Not exactly a ringing endorsement for Antarctic tourism...
Kate Lloyd: Mary Elizabeth Winstead Adam Goodman: Eric Christian Olsen Dr. Sander Halvorson: Ulrich Thomsen Braxton Carter: Joel Edgerton Jameson: Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje Griggs: Paul Braunstein Edvard Wolner: Trond Espen Seim Juliette: Kim Bubbs Lars: Jørgen Langhelle Olav: Jan Gunnar Røise Peder: Stig Henrik Hoff Jonas: Kristofer Hivju Henrik: Jo Adrian Haavind Karl: Carsten Bjørnlund Colin: Jonathan Lloyd Walker
Universal Pictures presents a film directed by Matthijs van Heijningen, Jr. Written by Eric Heisserer and Ronald D. Moore. Based on the 1938 novella Who Goes There? by John W. Campbell, Jr. Rated R for strong creature violence, gore, disturbing images, and language. Running Time: 1 hour, 43 minutes Release Date: October 14, 2011
I suppose The Thing is better served to be seen by people who have seen John Carpenter's 1982 film of the same name than those who haven't. I went into the screening of this version without having ever seen Carpenter's, but don't think it allowed me to be any more surprised or thrilled. After then watching Carpenter's version, I was able to appreciate some of rookie director Matthijs van Heijningen, Jr.'s nods to the original. But there's not a ton more to appreciate.
Like its predecessor, The Thing takes place in the winter of 1982 in desolate Antarctica. Dr. Sander Halvorson (Thomsen) recruits a paleontologist (Winstead) to come with him and his assistant (Olsen) to take part in a mysterious discovery with a team of Norwegian scientists. As one of the scientists discretely puts it, "We found a f***ing alien!" A large spacecraft is discovered buried underneath the Earth with its presumed operator lodged in a block of ice nearby.
You don't have to have seen John Carpenter's work to know the alien doesn't stay in the ice very long. The crew are clever enough to learn very quickly of the Thing's ability to mimic and essentially become any and all of its victims. And with a host of Norwegian scientists who, quite frankly, are hard to tell apart, it would be very easy for The Thing to blend in amongst the camp. It chooses not to. Instead, it takes a victim or two and is eventually burned alive with a flamethrower. But enough cells survive to move onto another body. Wash, rinse, repeat.
Carpenter didn't need the Thing jumping out of a new host every other scene to try and keep the audience scared. He knew the tension that built throughout his film would be far more effective. Heijningen, while clearly a fan of Carpenter's film, isn't able to build this same tension. He simply goes back and forth between Kate explaining precisely what is going on - using technology that seems far too advanced for 1982 - and the Thing taking a new victim. The characters involved are given little time to develop the fear and paranoia that made Carpenter's film so successful. When humanity does start to rear its head, the Thing uses its tentacles to rip it away. The suspense just isn't there, even less so if you are familiar with the 1982 version of the film.
Each scene involving the Thing is louder and more uninspired than the one before it. That's not to say The Thing is a complete chore to sit through, which may say more about the fact that 2011's science fiction selections include Battle: L.A. and Transformers 3 than the film itself. Fans of gore may find something to enjoy here, at least in the scenes that have any lighting and coherent camera movement. Stories like The Thing keep getting made because it's a fascinating premise with the potential to be bone-chilling. But amidst its potential, this version briskly limps along, firing its flamethrower at everything in sight before finally succumbing to a jumbled and blasé climax.
Follow 411 Movies on Twitter @411Movies. Follow Nolan Woodford on Twitter @TeamACW.
The 411: Matthijs van Heijningen, Jr.'s may serve as a nice compainion piece for diehard fans of the original Thing movies, but pales in comparison even as an homage to John Carpenter's previous installment. On its own, the 2011 version of The Thing is much better than some of the other horror remakes and science fiction offerings to come out in the past few years. But it is still too bland and full of cardboard cutout characters to be considered worth more anything than a rental for fans of the genre.
you know this was a prequel right ? And not a remake!
