The Thing

 

 

Create your own review

Well, at least they choose to go the prequel route instead of yet another dreaded remake. Two of my major complaints: first, the lack of suspense that made John Carpenter's The Thing so memorable. If you've seen a commercial for this film then you already know the fate of at least five of the characters, there's no sense of mystery or paranoia. It also fails to sustain suspense by giving the alien too much screen time, it is constantly revealing itself for some reason. Secondly, the effects. The CGI doesn't create that disgusting organic mess that chills your blood when you think back to the 1982 version. They might be good effects, but it just doesn't feel "real". On the plus side, the acting is all solid and the whole thing is polished and stylish. And it is interesting to see the story of what happened at the Norwegian station, though it could've easily been left to the imagination. All in all, it was an entertaining movie that tries to stay faithful to the 1982 The Thing, but will never hold a candle to its predecessor.

Part remake and part homage, The Thing is actually a full-fledged prequel to the John Carpenter 1982 classic of the exact same name. Set in Antarctica during the early 80s, the film explores the story of the Norwegian research camp which discovers a parasitic alien life form which can absorb living matter and reproduce it perfectly at the microcellular level. How does this newest entry fare after 30 years of waiting?

In order to properly review The Thing, one must learn a bit about the history of the franchise. Original director John Carpenter was a huge fan of the 1950s camp classic 'The Thing From Another World,' which was loosely based on writer John W. Campbell Jr.'s 1938 novella 'Who Goes There?' Decades later, Carpenter made his own version of the film which was much more faithful to Campbell Jr.'s original story and featured the alien entity in the way it was meant to be seen: a doppelganger waiting for the opportunity to strike in the darkness.

Duch director Matthijs van Heijningen Jr. takes the helm for the prequel, and his love for Carpenter's original film is obvious in every single frame of the movie. It's impossible to keep from admiring a director who purposely turns down digital film in favor of anamorphic 35mm print in order to stay close to the feel of the first film. Just like the alien entity itself, The Thing is a direct copy of its parent film in terms of scope and pacing. This is classic horror that prefers to build with slow tension instead of rapid fire editing and glossy special effects. For all its dedication however, The Thing is rarely scary, only managing to frighten the audience with a few carefully timed shocks, leaving the rest too predictable for today's moviegoers. Like the original film however, there is a high degree of tension which serves as the backbone of the entire ride, and rightfully so. This is less about the alien and more about how the characters interact with each other as panic and paranoia begin to creep in and take hold. Although this is essentially the exact same story and predicament as Carpenter's film, I nevertheless admire Heijningen Jr. for switching things up a bit and not taking the easy way out. One of the best examples of this is the "alien test" to find out who is human and who isn't. Nevertheless, the film stumbles in a few spots and suffers one very glaring oversight about the alien's physiology. It's not a perfect film, but I find myself very forgiving despite the shortcomings.

The Thing does not succeed by one-upping the original. Not by a long shot. Rather, it serves as the perfect how-to guide on how to stay true to a film franchise and run parallel, instead of exercising the director's ego to put his own spin on existing canon. Like James Cameron's 'Aliens,' it reproduces the world of the original film in strict and unwavering detail, giving the movie a sense of foundation and linearity. After viewing this film, I immediately went home and popped in the original just to see how closely connected they were. I was absolutely astounded! You can't appreciate Heijningen Jr.'s work unless you do the same thing I did, or you happen to be a die-hard Thing fan that has seen the movie 100 times. Even the most subtle of elements from the first film, like the bloody axe stuck in the wall, are explained here. Make no mistake: this is a labor of love and admiration. Most directors would not have taken a third of the time to follow through with such painstaking effort or detail, and we've seen unfortunate proof of this with the Aliens and Terminator sequels where directors have like Jean-Pierre Jeunet and McG have gone completely off the deep end with their visions for the franchise worlds.

Special and visual effects are largely "cool" and not very "frightening." The Thing is a bit different this time around; much more aggressive and willing to put itself in harm's way for the sake of a kill. This results in some pretty bombastic behavior. The creature can split itself apart and swing tendrils and limbs around like a flesh flail with breakneck speed. It also stays in its native form for much longer, stalking its prey in cramped hallways and rooms instead of trying to escape and hide itself within the guise of another human. It is however, essentially the same organism with a purpose: to escape Antarctica and spread like a virus to the rest of the world. There are a few typical red herrings in the film to throw off the audience, but in the end, it's nothing we didn't see coming. What I did appreciate was how the violence and gore was handled. Like the original, this film's excessive bloodletting is always done for logical reasons that drive the story, instead of generating word-of-mouth notoriety to push ticket sales.

The film's 1 hour and 42 minute running time feels just right, but it comes with a price. The third act is wholly unnecessary and doesn't make the slightest bit of sense except as a way to blend itself set-wise into the 1982 film. It was the sole moment in the film that left me scratching my head in confusion, serving only as the backdrop for the final showdown between human and alien.

