The Thing

In 1982, the Norwegian Dr. Sander Halvorson (Ulrich Thomsen) invites the paleontologist Kate Lloyd (Mary Elizabeth Winstead) to join his team in his research in the Artic. On the arrival, she learns that they have discovered a spacecraft deep below in the ice. They find a frozen alien life form nearby and they bring to their facility for research. Out of the blue, the alien revives and attack the scientists, contaminating them and assuming the shape of his victim. Kate finds means to identify the creature, but maybe it is too late to save the team members.

In 1982, the master John Carpenter remade the 1951 "The Thing from Another World" ans his movie has become a masterpiece. The story of a shape-shifting alien that can assume any human form is tense, supported by a claustrophobic and depressing scenario, paranoid characters with Kurt Russell in the top of his successful career, haunting music score by Ennio Morricone and John Carpenter's top-notch direction.

This remake disguised in prequel is not totally bad, but follows the format of the present Hollywood movies, supported by special effects but without the atmosphere and the psychological horror of the 1982 movie. My vote is six.

Title (Brazil): "O Enigma do Outro Mundo" ("The Enigma of Another World")

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.

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.

I don't think people give this movie its due. Of course it's not as good as the 1982 movie but that doesn't mean it's bad. It's a very faithful prequel and sticks to the story excellently. If you watch them both back to back it's almost like one long movie (and it's a great night in) The performances are great. The setting, as in the John Carpenter classic is claustrophobic yet somehow vast and there are some very tense scenes. It is let down by cgi. I would have liked to have seen some of the practical effects that were talked about in the movie's marketing but it's a product of the time. Overall I enjoyed it.

A solid 7/10.

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.