Out now on dvd/blu-ray
The People's Reviews
Rating:
14 ratings and 18 reviews
Blasphemy!
It's a reasonably safe bet to say that very rarely will a remake of a film meet the standard set by an original, as of course if the source material was bad in the first place, a remake would likely not even be considered. The number of times a remake is better than the original can probably be counted on one hand. Steven Soderbergh's Ocean's Eleven and David Cronenberg's The Fly spring to mind as a couple of those rare examples. And, of course, John Carpenter's 1982 masterpiece The Thing, which goes beyond being a superior remake to being considered one of the finest sci-fi/horror films ever made. As for prequels, it's hard to come up with a single example that improved on its predecessor. In modern Hollywood, there are prequels, there are remakes, and then there is Matthijs van Heijningen Jr.'s 2011 version of The Thing.
Ostensibly a prequel of a remake, The Thing finds itself uncomfortably torn between the two. The story concerns the initial discovery of an alien artifact buried deep under the ice of Antarctica, and the events that follow lead directly to the opening scene of Carpenter's 1982 film. So, it's a prequel, right? Well, not quite. The way the events unfold is almost a beat-for-beat copy of the earlier film, and a number of well-known scenes from Carpenter's version are recreated. So maybe it's a remake?I don't know, and it seems like van Heijningen doesn't know either. There's only one sure way to clarify what this movie is: terrible. Van Heijningen's The Thing is derivative, pointless, four-quadrant filmmaking at its absolute worst. It tries so hard to recreate the atmosphere of paranoia and claustrophobia of Carpenter's film, but fails to engage on any level.
The problems go well beyond what any comparison with the 1982 version could reveal, but by trying so hard to mimic the far, far superior film, van Heijningen holds his film up to be judged against it, and it's not pretty. The first issue lies with the characters. To lead the story, Carpenter gave us RJ Macready, played by Kurt Russell at the peak of his badass days. Van Heijningen gives us Kate Lloyd (Mary Elizabeth Winstead) and Sam Carter (Joel Edgerton), unnecessarily dividing the Macready role to make way for a female lead, obviously in the hopes of expanding the potential audience by drawing women to the cinema. Winstead does the best she can, but it's difficult to buy her as an expert paleontologist, particularly when there doesn't seem to be any real reason for her character to be there. She is even told that she isn't there to think, just to make sure they can get the thing out of the ice. Why a scientific facility doing research on things drilled out of the ice needs to bring in an 'expert' from America to help them drill a thing out of the ice is never made clear, but I guess they needed to get the American stars in there. A female lead in a sci-fi/horror film has worked before, but it's not the case here. As for Edgerton, he seems to be there simply because he looks tough and has a beard (like Macready!). As for the other characters, they really aren't given much of a chance to establish themselves, so it's hard to care as they are picked off one by one. Carpenter subtly developed his supporting characters to make audiences feel for them, but van Heijningen simply throws them all out there and tries to focus on an unconvincing lead.
Perhaps the two most enduring elements of Carpenter's The Thing were the terrifying special effects and the excellent ambiguous ending. The new version fails here as well, with atrocious CGI which lacks a tenth of the impact of the 30 year-old practical effects, and a woeful third act that obliterates what little atmosphere the film had developed. The men of Carpenter's version were not heroes, they were simply working-class guys faced with a situation they were ill-prepared for and ill-equipped to deal with. Van Heijningen insists on giving audiences an awful 'hero moment', before ruining the one slightly interesting plot point by having a character spell everything out for the audience. It's insulting that Hollywood filmmakers nowadays don't trust their audiences enough to pick up on nuanced visual cues, we must have everything very deliberately spelled out for us. And the less said about the ham-fisted credit sequence, the better.