In my opinion, the missteps and oversights are minimal compared to the strengths of the film which I believe will go largely unappreciated. This is one of the best prequels to a film that I have ever seen, making its mark with careful attention to detail and a strong sense that the team has taken the original source material very seriously. You won't see anything new. In fact, you'll see a gigantic rehash of the 1982 original, but that's what this is all about. From the moment MacReady and Copper arrive at the destroyed Norwegian science station in the first film, the mystery of what exactly transpired there has been on the minds of the fans. Now we know. Fans will undoubtedly be divided down the middle as to whether this is a good thing or bad, but sometimes I like to see mysteries uncovered. Don't buy this movie under the false pretense that Heijningen Jr. has reinvented the wheel. Instead, just enjoy the thrills and tension, then watch Carpenter's version and marvel at how seamless the transition between the two films really is. That's what it was designed to do.

PROS:

' Fits perfectly with John Carpenter's 1982 version.
' Good creature effects.
' A FEW heavy scares.

CONS:

' Nothing new here.
' A LOT of predictable scares.
' Pointless third act.

I actually give it no stars for 2 reasons (there's no option for no stars but I decided to give 3 anyways just to be fair): I've seen this in the theaters but I don't have the DVD/Bluray and second, because i want people to decide for themselves if they like it or not. Judge for yourselves people, ok???!!! Fair enough? =)

As a long time fan of the John Carpenter version, I have to point out some inconsistencies still as there always are with prequel/sequels.

1: The suicide victim at the Norwegian camp had a trail of blood from one side of the room to the other as we see Doc reveal this with his flashlight in the John Carpenter version. This doesn't really happen in the 2011 version unless we're missing part of the scene. He seems to sit down and then do himself in.

2: The Norwegian thing that Mac and Doc bring back had at least 1 red 'kerosin' tank right by it when they discovered it. Hence Mac's reply ..."whatever it is, they sure burned it up in a hurry". This isn't really in the 2011 version and is actually commented by a viewer already. =)

3: Bennings' analysis in measuring the distance between Outpost 31 and the Norwegian camp is ..."an hour there an hour back", presumably 1 hour by helicopter since the men are talking about going to investigate it. So how the heck can the Dog-Thing stay ahead of the Norwegians in the helicopter if they both left at the same time? One would presume from watching just the original that the 2 remaining Norwegians discovered a dog-thing escaped from searching around their decimated camp and followed its tracks until they got up in the air, or something to that effect. Which is why they caught up to it near the American Base at the beginning of the John Carpenter version. Having the dog-thing jump out at the end of the 2011 version when both surviving Norwegians are in the immediate vicinity doesn't make sense. Additionally, that would mean the Norwegians had at least 1 HOUR to kill the dog-thing, following RIGHT BEHIND it from base-to-base, door-to-door.

4: Fuchs mentions..."They started with 10. There would be 8 others left". There seems to be a lot more than that in the 2011 version. But, however, this does seem to be the correct number of members who are actually Norwegian. It depends on your point of view.

Just observations. =)
If you spot more inconsistencies, I'd be happy to hear from you.

Share your thoughts with other customers: Create your own review

› See all 9 customer reviews on Amazon.ca

 

3.0 out of 5 stars Good for a view....... Carpenter's thing is much better...
I enjoyed viewing this film the first time...nice effects, first big scene was
great, and the movie hummed along and eventually ended. I was satisfied. Read more

Published 1 month ago by Andre Villemaire

5.0 out of 5 stars I'll Tell you a Thing or Two!
As a bona-fide fan of the original "The Thing", I had no idea what to expect when I went to see "The Thing". But I was so surprised! I absolutely loved it! Read more

Published 2 months ago by lanholm

4.0 out of 5 stars The Thing prequel horror candy for younger crowd
By Jim Clark, publisher, Lee County Courier, Tupelo, MS

A lot of critics called this remake of The Thing unnecessary. Read more

Published 3 months ago by Jim Clark

4.0 out of 5 stars a solid sci fi movie
People who rate this movie at less than 3 stars don't know what they are talking about and if you enjoy the genre, it is about an 8/10. Read more

Published 3 months ago by chris1

3.0 out of 5 stars It's all about the gooyness
Okay, first off, I have no real problem, in principle, with the recent spate of Hollywood revisits to older material. Read more

Published 4 months ago by Andre Farant

1.0 out of 5 stars A disgrace
Horrible, plain Horrible.

I waited for this movie for atleast a year, looking forward to it. Read more

Published 4 months ago by C. Parker

Search Customer Reviews
Only search this product's reviews

› See all 9 customer reviews on Amazon.ca

Search Listmania!