The Thing (2011)


While it’s technically a prequel, this new Thing is a lot like the old Thing, but pales by comparison in every conceivable way. The characters are less engaging, the atmosphere is less palpable, the tension is lacking, and the ground-breaking practical effects of the 1982 version are replaced with some pretty cheezy-looking CGI. The film also eschews the all-male ensemble for the hackneyed ‘lone survivor girl’ approach (and she’s way too young and pretty to be a brilliant scientist). I like how things are set up for the haunting discoveries at the start of the 1982 version, but this is otherwise a prequel/remake (like so many) that didn’t need to exist.

Share Button

1 Comment to The Thing (2011)

  1. Chris Crum // August 12, 2013 at 12:38 pm //

    I agree that it’s not as good as Carpenter’s, but how could it be? I also agree that it didn’t need to exist, but I’m glad it does, because if it didn’t, someone else would have made it a lot shittier. I’m glad it was at least made by people that had respect for the movie. I also agree that the CG effects were not as good as the original, but it wasn’t all CG, as there were some pretty good puppets/prosthetics in there too.

    I thought it was a cut above a lot of the other needless remakes. I’d suggest watching the behind-the-scenes featurette for a look at the effects. It gives you a better idea of the respect the filmmakers had for the source. Frankly I wish more of the remakes would follow the example of The Thing, because the remakes are going to keep coming regardless. It would be nice if a bigger percentage of them went beyond just trying to cash in on opening weekend.

    The behind-the-scenes thing also drew my attention to some interesting continuity elements between the prequel and the original that I hadn’t noticed, and made me appreciate it all the more.

    I saw it in the theater and on DVD again last week. I do also think the big screen added to it. But i really like the way it ends with the dog.

Comments are closed.