The Thing about Reviewing The Thing

I watched ‘The Thing’ (2011) the day it was released to theaters and three things I learned are:

1. Antarctic bases keep many, many flamethrowers whatever nation operates it, because…you just never know when you will need one.
2. Alien superbeasts will ignore their abilities just to do something more dramatic, the same way super heroes do!
3. Huge, bloody messes in shower rooms are quick and easy to clean up. They must have used Bounty, the quicker picker upper.

Ok, I’m going to do this review a little differently. I’ll review it on its own, then in comparison to the 1982 The Thing by John Carpenter. Why? Well, I’m a huge fan of the ’82 version and that is the prime reason I was there on Friday to see the new one when it came out! I usually don’t, but in this case I will discuss some details that include spoilers, so I’ll give fair warning at that point.

All right, everyone...drumstick or wing?

The Thing Synopsis

A group of people at a distant, isolated Norwegian Antarctic research station find something in the ice, including a ‘specimen’. Several American and other scientists arrive to study the find, but when the ‘thing’ thaws, the researchers and scientists find their lives in danger. The film is a prequel to the 1982 ‘The Thing’, showing what happened in the days before John Carpenter’s version begins.

Firstly, on the film’s own merits: By itself The Thing is a pretty high speed little horror film. It’s not perfect, and there were several scenes that pulled me out of the film (including the bit from ‘What I Learned’ about the creature forgetting its own abilities at least twice to set up a scare a moment later). On the bad side, the acting is mostly average with only our principle characters having anything really to do and very little that happens can be considered actually scary. A couple of the researchers do really dumb things as if this was a bargain basement slasher film. The way our main character takes control of the situation once things get going is a bit far-fetched, and she makes most of the big decisions from that point (different people making suggestions would have made more sense). On the good side, though, many of the action/’thing’ sequences are very tightly done and intense to watch, and though the CGI isn’t the best, it didn’t ruin those scenes for me. The gore and weirdness is there to give some truly unique visuals. There are some really clever actions from various characters in the film too. The lead actress, Mary Elizabeth Winstead (most recently from Scott Pilgrim vs The World) does portray the sudden acting leader of the station in a believable, emotional way. Overall, for a viewer who has never watched the 1982 version, this film should be a lot of fun to watch. It is no classic, but better than most supposed scary films I’ve watched recently.

This is like an 8th 'Evil Ex-Boyfriend'.

Now in comparison to the ’82 version, and here is where the SPOILERS will arrive: No matter how you feel about it, John Carpenter’s The Thing is a classic horror movie. While so many films show a group of victims cut off from civilization somehow, John Carpenter created such an incredible isolation with paranoid people who did not know who they could trust. Most of the actors in the film played believable characters with great skill so that, by the middle of the film, you did care a little about what happens to them. Of course the movie also had some of the most disgustingly messy scenes since the chestburster from Alien, all done with no CGI whatsoever. It is a wild ride from beginning to end, and ends in a way that is hard to really predict. The 2011 prequel seems a really pale copy of the earlier film. Even the sequence of events mimics the first in a really blatant way. The details were different, but many of the scenes were the same. The earlier film took a ‘less is more’ tactic as far as showing the creature, too.

The monsters do not appear very long compared to the length of the film. Here I thought the newer movie fell short. They show the creatures way too often as if they are proud of their creations, but George Lucas showed us all what kind of monsters you can make on screen. By the time the newer film nears the end, the novelty of the strange creatures had worn off for me. The time span seems way too abrupt, too. I mean, two days for all of the events of the newer film to take place, the initial creature must have been moving really fast at copying and replacing crew members. Sadly, the worst part for me was the ending…not the coda that links the two films but the actual climax of the action. Simply put, from the time that the main characters reach the buried starship, almost everything that follows made me groan or cringe at the lack of thought that went into it. Here is where the beast ‘forgets’ abilities it showed us earlier in the film. This is where it grows a huge maw perfect for a grenade to be thrown into (Never seen THAT before, have we?). Another comparison I can make is to the summer film Super 8. J. J. Abrams used a lot of old ideas in Super 8, but it built them in a new way, with interesting characters and a sequence of events that were engaging and difficult to predict. The end result was probably my favorite film of the year. For The Thing 2011, many of the things they do were done better in the 1982 version, and when they did do something new to the franchise, it fell into ‘D’oh!’ moments that really hurt my overall impression.

Really? Instead of a flamethrower, I get THIS?!?

END OF SPOILERS: Essentially, I did enjoy the film to some extent, and it was fun watching my son (since he really hadn’t seen anything quite like it), but I would have enjoyed it more if there was more originality used in the making. Personally, I would give The Thing 2 out of 5 stars, but someone without my middle-age, seen it before outlook might enjoy it a lot more, so I’ll give 3 out of 5 in that case. It’s likely a better trip than the next SAW movie or the Final Final Final Reeeeeeally Final Destination.

The Thing 2011 is rated