When I initially saw 2011's The Thing, I enjoyed it knowing fully well that was a far reach from the 1982 film it serves as a prequel to. Now, all I see is a pale imitation, a picture with few original ideas that was misguided from the start.
Set in the Norwegian research base found in ruins at the beginning of 1982's The Thing, we follow American paleontologist Kate Lloyd (Mary Elizabeth Winstead). She's been recruited by Dr. Sander Halovorson (Ulrich Thomsen) to investigate the frozen remains of an alien in the Arctic. When the creature thaws and escapes, it displays the unique ability to absorb and mimic any organism it comes into contact with. The paranoia sets in as Kate searches for the imitation(s) among the researchers.
It's impossible not to draw comparisons between The ThingĀ and The Thing. They've got the same name, which is annoying to the fans it lured in with promises of "more". Unfortunately, they'll recognize it as a beat-for-beat inferior imitator. Take the titular alien - this hostile alien creature that warps human forms and attacks with writhing collections of limbs, tentacles, circular maws, and clawed hands. What we see here never captures the look or feel of the practical effects that have made the OG a classic. Instead, we get CGI effects around every corner, effects that are already dated just a few years later.
It isn't merely the obvious stuff. It's the details as well. Remember McReady coming up with a crude blood test? How heād take a hot wire and use it to poke blood samples? Alien blood would freak out. Human would only sizzle. Thereās an equivalent here that has characters look into each otherās mouths for fillings. The Thing canāt imitate inorganic material so if your teeth are clean, youāre human. It's clever, but in terms of filmmaking, it's not nearly as effective. People drawing blood by cutting themselves is cringe-inducing and it amps the unease/paranoia. Do you look at the blood dripping or the person getting cut? The anticipation builds as the needle draws near. What's next? Looking into someoneās mouth for cavities is easy. Too easy. The scary thing about the blood test is that once you leave the room and come back, thereās no way for anyone to tell if youāre human unless you administer the test again, starting the process of tension-building all over. With the teeth, itās immediately detectable if someone has changed. Itās an example of a choice that in real-life makes sense but story-wise is incorrect.
Even as a standalone picture, this ThingĀ is not good. The anxiety it creates is quickly undone by big, loud sequences where people are slaughtered left and right. The characters frequently make unbelievably stupid choices or manage the impossible. There are false scares throughout, the climax is poorly written. Itās a horror film thatās not scary, a thriller thatās not exciting. It doesn't convince as a period piece and Matthijs van Heijningen Jr. seems to have learned nothing since 1982. It all feels like something youāve seen before, even if youāre unfamiliar with John Carpenterās horror classic.
I canāt believe I once saw The ThingĀ and liked it. Actually, I can because it isnāt all that bad on the surface, itās once you sit and think about it that you feel the disappointment. In some ways, that makes it worse than an outright bad movie. (On DVD, July 29, 2016)
