The Thing Reviewed: Sequel Or Remake?

It boasts the same title as John Carpenter's 1982 classic, but is the 21st century 'The Thing' magical or monotonous?
Publish date:
Updated on


With technology - and big budget dollars - stunning and artistic filmwork is easier in the 21st Century, and with another culture looking at this old classic there are some  interesting elements added to what is supposed to be a "prequel".   Dutch filmmaker Matthijs van Heijningen Jr., who cut his teeth on Pepsi, Bud Light, Toyota and other such advertising, understands commercialism, and he is also hip to the Wachowski brothers throwing everything but the kitchen sink into the Matrix series.  In this new Thing you'll find elements of Invaders from Mars, Independence Day, Alien, Day of the Triffids, Invasion of the Body Snatchers and Predator, certainly not what the author, John W. Campbell Jr., conceived when his1938 novella  Who Goes There? was first published.

It was 13 years before James Arness played the original Thing, set in the Arctic. John Carpenter took the action to the other side of the world - Antartica - in 1982 - and that's where it remains 29 years later.

The cast is all new, and no one delivers an Academy Award-winning performance - but they adequately tell the tale. Final Destination 3's Mary Elizabeth Winstead is not a big name star, Joel Edgerton is in tons of movies - but is still unknown (he appeared in Star Wars: Attack of the Clones), and the Thing itself appears to slightly resemble the Horta from Star Trek's 25th show, The Devil In The Dark.  The Horta meets Alien.  Wikipedia notes that Winstead is supposed to be identified with Sigourney Weaver's character in the Alien series so...

What idiot scientist would take a sample from something from another world without considering the consequences?

The claustrophobic idea of people abandoned in Antartica with a malevolent presence is ok for one movie, but this 73 year old idea feels like it is on a merry go round. Unlike Rise of the Planet Of The Apes - which went to extraordinary lengths to give something new, fresh and exciting to the work - Heijningen falls a bit short.  The spacecraft discovered early in the story is far more compelling as a setting for the drama...and the references to Invaders from Mars will not go unnoticed, but that's where this film needed to spend its the vast expanse of the technological wonder, not back where Wilford Brimley and the gang were playing around with Kurt Russell.  Perhaps they should've thrown in some Cocoon as wouldn't have hurt.   But what numbskull would allow a creature from another world to melt without thinking of the possibility of suspended animation? And what idiot scientist would take a sample from something from another world without considering the consequences - virus, plague, something similarly lethal?  What gets suspended is your imagination in this old war horse of a story.

There are some genuinely scary moments in this new "Thing", as well as two of the guys on the crew melting into each other a la the late Ron Silver (who fell into his other self) in 1994's Timecop.  A bizarre alien homo erotica of sorts. Kind of gives new meaning to the term "buddy system" though it is quite gory. There is an intentional restraint on the blood and guts (somewhat for 2011), for most of the film, putting the emphasis on the creepiness from the cold, dark landscape.

It's good for an evening's entertainment, but if this creature is kept on ice for another 60 years, no one will really miss it.

Other recent stories you might like:

Die Hard 5: A Good Day To Die Hard & The 10 Worst Film Titles Ever

Tyrannosaur And Five Other Films From The Heart Of Darkness

Click here for more TV and Film stories

Click here to follow Sabotage Times on Twitter

Click here to follow Sabotage Times on Facebook