“Not so funny when it’s your mom, is it?”
I first saw this movie in the theater, and I went in with pretty low expectations. I remember enjoying it, and being surprised that I did so. I haven’t really thought about it much in the years since, though, even though I somehow picked up a DVD copy somewhere (unless it had pretended to be another movie, and just now revealed its true nature).
Most of the horror movie fans I know loathe this movie. I think the very idea of it just irritates them. John Carpenter’s film is just about as perfect as a horror movie can be, and the idea of expanding on it offends in the way that, say, a remake of Jaws would offend. I’m a little more open in that I agree that The Thing (1982) shouldn’t be remade, but if there are additional stories to be told that take place before or after? I’m up for that. They need to add something new, though, or let us see things in a different way.
Likely spoilers ahead, though I won’t be giving away major plot points. Anything I do give away will be obvious if you’ve seen Carpenter’s version.
The Medium
I have the 2011 DVD release of The Thing, which I don’t think I’ve ever watched before. It’s fine, but I’m sure the Blu-ray would look nice. For streaming options, The Thing isn’t currently available for free or as part of a subscription service, but can be rented or purchased from most of the usual online vendors.
The Movie
Antarctica – winter 1982. A crawler from a Norwegian research outpost is out in the middle of an ice field, tracking a signal coming from somewhere under the ice. There’s some back-and-forth banter, a crude joke and some good cinematography. They reach the approximate site of the signal only to get swallowed up by a huge crevasse. The opening narrows quickly and the crew find themselves trapped, facing down. As shocked as the men are by this, they’re even more startled by what the still active headlights reveal below…
This was an effective setup and jumped the hell out of the audience I was with. It gave me some warm feelings towards the filmmakers to have had some character stuff and a decent jump so quickly.
The movie proper starts after this and, in order to get Americans involved, we are introduced to a paleo-something-or-other, Kate (Mary Elizabeth Winstead), who specializes in dissecting animals pulled out of the permafrost. We’re shown her ‘scoping the insides of what appears to be a frozen mammoth. Personally, I would have been happy to have the entire film shot in Norwegian with subtitles, but I understand the concerns the filmmakers must have had for a US release. And let’s face it – it’s more realistic to have folks from Norway able to speak fluent English than it is for Americans to be able to speak Norwegian.
She’s brought in because, of course, the Norwegians have found something buried in the ice. I would have appreciated a montage of the video footage from the Carpenter version (the tapes Copper and Mack bring back from the ruins of the Norwegian camp) under the credits at this point, but you can’t have everything.
Kate has some professional disagreements with the head Norwegian scientist, Halvorson (Ulrich Thomsen). He seems to be a nice little nod to Carrington, the head scientist from the original Thing From Another World, being slightly pompous, callous and convinced that the science is the important thing.
There are a couple of good jumps and the creature effects are sometimes well done. The dependence on CGI allows for some interesting iterations of the creature that would have been much, much harder to do with practical effects. The problem is that these moments are few and far between, and there are several sequences in which the CGI just isn’t that believable. I wish there had been a greater attempt to meld CG and practical effects. (Actually, as a fan of old-school monster-making, I wish they’d gone with the original plan and had entirely practical effects.)
As an aside, the company that did the original practical effects, StudioADI, produced their own monster movie after having most of their contributions on The Thing replaced with CG. This was Harbinger Down (2015), starring Lance Henricksen. It’s not a great film, but the effects are pretty decent.
There isn’t anywhere near as much in the way of paranoia with this film as compared to Carpenter’s. This is frustrating because it’s part of what makes the Carpenter version something more than just a gory monster fest. Once I realized that the question of ‘who amongst us is the Thing’ was going to play a secondary role to ‘who amongst us is going to have their face eaten by the Thing’ I was able to let go a bit and just enjoy it as a monster movie.
There are some obvious moments of repetition from the Carpenter version, which I think was intended to be respectful, but there’s enough of it that it starts to feel more like copying. It was enough that when the film got to the inevitable ‘test’ scenes I was pleasantly surprised when they changed things up.
There are lots of problems with the film, but the biggest issue that I have with the movie is that the characters seemed interchangeable. There were a few standouts, but in general you’re left feeling like the vast majority of the crew is just fodder – placed there for plot purposes. With Carpenter’s film (an inevitable comparison) the characters all seemed distinct and believable, but I struggled telling people apart here.
There are also some plot holes in how this movie relates to the Carpenter version (as a prequel) that are either ignored or spackled quickly over with handwaving plot-tunium. I think it could have used another 10-20 minutes in the middle to handle some of the character stuff and set up the end a bit better. There are also some discrepancies in the behavior of the Thing between the films – I’ve seen some suggestions that the Thing as shown in Carpenter’s film has learned from the mistakes of its first attack. The frontal assault didn’t really work, so it plays the hide-n-seek game. It’s a nice justification, but I don’t buy it as much now. I think they wanted a simple, straightforward monster move – so that’s how the Thing acts.
I do find things to enjoy in the movie, although not as much as the first time I saw it. Part of that was the crowd – they all seemed to like it (even the 80-year-old grandmother in the row in front of me) and got into some of the scenes. (One scene particular saw a ripple of ‘holy shits’ through the crowd, followed by a character on-screen saying ‘holy shit’ and the theater erupted in laughter.)
The Bottom Line
Movies like this – remakes, prequels or ‘inspired by’ – always fill me with a combination of interest and trepidation. Sometimes you get Carpenter’s The Thing, a remake of The Thing From Another World (1951). Sometimes you get the 1999 version of The Haunting. The 2011 prequel to Carpenter’s The Thing isn’t The Haunting bad – and it does add something to the mythos – but it’s also not a new vision and the question of whether it adds anything meaningful is open. However, it doesn’t subtract anything either. It’s like an extra on the special edition DVD – it provides some additional info but isn’t required. As a monster movie it has some fun moments, but the characters are thin, the effects inconsistent, and the plot anything but subtle. If you’re a fan, though, stay for the credits, as they set up the connection between the two films.
