Movie Review: The Thing

“At an Antarctica research site, the discovery of an alien craft leads to a confrontation between graduate student Kate Lloyd and scientist Dr. Sander Halvorson.”

Genre : Sci-fi, Horror

Director : Matthijs van Heijningen Jr.

Writer : Eric Heisserer, Ronald D. Moore

Cast : Mary Elizabeth Winstead, Joel Edgerton, Ulrich Thompsen

It’s Tuesday night before the Friday release, and you’re sitting in a darkened theater as the remake/prequel/whatever-the-hell-it’s-supposed-to-be to the 1982 John Carpenter favorite is entering the middle of the third act. You look over and see, in the seat next to you, a man, who scored free tickets to this pre-screening, taking a nap. Welcome to The Thing (2011).

In a bold new world of remakes, reboots, and a whole lot of rehashing with vague definitions, here we have yet another Hollywood endeavor to make money from tampering with classic movies.

Firstly, what is The Thing? Is it a prequel? Possibly. It follows the group of Norwegian scientists who made the discovery of an alien presence in Antarctica that established the setting in the 1982 film. Well, kind of. John Carpenter’s The Thing is actually a pseudo-sequel to the 1951 film, The Thing from Another World. So the 2011 film is actually a remake of the 1951 film? Not really. It’s more likely that the filmmakers ignored the original, in which case it is intended to be a prequel to the 1982 film. However, with how much they rehash plot elements from the 1982 The Thing, it feels more like a remake throughout, which makes it a prequel of a sequel, but not a remake of the preceding movie to the one to which it is a prequel. It’s all very confusing.

Starring the lovely Mary Elizabeth Winstead, who plays an American attaché to the Norwegian crew, this year’s The Thing follows the plot of what happened to the base that is destroyed and deserted when Kurt Russell and company arrive. The plot is standard-fare sci-fi/horror with little inspiration and less ability. Bad filmmaking, poor writing, and absurd CGI effects make this movie a slow, boring trudge from start to finish, even for fans of the Carpenter film.

With poor cinematography that focuses more on flashy camera movements than following the flow of the scene, and widely questionable editing, it is a wonder how these filmmakers are able to find work. Although, it’s hard to tell what the camera is supposed to be following, considering the script, which will have you often scratching your head, asking yourself questions like, “How did they figure out so quickly what exactly the alien organism does?” and “Who leaves gasoline containers outside in a blizzard?” And convenience is rather nonissue when you consider that two characters go missing in the middle of an action scene and are completely forgotten for the rest of the movie.

But horror movies can hardly be judged solely on plot, character, and technique. What makes them special is the effects, the blood, the gore. But, while The Thing has a few good practical effects, with some cool puppetry, they are very limited, leaving most of the work to CGI, which, unfortunately, is laughably bad. In the climactic encounter, you want to laugh at the lurching alien being with a low-resolution human face at the center of its belly rather than cower tensely from it.

All in all, 2011’s The Thing is a tedious, sleep-inducing waste of time, a sad attempt to profit from a time when Universal was putting out consistently good movies, and even the eye candy of Mary Elizabeth Winstead fails to make it watchable.

Grade: D