Synopsis:
Graduate student Kate Lloyd (Mary Elizabeth Winstead) is escorted to Antarctica, where scientist Dr. Sander Halvorson (Ulrich Thomsen) and his team have discovered an alien craft, and its pilot frozen in the ice. But before research can begin, the 'Thing' escapes, and begins to take on the physical appearance of the members of the research team.
Review:
John Carpenter's 1982 The Thing is a horror classic, combining the writing of interesting characters that were all portrayed very efficiently, a chilling realization of the horrors of solitude and the paranoia of the psyche, and practical effects that are nothing short of absolute perfection. It has stood the test of time, nay, it has DEFIED the test of time, still proving to be a horror force to be reckoned with.
So, of course, Hollywood had to remake it.
Prequel, Remake, it's All Stupid.
Well, if we're going to be specific (and avoid trolling comments littering this review), this is actually a prequel, taking place at the Swedish outpost that was mentioned in the 1982 film. Right away, we have a problem, because what's left to our imagination is always better. That's why people who "read the book first" will always be disappointed to some extent by the movie version: Imagination trumps reality. Leaving what exactly happened at the Swedish outpost to imagination was not only wiser, but when the Thing starts to kill people in the original and characters start to turn on their friends, you mentally start to fill in the blanks yourself about what probably went on at the Swedish outpost. Making a whole movie that spells out for you what happened is like a magician explaining in great detail how his great disappearing trick works: Suddenly, the magic is lost.
You may as well forget going into the movie that this is a prequel; why not, the movie certainly does. It isn't until the last 20 minutes of the movie that it starts to draw ANY connection whatsoever to the original, and even then, it doesn't add anything or tell anything worth knowing. When you saw an axe stuck in the wall in the original, you figure somebody probably stuck it there; thanks to the prequel, you finally get to find out that (GASP!) somebody DID stick it there!! Wow!
The movie top-to-bottom is full of inconsistencies and holes that even Ray Charles could see. Why did the Swedish scientists go through the trouble of bringing in Winstead's character for her expertise, and then tell her to be quiet and follow THEIR orders? How did they get the Thing's ice cube in that garage, when the only door is a normal door and the ice cube is almost twice the height of a person and up their waists in thickness? And the final act of the movie is a contender for this year's "Biggest Plot Hole in a Stupid Movie", where the Thing is escaping to its crashed ship, to escape back into space. So, if the ship was functional, how did it crash on Earth in the first place?
Scary Movies Should be Actually Scary
The biggest problem the movie has (and the most obvious) is that it isn't scary. Courage the Cowardly Dog would yawn himself to sleep watching this. It takes no time at all in building suspense or tension, instead relying on their unimpressive CG monster to immaturely jump out and yell "Boo!". The monster effects look half-finished at best, and lack any visual charm or aesthetic. It honestly looks like it was rejected from The Phantom Menace. And you can tell the effects are bad, because the stupid Thing (har har) is seen top to bottom, under every light possible, naked as the day it was born, for all the world to see. Why is this a problem? Think back to why Jaws was such a big hit: Keeping the shark hidden built suspense and mystery, so when the shark DID show his fishy face, it was all the more shocking. Same goes for Alien, Pandorum, the original Thing, all of them kept their monster/alien hidden in the dark for as long as possible. Why?
Well, for one, it's cheaper.
But more importantly, the directors of those movies understood that it's not about the monster, it's about the presence. It's about FEELING the monster in the auditorium with you when you hear it slithering about. It's about FEAR. The director of this new Thing has no understanding of subtlety, or even how to exist properly.
What if You Haven't Seen the Original?
Many films would pale by comparison to Carpenter's Thing, but by having the gaul to claim to have anything to do with the original, it's pretty much asking for it. But even for those going into this without the reference point of the original, this movie's the same as every other remake of a classic horror movie. All the psychological elements that drenched Carpenter's version in tension, has been replaced by the void of repetitive Hollywood formula: Bland acting, silence, jump-scare, rinse and repeat. When characters begin dying, you'll find that you don't even remember their name, or even one thing about them aside from that one guy's awesome beard. Characters that exist purely for body count, dialogue that induces sleep, no suspense, bad effects, and a script riddled with cliches and plot holes all make for a crummy experience if your brain is even half-way on.
In the long, sad history of bad prequels/remakes/prequamakes, The Thing has earned the right in the history books as being one of the worst. Not only does it completely disrespect the original, it disrespects movies in general. The director and writers of this Thing have certainly seen the original, and no doubt love it, but do not understand what made it so great. This movie is loud, stupid, loud, and insipid on nearly every level.
By the way, it's really loud.
The Thing (2011) is a 0 out of 5.
Caleb Laulusa - I began writing video game reviews for an international website that sadly, went under before any of my work was published. I also found ...
Join the Conversation