The Thing

I don't consider myself particularly smart, but unfortunately, I can predict painfully accurately the appearance, expectations, outcome, and my overall impression of a substantial part of films. The film industry is trying to fulfill the task of producing a commercially successful film and at the same time appeal to the target audience. It was clear that the plot of Carpenter's legendary The Thing prequel could not take place among a group of Norwegians in a remote Antarctic base, because the decisive revenue still comes from the American market and the American viewer is truly self-centered, so attempts to place a blockbuster among European, Asian, or South American characters, with few exceptions, do not end well. It was also necessary to consider the female audience and the shift in the actions of female characters, who have been emancipated significantly since the 80s and are leading many action movies. Likewise, it was necessary to consider the significant American ethnic minority, and thus we have the composition of the main characters. The plots of films have also significantly accelerated since the 80s, and the audience has gotten much younger, so that had to be taken into account as well. By the way, at the expense of the film's quality, and because Matthijs van Heijningen clearly admires Carpenter and tries to follow in his footsteps, he doesn't understand what made the original film great. It was characterized by a dominant atmosphere of collective mistrust, hysteria, creeping fear of uncertainty, and the issue of who could still be trusted. If there's one thing missing in Heijningen's film, it's precisely such an atmosphere. Carpenter worked with long shots, and the key scenes were not the ones where the Thing ripped through human bodies, but the ones where the polar explorers confronted each other. If horror fans were able to discuss at length how a flamethrower ended up on a polar base, in Heijningen's film, I find incomparably more logical gaps and obvious nonsense. It's not a disaster, and within the genre, it's perhaps a decent average mainly due to the attractiveness of the source material, but this successor is nowhere near the quality of Carpenter's original film. I assumed it would turn out that way, so I avoided the premiere at the movie theater, and that was the right decision. Overall impression: 40%. (11/02/2012)

Carpenter’s The Thing is on a different level, but I’m glad that van Heijningen has at least sort of got into the same building :-) His new The Thing is a really nice effect horror movie, nothing memorable, but also nothing that can make anyone mad, there’s other stuff for that. It’s true that the people at the base are hard to tell from each other. It’s true that the layout of the base is never made very clear. It’s true that the paranoid atmosphere could have been better. But still, it was nice to watch from beginning to end. The digital character of the effects can be seen at times, but they were also thrilling in some scenes. Horror art it might not be, but it’s good horror fun. 7/10. (24/11/2011)

Even in a generally good film, we often see unused potential, that magical “something” in the background, whether an idea, a thought or a hint that could have turned that good film into an unforgettable masterpiece – if its creator had grasped the essence of the story correctly, dispensed with all of the clichés and tried-and-tested formulas and gone his own way. That’s just the kind of unexploited potential I would have picked up on in Heijningen’s film today if John Carpenter hadn’t perfectly put it to use before him. Carpenter’s version was an intimate drama built into a terrifying horror flick through the creeping fear of an unidentifiable evil. Heijningen’s digital freakshow is neither intimate nor a drama; it is more literal, faster, more epic and more riddled with clichés. In spite of that, however, it worked decently for me, thanks to the brilliant idea that Carpenter embedded in my childhood nightmares, and thanks also to the few new ideas that elevated it from the position of parasitic plagiarism to the role of dignified film fiasco. I consider the emancipatory change of protagonist from the ’80s action hero (Kurt Russell) to an intelligent woman, dentist Mary Elizabeth Ripley, to be one of those good ideas. And I give thanks for the closing credits ;-). (20/11/2011)

The Thing is not a bad movie. A useless film? Yes, but not a bad film. Well, not exactly. The director has a flair for the right horror atmosphere, helped by a more than good score by Marco Beltrami and a bunch of special effects artists who did an amazing job (seriously, because they combined state-of-the-art digital effects with excellent models and masks in a way that would make Stan Winston rejoice). It's worse with the film’s lousy script. The people who wrote it, in my opinion, let themselves get too tied up with the fact that they were writing a prequel and that they had to follow the original film with so many things (the axe in the wall, the ice "sarcophagus", the two-headed monster, the dog, the polar bear with his throat cut...) that they forgot about originality. Alas. I liked the beginning of the film, which honored the short story template, I liked ideas like the one with the seals and just about every scene with The Thing in action, but I still felt like I was watching something I'd already seen once before that had "only" been dressed up in a fancier coat. I was also sad to see how the script flubbed the characters (most of them are easily confused individuals) and several times also the logic (the helicopter crash and who survived it). Still, I was not offended by the new version of The Thing and I would not dare to give it less than a slightly above average three stars. (31/01/2012)

This film faced criticism that it truly didn’t deserve. It’s true that The Thing from 1982 was very original, with its main strength being practical effects rather than CGI, but I still enjoyed the new installment quite a bit. The cast is exceedingly likable. I'm glad there was a prequel to such a cult classic. The atmosphere here was captivating. Once the alien burst out of the ice, the action really took off and didn’t stop until the end. I must commend the digital effects, as I found them good. It may not have had the same horror atmosphere as the original, but that doesn't matter at all. The ending surprised me in that I genuinely didn’t expect it, which gives the creators a huge plus. However, I particularly liked the post-credit scene, which beautifully connects to the first film. It doesn’t get a perfect score, as that would be somewhat disrespectful to the original, and also due to a few dull moments where I felt a bit bored. Otherwise, it’s a gripping film all around, and I give it 80%. (21/01/2017)