a female lead rather the expected blue collar male one was enough to warrant the decision. It’s lazy and though she’s not bad there’s never a moment where her survival matters. In fact, a few slight adjustments in the climax could have benefited the film immeasurably. There are a few colorful characters and the rapidly growing talent that is Joel Edgerton tries to enliven matters but there’s not one character here that comes close to matching the work of Kurt Russell, Wilford Brimley, Donald Moffat, Richard Masur, and the rest of the 1982 cast. They look the part, and the language issue isn’t much of a concern but it’s impossible not to want more. Regardless of the company line, this film is riding on a rather sizable legacy. It can’t be just decent. There’s just too much potential. That said, Eric Christian Olsen, an actor who seemed way out of his depth here does pretty solid work.
It’s not a prequel as much as it is a lamprey, trying its best to nuzzle up to greatness and get a little goodness on it. As a result, the best way to enjoy the film is as a capable “monster on the loose story”, which it is. The special effects are often excellent and the film doesn’t shy away from the icky stuff as the titular creature absorbs, mutates, and twists its way around the base. Most of it is CGI but in its defense, it’s CGI meant to emulate the weird and creepy aesthetic of the original. The designs are good, and when the creature is given a little bit of a stage to perform it does a respectable job of it.
But the tone has none of the dread it needs. The music is a very odd fit whenever it veers from the Ennio Morricone themes from the original. Somehow the pain of how the creature wreaks havoc on its victim’s entire sense of self, it’s not here. This movie is actually The Thing: it’s been sent from beyond to serve as an impostor to gain entrance. At its best the film is a mediocre gateway to one of the best genre movies ever made. In actuality it’s a lot like its namesake, a thing that replicates and assimilates something more pure. And like its namesake it’s lacking a few key components to pull off its goal under scrutiny. It’s not horrible, but it certainly isn’t any sort of a reward for fans creating the ultimate slow-burn franchise in genre history.
Rating: 




Out of a Possible 5 Stars





21 comments
“My God, what the hell happened here?”
“You gotta be fuckin’ kidding me…”
“They’re raping us! They’re raping us and it hurts!”
For a two star rating your review is kind and not as aggressive as I thought it would be considering your love of Carpenter’s film.
Thanks for the heads up, Nick. I was contemplating going to the theater for this, now it’ll be a DVD rental.
That was quite a measured review considering some of the opinions that I have seen on other sites: some folk have been outright rabid in their hatred of this film. I’m pretty torn…on the one hand I absolutely adore the Carpenter film and would love to see another Thing film in the cinema, even if it’s a remake, but if this is as bad as some folk are saying it will really tick me off. Gah.
This movie could have been so bad. It could have been absolute hate. But it isn’t. It’s just a weak mixture. Not an affront, and I think a lot of the really violent reviews are more pot-stirring or emotional releases than anything.
Familiarity breeds contempt. I think those words need to be emblazoned on the forehead of any studio exec who chooses to greenlight a remake of such an inspired and revered property.
Just saw it. I’m a huge fan of the 1982 version. My Dad took me as a young kid to see one of the first showings — despite my Mom’s vehement protests — and it’s been my favorite movie ever since. It has plenty of plot holes, there’s great acting by some, crapping acting by others, etc., but I still love it. I watch it a few times a year. I bought an HD DVD player because the The Thing wasn’t then available on Blu-Ray. Two weeks later, HD DVD went belly up. Oh well. I can still watch The Thing in HD.
I’ll probably get flamed for this, but I really liked the new one. The CGI was overused and flimsy, but beyond that I think it was a pretty solid effort. A for effort by the director, B+ in actual execution. I will admit that I had pretty low expectations and really wanted to like the movie, so we’ll see how it holds up on subsequent viewings.
I think that if the 2011 movie had come first, many people would really like it, and then crow about how much better the “sequel” was. However, because the 1982 version is “sacred” to some fans of the original, the newer version suddenly becomes a pile of shit.
Seems to be sort of in agreement with the review.
I thought it was a fair review, but I’d have given it 4 out of 5 stars.
Most of the reviews I’ve read (not yours) remind me of the virulent attacks on the 1982 version when it first came out, although the focus of the hatred has changed. Even after 29 years, I still remember the full page spread about the movie on the front of the local newspaper’s leisure section. There were a few stills from the movie, and the reviewer went on and on about how incredibly vile and disgusting the movie was, acting as if its release heralded the fall of western civilization.
The article made me want to see it. My Mom read the article and forbade me to see it. My Dad read the article and said, “Meh. Let’s go see it.” My Mom was pissed. I was elated. The rest is history, as they say.
I did try to stay open-minded about this one, but it just didn’t work for me. Too fast paced, too many flat and uninteresting characters (I think I could only remember the names of, like, two of them by the end), and the CGI was just a bit too dodgy of me (and also reminded me of Resident Evil 5 more than anything else. Maybe Dead Space). Thing was, when all is said and done it was still a serviceable and enjoyable enough horror movie, especially considering the rest of the wide-release, R-rated fare that’s been out this year. I don’t know how much of my negative feelings towards this are based on the actual movie and how many are based at me being a hardcore fanboy of the original, though I do feel (awkwardly enough) that were this movie one that was based on anything *other* than Carpenter’s masterspiece (there’s my fanboyism, shining through), I wouldn’t be nearly so negative about it.