2011′s The Thing is among the most redundant and dreadful prequel/remakes since Gus van Sant remade Psycho. It is a film to be avoided, particularly if you have any attachment to Carpenter's 1982 version. Thankfully the legacy of the previous film cannot really be scarred too badly, as it's unlikely anyone will remember van Heijningen's The Thing by this time next year.
tinribs27.wordpress.com
where did they come from?
was better than i imagined it would be.
went to free screening. it's fair to say it's not something i would have paid to see, nor even likely to have watched on skytv in 12 months time.
but i do wonder - where did the flame throwers come from? and why would an antarctic research facility need to have some in any case?
nice effects, now i'll have to re-watch the carpenter original - it's almost 20 years since i saw it...
Not as good as the original but loved it
thought it was a great prequel even though it didnt have as much of the guessing who it was next like the original it had some jump in your seat moments
Decent Attempt
Thanks to Flicks... saw this last night. I thought it was a decent attempt at a prequel of a classic horror. Finishing right where the other begins...
1 or 2 times where the audience laughed kept it light then we start into the stalking and it turns into a uh-oh, we're in trouble type of thing. Attempting to run from or hunt something you dont know and cant find easily. Oh, and flame-throwers.. lots of...
Over all myself and partner enjoyed it. Thanks
Cool Sci-Fi with Scare Factor
Thanks Flicks for the preview screening! It was scary but riveting. Glad that the lead was a female who didn't have to get her kit off!
Classic horror
Classic in terms of it had all the cliches. There were many, many moments where you knew exactly what was going to happen next. I'm not sure if that was a bad thing or not. Waiting for the inevitable jump out of your seat moment made me want to hide my eyes like I did when I was watching the original movie as a youngster.
Waiting for the hero to piece together the clues that are super obvious to the audience is annoying. Seriously! You're a genius scientist and you can't put 2 & 2 together faster than my popcorn & sugar laden brain?
Overall I enjoyed this movie. The creature effects were fascinating to watch. Slick production and reasonable acting mean that if you park the part of your brain that loves to pick all the plot holes apart, you can sit back with your upsized popcorn combo and enjoy the romp.
Thanks to Flicks for the preview.
Better than I thought it would be
Saw this movie last night, it was better than I thought it would be. Reminded me a little of Aliens.
The thing is John Carpenter's film was better.
An neat prequel to John Carpenter's The Thing. Great scares however it lacked the, 'who is it' aspect the John's The Thing did so well.
The lead in to what the thing actually is could have been a bit to fast, but it was hard to know as I already knew what it was from the original.
All in all I thought it was fab. Whether you liked it or not you should see John Carpenter's The Thing, perhaps one of the best horrors of all time.
Thanks for the free screening Flicks.
Nice surprise
Thanks to flicks, got to see this last nite.. Gosh it was creepy.. and quite surprised that it was not the usual kind of horror flicks.. Very exciting movie overall... Me and my partner really enjoyed the movie..Good direction. Thanks :)
Great Prequel
Thanks to the good kids at Flicks for the preview! I really enjoyed The Thing - and not just because I'm a fan of Mary Elizabeth Winstead ;)
Some good humour in there helped lighten the mood at times, while the rest of the film kept us on edge, waiting for the monster to come screeching out at us! Just like when we were kids.
Would have liked a little more "who is it?" moments. But overall - great nostalgia, great effects, and a very fun film. Go see it :)
Prequel but really a remake
If you haven't seen the orignal film you'll get plenty of enjoyment out of this prequel to John Carpenter's 1982 orignal "The Thing". The Thing itself is gruesome, and a great monster that taps into everyone's fear of being attacked by something thats almost human but not quite.
There's also a few great scenes where suspense and paranoia builds as the characters discover the thing can replicate humans and attempt to narrow down those who are human and those aren't (I've never thought having fillings was a good thing up til now...).
But all in all this movie adds nothing to the orginal, it reveals scant new information and repeats the same tricks from before. And to compare the two films side by side I'd have to say the orignal did a far better job as it relied more on building suspense than this film which went for the angle of letting a CGI monster loose in all its glory. So to finish, if you haven't seen the original do so, its better. If you liked it, then the prequel will be worth a good dose of enterntainment but not much more. If you've seen the original already I'd say it's 50/50 whether its worth the price of admission. True fans of the original may enjoy more of the formula, or may be disappointed it didn't live up to its begginnings.