Posted By: Guest#4413 (Guest) on October 17, 2011 at 01:06 AM
Prequel, though from the trailer you'd think it was a remake because so many scenes look so similar.
Posted By: Guest#5739 (Guest) on October 17, 2011 at 03:17 AM
I don't believe the person reviewing this actually sat through Carpenter's film after the watch this one. Clearly a prequel. CGI needed more time and tension was needed. You could say that the Thing was feeling out if it should take the offensive or defensive route to humans. By Carpenter's The Thing, it had learned that to survive it would need to hide. Not a great film, but it sets up a true sequel to Carpenter's. Not knowing what happend to Kate and if she was a Thing herself. I believe she was and she made it for the Russian base.
Posted By: Bill Fn Murray (Guest) on October 17, 2011 at 08:31 AM
Was this a great movie? The answer is clearly no. I enjoyed it, though. It seems a lot of reviewers are expecting it to be just like Carpenter's. It's clearly a different film for a different time. I looked at it as someone telling me the part of Carpenter's story I didn't know. From that perspective it was fine. They did a good job at the end setting up all of the visuals we see when Kurt Russell visits the Norwegian camp in Carpenter's movie.
I've seen a lot of reviews critical of the lack of character development. Was there really a ton of that in Carpenter's? He abandoned the Vietnam back-story for Russell's character before the movie got made. Maybe they had more personality in Carpenter's, but they certainly didn't have more development.
Posted By: JeremyL (Guest) on October 17, 2011 at 10:20 AM
The storyline is technically that of a prequel, but the film feels much more like a remake. Thanks for reading and I appreciate the comments!
Posted By: Nolan Woodford (Guest) on October 17, 2011 at 10:39 AM
I thoroughly enjoyed this film, although I do agree that it is inferior to John Carpenter's in every way. I think the biggest problem with the prequel is the pacing; it flows along at a breakneck pace from beginning to end, and never really stops for too long to let the characters develop, or the tension build. Of course, Carpenter's film was too slow and seemed to drag on at times, so I suppose it all evens out. The special effects for the Thing itself were spectacular, and seeing the human form twisted in such grotesque ways was truly disturbing.
I loved how the ending leads right into Carpenter's film, but I was surprised that the director didn't include the scene where the Norwegians formed a circle around the spaceship as it lay under the ice; that scene was included in both Carpenter's version and the original 1951 version. For someone who dissected the previous film in order to preserve the feeling of continuity, he sure did miss a beat there.
Posted By: NoLifeKing66 (Guest) on October 17, 2011 at 04:34 PM
I still cannot decide if it is a remake or a bona-fide prequel. Too many scenes are way too similar. In the end, its another hollywood attempt to make a few bucks on a classic storyline...and I know you gentlemen have been through a lot, but when you find the time, I'd rather not spend the rest of this winter TIED TO THIS FUCKING COUCH!
Posted By: Garry (Guest) on October 17, 2011 at 09:13 PM
Remake? They're in Antarctica. How much different could it have been? This wasn't a Star Wars prequel situation. This 1982 Antarctica. Out in the ass end of the planet. No bars. No walmarts. No natives, because the environment is unlivable. Problem with the film was pacing, too much alien, cgi was rushed in some scenes, and music/sound. This sets up a true sequel and ties into carpenter's film. Send a scifi junkie to review this next time. Film is ok.
Posted By: Bill Fn Murray (Guest) on October 20, 2011 at 11:35 PM
I'm beginning to wonder if it isn't time to 'remaster' the original. For the most part, the effects hold up, but the 'spider-head' sequence looks a little dated nowadays. And I've always had a problem /w the Thing's bizarre vocalisations. I was never sure if they were designed to be that aggravating, or there wasn't time to fix it in post-production.
Posted By: johnjcoe9198 (Guest) on November 13, 2011 at 02:45 PM
Copyright (c) 2011 411mania.com, LLC. All rights reserved.
Click here for our privacy policy. Please help us serve you better, fill out our survey.
Use of this site signifies your agreement to our terms of use.