..but if the Carpenter version had all the same beats as this version, including, from what I have inferred, the blood test scene, of course it would look inferior to this one. So now, you have one of those time travel scenarios where someone takes a great idea from the future and gives it to the past. Like when Marty McFly played “Johnny B. Goode” and Chuck Berry heard it over the phone.
above is supposed to be in response to Derek J’s hypothetical.
I was not looking forward to this film due to the spot Carpenter’s version holds for me. But then the trailers came out and looked solid. I read a number of reviews last week that were negative (including Nick’s), but a lot of what they said about the movie were things I wanted to see in the film.
I saw it yesterday and already want to see it again. I thought the CG was very good overall; maybe a bit undercooked in spots but not enough to take me out of the movie. Let’s remember that Carpenter’s movie had a few weak effects as well. I had no trouble keeping up with the different characters (Lars rocks), the acting is uniformly good, and most importantly, the monster designs were pretty much spot-on. I loved how well it ties in as a prequel to the Carpenter film. If I have any gripe about the new movie, it’s that there are a few too many specific callbacks to the 1982 film. This film had my interest from the start and had me grabbing the armrests in suspense at a few spots.
If we lived in a world where Carpenter never directed films and this was the first remake of the Howard Hawkes’ film, it would be a through-the-roof good horror movie. But because it ties itself to one of the best films ever made, it has these impossible expectations to meet. This movie is the best horror film I can remember seeing in a theater in a long time and I think anyone who boycotts it because of its ties to Carpenter’s film are missing out.
This is easily a solid three-star film now that I’ve seen it. It’s good, but it’s not great. Part of that is that, it’s true, none of the characters are as good as MacReady. They’re all as generic as… well, the rest of the cast in the ’82 film always was. They only became more memorable because they were in a great film. The only one who ever stood out was MacReady, mostly because, by the time you get to that scene where he’s holding the dynamite, you realize what a hardened survivor he is, and you’re ready to get his back. No one here reaches that level, but at least they’re likable.
And at least Winstead never once makes a crazy-fast logical leap that compares to MacReady’s “I know! Every single part of the Thing is alive! I figured that out because Norris’ head crawled away!” She makes much more reasonable leaps in logic in comparison, and because of that, never ends up reliving the famous blood test. And thank god. The new test is fun because it’s so hit-and-miss – it doesn’t really tell you anything. It eliminates SOME suspects, but also casts suspicions on many innocents.
This is a good flick. It’s good. And that’s more than I was hoping for. It respects the original. Again, more than I was hoping for. And it’s probably the last chance we’ll have to see a good “Thing” movie, because the next time this property is revisited, you KNOW it’ll be a balls-out remake with a completely different take. Thank god this didn’t go there..
The blood test scene is not in 2011’s The Thing. There’s a different test – a far less accurate one.
The film was okay. Not great but not terrible. Unfortunately I have the same complaint as I have with the 1982 version. The Thing can imitate humans so perfectly that it can even comminucate like a human, but at no time does anyone try to communicate with it. It’s a monster and yet it is clearly intelligent and can operate a spacecraft (or in the 1982 version build a spacecraft from scrap). What about a scene where someone says that I believe one or mroe of you are the Thing but why are you trying to kill us? Why not just tell us why you came here, and do you even know that your ship landed 100,000 years ago? If it says Frack You, then fine. At least they tried. But no one ever tries. In either film. It’s an opportunity missed.
In the original, when almost-Bennings is cornered by the group, it does turn to MacReady and make that one wailing noise. That could be the Thing’s true, original method of communication. If that’s the case, MacReady’s response is one that shows the humans aren’t really willing to listen. Even if it spoke up in human voices, I don’t think they’d trust it or let it live.
@jimvanhise and RelaxingDragon
In the 50s version there is a dispute between the scientists and the soldiers about how to approach the subject. (quite similar to the dispute between science and military in Romero’s Day of the Dead). In one scene the leading scientist tries to reason with the creature but gets pummeled to the ground as a response.
So there actually was that idea. (Never read the original short story I have to admit, so I don’t know if or how it was in there as well.)
And in the 80s version the first time the guys see the creature is in that mutated dog form. And I for one cannot blame them for torching that ugly fucker and everything that followed.
Anyways, you still got a point, would have been an interesting idea for the prequel.
I stopped reading your silly review when I got to this:
“Don’t worry, this won’t be a hit.”
Well actually by comparison it already is. Even taking inflation into account, the new film made more money in it’s opening week than the original’s theatrical release. Besides, didn’t they say the same about Carpenters film, and didn’t the critcis hate it back then, well, yes they did… hindsight is a wonderful thing.
Comments are shown as archived from the original site; new comments are closed.