The Thing

I didn't go see The Thing in 2011 for two reasons. One, I was reluctant to support a prequel when what I had really wanted for thirty years was a sequel. Two, the movie seemed to have vanished from the theaters only after a few weeks. In the meantime, I only heard negative things(no pun intended) about this film so I didn't feel like I was missing out.

However, something really weird happened when I finally caught it on HBO. I liked it! No, I mean I really liked it. To be clear, the criticisms about it being an unnecessary and almost too similar story to John Carpenter's classic are all fair. And, like most sic-fi movies today, there is more cgi than I would care to see. But the people making this movie clearly worship Carpenter's movie every bit as much as any die hard Thing fan. They go to great lengths to match up to the events suggested from the 1982 version and I personally appreciate them doing so. I also liked their method of detecting who was the Thing. It was different than MacReady's test but it was original.(Nothing will ever top the petri dish sequence and dialogue, Carpenter and Russell just nail it).

If you're a fan of the original looking for something completely different or a "new take" on The Thing From Another world, than this movie is not for you. But if you're like me, and always wondered who put that ax through the door or what events led up to the two-headed thing burnt up in the snow at the Norwegion compound than I highly recommend this flick.

This is a prequel/sequel/reboot/rework to John Carpenter's 1982 classic horror The Thing. There is the big reveal twisting the story to loop it around. They could have played with this a lot more than what they actually did. It's convoluted but I'm willing to buy it. In fact, it added something interesting. Not the same for the FX.

The aliens are now almost all CG. That's a big problem since the original had some of the most iconic real FX. It's a spit in the face for fans to replace it with CGI and it doesn't look good anyways. Going inside the saucer is a big mistake. This stars Mary Elizabeth Winstead, Joel Edgerton, Eric Christian Olsen, but nobody really stands out. This is a good idea but executed without understanding the appeal of the original.

You're stationed at an isolated outpost in Antarctica when you inadvertently discover a flying saucer type spacecraft beneath the frozen surface. Not long after you discover the alien pilot, trapped inside the ice sheet, looks like he may have been there for some time. Unfortunately, after recovering the entombed alien the protocols of containment are soon dispatched to a nearby bin and, before you know it, a rather excitable shapeshifting beast, who likes to take the form of bodies that have been turned inside out, and various other parts that should be internal and not external, is causing chaos and carnage and mayhem and disaster.

While not as good as the 1981 take, it is still a spectacular piece of masterful horror that continually delivers upon each subsequent viewing and provides some depth to the John Carpenter thriller.

Prequel, sequel or whatever they want to call it, the most positive comment I can give to "The Thing" is that it sparked my desire to re-watch John Carpenter's 1982 original and perhaps even the almighty 1951 pioneer classic "The Thing from another World", just so I can spot the little connections and audit if everything – in fact - interweaves nicely together. I've read quite a lot of harsh and severely impolite reviews on this film, but personally I must say I enjoyed it very much. Admittedly, however, I might be a bit prejudiced one two specific levels, namely a) I do not worship the Carpenter milestone like many fellow genre lovers do. It's a terrific and very influential classic, of course, but I don't consider it sacred and wouldn't rank it in my personal top 10 or so. And b) I'm a Belgian who spends a lot of time in The Netherlands. What does that have to do with anything, I hear you say? Well, not much indeed, except for the fact that "The Thing" was the directorial debut of Dutch filmmaker Matthijs Van Heijningen Jr., and if you'd know how many Belgian and/or Dutch directors aspire to build up careers in Hollywood, yet how very few of them ever even come close, this is praiseworthy to say the least. Van Heijningen literally came out of nowhere and all of a sudden now directs a relatively large-budgeted Sci-Fi horror flick with a massive reputation and a cast full of fairly famous faces. His father may have earned quite some money producing famous Dutch flicks, but this is nevertheless an impressive and respectable accomplishment.