It's hard for me to find a horror I like...
because I'm so critical of them. I love me a decent fright, but most horrors just don't deliver and leave me a little disappointed. WELL, The Thing delivered.
It almost loses a star from me for a couple of slow moments - but it made up for them with it's amazing special effects. Some sweet gore, it's truly fantastic.
I have to say, I was dubious about this movie but both my husband and I enjoyed it HEAPS. In fact, I'd probably watch it again!
Not bad
Firstly, thanks to flicks for providing the free viewing. I am not a fan of horror films, nor did I know much about The Thing franchise, this meant that I had a very low expectation for this film. All in all, it is an okay film. I quite enjoyed the sci-fi elements but remain unconvinced about horror films. I found the first half to be more enjoyable than the second half.
Passable
I got tickets to the free screening of The Thing. It's fairly crapy, definitely not something I'd pay to see and it's not as good as Dawn of the dead which was from the same producers. This is something I'd watch on DVD if I was bored.
Not Quite The "Thing"
An odd entry to the box office, "The Thing" is not a remake, but a prequel made close to three decades after the original.
It takes someone with utter confidence in the script and direction to think that a prequel would work better in this day and age rather than that of a remake, so it's disappointing to see that it doesn't quite get there.
In many ways, it is predictably similar to that of the original. A small group of people stuck with an alien that can duplicate humans perfectly and the suspense that follows as mistrust of one another comes into play.
The cast is made up of some known's (Funnily enough, the American members of the cast, Mary Elizabeth Winstead, Joel Edgerton (Australian, but American in the film) and Eric Christian Olsen) with the rest rounded up by actors playing Norwegian's.
It is not the cast that let's the film down though, but the pacing, script and the lack of urgency or "fright factor". While the "Thing's" are particularly creepy, with tendrils and bodies exploding here and there, like the cast, there is an expectation that everything that happens is going to occur, and paired with the slowness of the film, it can be quite disengaging after some time.
While it isn't a bad film, for a prequel to a cult classic it carried some gravitas behind it to create an experience similar to the original, if not better.
Though it doesn't do that, it add's some nice backstory to the original and the updated effects again are fantastic.
Unfortunately in the end though, this "Thing" is but another popcorn flick that may be easier watched at home.
Yeah, in all, I enjoyed it!
Not as good as the original/sequel but still pretty good! I enjoyed MEW.
It wasn't very scary, but it had genuine nailbiting moments. Worth a watch!
Thanks to flicks.co.nz for the free screening! You guys ROCK!
The Thing after the thing, but before The Thing
As I thought this was a remake I was quite prepared for a bit of a let down, however it pleasently surprised me. I enjoyed the horror side, and in this pre-quel/remake the director/writers focused on the effects as much as the storyline. This made for an interesting movie and the acting (if a little static at times) wasnt o.t.t considering the setting. I was scared, monsters, alien ships, I laughed, so good all said & done.
Genre : horror, thriller, suspense, scifi
3/5 : although good, the original was great (for its time) and unfortunately I dont see this becoming a classic
That THING you do...
Being a huge fan of Carpenter's original (remake!) THING, I went to see this expecting the worst - and came away pleasantly surprised. It's no CITIZEN KANE, sure, but it's a sold, well-made action / sci-fi / horror that's only let down by a less than subtly wrought script. Still, as a homage to Carpenter's (far better) movie and as a bit of escapist nonsensical fun - it's pretty darn good! Interesting though to see that despite advances in CGI - the old style "real" effects and goo of Carpenter's movie and the likes of Peter Jackson's BRAINDEAD still can't be beat for good old visceral gore :)
-
-
steveisatree
comment / replyYour review is too long. I agree the original was one of the best horrors of all time, but if you are not comparing the prequel ain't bad.