The Thing

Topic started by Alex on Oct. 14, 2011. Last post by Aarny2 1 year, 6 months ago.
Post by Alex (325 posts) See mini bio
Moderator

When setting forth to remake a film like John Carpenter's 1982 terrifying classic The Thing, you're treading on thin ice. Despite itself being a remake of a 1958 film (that film was based on a short story, as well), Carpenter's Thing is a masterpiece of horror, a completely numbing experience full of dread, tension, and unbelievably frightening practical special effects. The question of why any studio would bother messing with a good thing is an easy one to answer (because money, stupid), but in the absence of reason, one must then look to how one goes about making such a near-perfect film again for a modern audience.

The wrong way to go about it would be to CG-up the monster to the point of absurdity, rush the pacing so as to kill the masterful tension of the original, and add in a bunch of cheap, slasher-film quality jump scares because that's all that passes for horror nowadays. The right way would perhaps be to pay reverence to the original film by acknowledging its existence, playing into that film's original plot in fun and interesting ways, and maybe even making some delightful references to the best, and most disgusting deaths in the first movie. This 2011 The Thing essentially goes both ways, trying to both pay homage to a classic and relying too heavily on the cheap tricks of the modern horror trade. It's a confused mishmash of slow-paced horror and obnoxious modern ticks that amount to a passable, if mostly insubstantial attempt at crafting something beyond the scope of every other monster flick you've seen in the last few years.

The premise is at least a good one. This Thing begins a short period before Carpenter's Thing does, with a group of Norwegian scientists discovering a massive spaceship hidden beneath the ice of Antarctica, and inside it, a live specimen of...well, something. Presumably because someone didn't think a movie full of bearded Norwegian men would play to a mainstream American audience, a comely young Columbia palentologist (Scott Pilgrim's Mary Elizabeth Winstead) is recruited to fly down and see what's going on. She's joined by a pair of American helicopter pilots (Joel Edgerton and Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje), and an antagonistically egotistical scientist (Ulrich Thomsen), whose obsession with being the discoverer of this find trumps all manner of logic and reason.

That said, he's one of those characters you look forward to watching die a horrible death. Unfortunately, there's a few too many of them here. Whereas the original Thing had great actors like Kurt Russell, Keith David, Wilford Brimley, and Donald Moffat exuding an intoxicating mixture of unchecked manliness and sheer terror, here we are mostly treated to a shockingly sleepy, mostly uninteresting crew of generally personality-less husks. Edgerton's not bad, and Winstead has moments, but you never grow to legitimately care if any of these people live or die. Then again, considering the way the 1982 film kicked off, the notion that any of these people might survive seems ludicrous. At the same time, you should still feel something for them.

At least when they are dispatched, they are dispatched in appropriately dysmorphic and disgusting fashion. Director Matthijs van Heijningen Jr. has no qualms about dishing out the gore in hefty doses, though he mostly does it with heavy globs of CG. The monster was rarely seen full on in the 1982 film. More often, we'd get glimpses of its true nastiness as people and dogs began to change horribly. Heijningen spends too much time showing us too much of the monster, and as a result the payoff toward the end isn't nearly as effective. Still, as someone who likes creative gore, I appreciated the sheer variety of ways in which people's bodies were twisted and broken for our amusement. Unsurprisingly, the best moments come where the CG is less prominent.

If there's any significant issue with that aspect of the film, it's largely how the script goes about setting all those gruesome deaths up. One of the best aspects of Carpenter's film was how seemingly accidental many of the deaths ended up being. The creature wasn't some stalking serial killer of a monster, but rather an animal acting on some kind of defensive instinct. Any time someone was seen being attacked in the 1982 movie, it was a result of someone discovering its hidden identity, and responding violently. Here, the monster stalks, and stalks, and stalks, constantly hunting everyone down like a slasher film bad guy. It seems less bent on survival than just killing everyone in sight.

That results in a few too many weak jump scares for comfort, often resulting in a break up of an otherwise dread-filled scene. The Thing had maybe two or three real jump scares to speak of, and they came out of nowhere. Here, they're predictable, and rarely anything more than a big loud noise meant to startle the character and, by proxy, the audience. It's cheap shit, and sacrifices too much of the dreadful atmosphere.

That atmosphere is something Heijningen manages to cultivate well enough at times, especially in some of the colder, emptier spaces where characters suddenly find themselves alone with nowhere to go. Regrettably, too many of those moments are interrupted by yet another big, loud monster thing shrieking obnoxiously or a character you don't much care for spending way too much time explaining something to someone else when they very clearly should be running the hell away. At its best, The Thing shows flashes of understanding of its predecessor's best qualities, but too often those flashes are obscured by lazy, hacky concepts that have pervasively killed horror movie after horror movie over the last decade. This Thing won't taint your love of John Carpenter's Thing, but it won't do much to aid it, either.

Post by Swabbleflange (8 posts) See mini bio

Hmm... A shame. I'm drawn to it like most people through a love of the Carpenter version. Hopefully I'll find something to like in it.