"The Thing" 2011 is a fast-paced and visually astonishing, albeit unsurprising Sci-Fi/horror shocker. I state unsurprising because the film follows the exact same narrative structure and introduces very similar characters as in John Carpenter's original, which makes this nonetheless some kind of crossover between a prequel and a remake. Norwegian expedition members stumble upon a gigantic spacecraft underneath the thick ice of Antarctica and even discover a deep-frozen alien specimen within the same perimeter. Expedition leader Dr. Halvorson recruits American paleontologist Kate Lloyd to investigate the remains, but he clearly has a hidden agenda and wants to keep the discovery as confidential as possible for reasons of profitability. Whilst under observation, the alien naturally thaws and promptly goes on an unstoppable annihilation rampage thanks to his unique ability to duplicate the people it already killed. The one essential aspect this version lacks is undoubtedly the atmosphere of paranoia and hostility. Once the alien's hunting methods are known, there's general distrust and fear between the characters that isn't illustrated as tense as in Carpenter's film. There's a sequence in which Dr. Lloyd demands that everyone opens their mouth to check if they have teeth fillings, simply because the alien is unable to reproduce artificial body corrections. This particular sequence is a bit suspenseful, but simultaneously overlong and somewhat silly, because – like one of the group members righteously remarks – people suddenly can get banned from the circle "because they floss". On a more positive note "The Thing" definitely outshines the vast majority of other horror releases nowadays, thanks to the presence of authentic characters instead of irritating genre stereotypes... Of course, it would have been quite impossible to cast scantily clad babes and dim-witted jocks as arctic explorers... Also, the 1982 film may have benefited tremendously from Ennio Morricone's musical guidance, but Marco Beltrami provides a new score that is nearly as intense. But the biggest trump of "The Thing", and probably the main reason to grant it at least one viewing, is the gore. Even though all the special effects and make-up is computer engineered, Van Heijningen Jr. and his crew succeeded in making the special effects look as raw and disturbing as in the original. There are multiple gory highlights, for example the forming of the notorious two-headed creature, that will appeal to horror freaks of ALL generations; younger ones as well as skeptical John Carpenter groupies.

Now now children, some people will have different opinions than you and just because it's different, doesn't make it wrong. Having read the first couple of pages of reviews here and having just seen the film only quarter of an hour ago, I felt compelled to write something about this prequel to the 1982 'The Thing'.

It's fair to say that opinion is divided on the merits of this offering, but it's also fair to say that most opinions that lambast this film are from die-hard Carpenter fans who are woefully disappointed by what they have seen, and fair play to them. No, it's not like the original movie. Go figure. It's nearly thirty years later. If you want to see the same film, go and rent it (and then watch it) twice.

Having seen the original movie maybe three or four times in the past thirty years (I was fourteen when I will have first seen it in 1983) I was quite pleasantly surprised by the end of this prequel. True, it lacks some of the tension of the original and the acting from most, if not all, was below par. I remember the wonder of the special effects taking my breath away in the early eighties. This effort failed to bring me those same kind of delightful terrors. However, this is not due to the realism or effort on the part of the film-makers.

This is purely down to my experience of horror movies throughout the past thirty years. My expectations at 42 are not the same as that 14 year old boy and I am a grisled and wisened old movie cynic these days as opposed to a wide-eyed horror newbie. I think I watched this around the same time as my pirate VHS copies of The Evil Dead and Poltergeist.

In short, this wasn't half bad. It was faithful enough the original film for my liking, though having only seen it a few times, I am far from an authority on the subject matter. Continuity sputtered from time to time and there were slightly too many plot lines left dangling for comfort, but altogether, this was an enjoyable hour and a half. Yes, it's true that you didn't feel for the characters as much as say MacReady (or whatever Russell's name was) in the first film and some of the blame for this should fall squarely on the writers. After all, bad though the acting may have been, they can only read what's on the page in front of them.

Don't be put off by the comments you read here that tell you this is nothing more than an awful pile of monkey doings, because that is judging it too harshly. It's never going to be the classic that Carpenter's film ended up being, but given the last decade of truly terrible remakes we have been forced to sit through, horror-wise, this is almost a breath of fresh air. Remember what decade you're in be thankful that whilst this is not a classic, it is better than much of what we've seen recently.