Post by spilledmilkfactory (156 posts) See mini bio

Still seeing it. I don't even know why I want to watch this so much, I know it's just going to taint whatever love I build up for the original (gonna watch it tonight or tomorrow night) but.. Ramon Flowers.

Post by IamNOTatalkingpony (34 posts) See mini bio

Damn, just got my The Thing blu-ray from amazon and I was hoping that the premake would somehow live up to it. A shame.

Post by lamaldo78 (8 posts) See mini bio

I respect Alex's opinion - big time.  But hope he is wrong in this case.  Not getting my hopes up though :-|


Post by BaconGames (100 posts) See mini bio

Way to make it a rote and uninteresting horror film with cheap scares. And I had such optimism for this movie considering The Thing is not only my favorite horror film but one of the few I actually enjoy watching. This movie should have been all about knowing everyone dies except one guy and the dread the audience feels when things go wrong for this Norwegian team. That's all it should have been. Kind of like the first movie but with Norwegians. Would have it felt a bit unnecessary? Sure but either way it would have been and we might have been left with a great modern atmospheric horror film with practical effects.

Probably just going to watch the Carpenter version again this year for Halloween.

Post by poppduder (3 posts) See mini bio
The thing was the first movie my girlfriend and I watched together. Naturally date night tonight will be The new Thing. I'm looking forward to her clinging to me again, but I'm not expecting too much of that.
Post by BenB (19 posts) See mini bio

This review seems to be exactly what I expected out of The Thing. CGI that somehow falls short of the puppets used thirty years ago, jump tactics disguised as horror, and a lack of slow build up. I would make the argument that the last problem listed was unavoidable. John Carpenters version was masterpiece of buildup that no one could ever top. Given that this film has the exact same plot they would need to do something different to distance itself in some way. Unfortunately for them the only way to distance yourself from a perfect horror movie is to suck it up a bit

Post by TheSouthernDandy (78 posts) See mini bio

Sigh...this kinda bums me out...

Still have the original (remake?) an that's all that matters. I'll probably still check this out.

Post by Dylabaloo (821 posts) See mini bio

This is disappointing.

Post by LiquidSwords (467 posts) See mini bio

But...but.. it has Mary Elizabeth Winstead! :(

Still feel like I need to see this, even though the stupid red band trailer showed the whole damn movie!

Great review Alex!

Post by OneKillWonder (32 posts) See mini bio

I was half expecting the movie to turn out like this. It's a shame, this could've been absolutely incredible, but it sounds like the producers had to go fuck it up in the most predictable ways possible. Still, I'm very interested in seeing it for myself and will probably do so tonight. I'm at least glad to hear that it's grotesque and gory. I just wish that it wasn't mostly CG.

Post by Mistress_Redhead (2,857 posts) See mini bio

I hate that this went the way I thought it would... I keep having this little girl hope that films will actually turn out better than I think...

Post by mathewfinch (79 posts) See mini bio

Will wait for it on Netflix

Post by Naxwell (168 posts) See mini bio

I read Who Goes There and rewatched the original in anticipation for this. Now I'm super disappointed

Post by phoenix87x (196 posts) See mini bio

I am deeply disappointed.

The Thing is tied with The Shining as my favorite horror film of all time.

But, Ramona Flowers is still hot though.

Post by Jost1 (250 posts) See mini bio

I always liked The Thing better than any other horror sci-fi including Alien.

Shame this new movie doesn't live up.

Post by Ockman (7 posts) See mini bio

I just got home from seeing this, and Alex is wrong. I'm a huge fan of John Carpenter's original. In fact I consider it to be one of my top 5 favorite movies. To give this movie 2 stars, just means Alex is being overly critical, and not enjoying it for what it is. What did he really want? It was a prequel to the original movie, and it ties it in excellently I thought. This movie is it's own movie, and if you can get over the fact that it is not the original John Carpenter one, you'll enjoy it a lot more. I think this movie paid a great deal of respect to the original movie, but still was done well enough on it's own.

2 stars my ass. I went into this movie constantly saying "I hope it doesn't suck", and it didn't.

Post by ArcLyte (29 posts) See mini bio

this review is a classic case of being blinded by nostalgia.

Post by Ockman (7 posts) See mini bio

@ArcLyte said:

this review is a classic case of being blinded by nostalgia.

Yeah, and the sad part is it seems like some of the other people who have commented are going to take this review to heart and not see the movie. I really hope that is not that case.

43 votes, 2.7 avg.
General Information Edit
Name The Thing
US Release Oct. 14, 2011
UK Release Dec. 2, 2011
AUS Release Oct. 13, 2011
Runtime 108
Language(s)
Add a new language
Genre(s)
Add a new genre
Theme(s)
Add a new theme
Rating R
Alias(es)
Top Rated Lists
Movies I Own a list of 1512 items by mike20
Movies I've Seen a list of 1916 items by Zicdab
Movies I've seen a list of 2030 items by Monkeyman04
  • In today's dollars
    Domestic $16,918,095
    Foreign +2,027,674
  • = total worldwide gross $18,945,769
  • - a reported budget of $35,000,000
  • = a -45.9% net profit of $-16,054,231
Top Editors
Mandatory Network

Submissions can take several hours to be approved.

Save ChangesCancel