The Thing (2011) R 103 minutes
Horror, Sci-Fi, Mystery, Remake, Alien Movie, Suspenseful, Thriller, Scary
Director: Matthijs van Heijningen Jr.
Cast: Mary Elizabeth Winstead, Joel Edgerton, Ulrich Thomsen, Eric Christian Olsen, Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje
A lot: Death, Gore, Language, Violence
Some: Alcohol, Illness, Sex/Nudity
No: Drugs, Perversion, Torture
Overall Grade: "B-"
Directing: "B", Acting: "B-", Visual Effects: "B"
Story Line: "C+", Concept: "B", Aftertaste: "B-"
Family Friendliness: "F", Date Movie: "F"
Directing: "B", Acting: "B-", Visual Effects: "B"
Story Line: "C+", Concept: "B", Aftertaste: "B-"
Family Friendliness: "F", Date Movie: "F"
Here is the thing: “The Thing” claims to be a prequel to the famous 1982 John Carpenter’s movie with the same name. In fact, however, a diligent, thorough, but unoriginal, unimaginative, and overall inferior Remake that lacks visionary directing, good story, and impressive visual effects.
It is not surprising therefore, that in comparison to the classic 1982 moviewith its high 8.2 rating on IMDB and the “fresh” 78% rating on “Rotten Tomatoes”,the 2011 flick looks rather pathetic with its mediocre 6.3 and the “rotten” 36% respectively. Moreover, while the John Carpenter’s movie celebrated a box office success, the new remake did quite poorly in that area by gathering only $27.5 million in the theatres worldwide -significantly less than its $38 million production budget.
Although “The Thing” is a watchable, engaging horror with enough suspense evenly spread throughout the movie, it still looks like an expectedly failed attempt to remake the classic without providing adequate means for that.
It turns out that the 2011 movie was a shortsighted effort of the two unfortunate producers, Marc Abraham and Eric Newman, who were determined to repeat a relative success of their previous remake – Dawn of the Dead (2004). Inspired by their successful first attempt,Abraham and Newman acquired a taste for producing remakes, started searching Hollywood libraries, and eventually set their choice on “The Thing”. They even managed to convince a big Hollywood studio – “Universal” in the viability of the questionable (in hindsight) project.
Remaking or rebooting a well-known classic is always a risky undertaking that requires first-class effort, starting from finding a visionary director, whose talent is comparable to the talent of the director of the original movie. It also requires a good screenwriter, capable of creating a having an independent value, distinctive script, comparable to the original. A solid acting and imaginative high quality special effects (if applicable) are a must as well.
Out of all these requirements, the 2011 remake satisfies only one: decent acting. It is especially true for Mary Elizabeth Winstead who delivers an outstanding performance as paleontologist Kate Lloyd, who quickly becomes an informal leader of the facing an imminent danger Antarctica colony. The rest of the not widely known cast does a solid job supporting the strong female lead. I would specifically like to mention Ulrich Thomsen, who managed to create an interesting, memorable character (Dr. Sander Halvorson) despite having a very limited screen time at his disposal.
Matthijs van Heijningen Jr.’s directing was professional but quite ordinary, not even remotely comparable to the uniquely styled John Carpenter’s directing. The script (Eric Heisserer), although engaging, was light on mystery and intrigue and too predictable even for a remake and even more so for a prequel. It predominantly dwelled on cheap scares and failed to continuously maintain an adequate level of creepiness. In addition, the subplot related to the alien space ship, was somewhat vague, confusing, and leading nowhere. It is possible, that the authors were planning to utilize it in the sequel, but taking into account how poorly “The Thing” did in the theatres, the sequel is not very likely to happen.
Finally, it is hard to underestimate the importance of the visual effects in an alien creature horror flick like “The Thing”. Unfortunately, what we saw in the 2011 movie was less than inspiring. Not only the special effects lacked inventiveness and imagination, but they also seemed to be somewhat unbalanced: excessive up to the point of being unnatural even for an alien horror movie in some scenes, and scarce, derivative, and underdeveloped in the other scenes. The movie’s over-reliance on the digital effects for creating the monsters was aggravated by the lack of attention to the smaller surrounding details, extremely important for making the monsters look believable and creepy.
Overall, 2011 “The Thing” can definitely serve as a decent one-time thoughtless entertainment for a horror movie fan, but it is hardly useful for anything more than that.
It is not surprising therefore, that in comparison to the classic 1982 moviewith its high 8.2 rating on IMDB and the “fresh” 78% rating on “Rotten Tomatoes”,the 2011 flick looks rather pathetic with its mediocre 6.3 and the “rotten” 36% respectively. Moreover, while the John Carpenter’s movie celebrated a box office success, the new remake did quite poorly in that area by gathering only $27.5 million in the theatres worldwide -significantly less than its $38 million production budget.
Although “The Thing” is a watchable, engaging horror with enough suspense evenly spread throughout the movie, it still looks like an expectedly failed attempt to remake the classic without providing adequate means for that.
It turns out that the 2011 movie was a shortsighted effort of the two unfortunate producers, Marc Abraham and Eric Newman, who were determined to repeat a relative success of their previous remake – Dawn of the Dead (2004). Inspired by their successful first attempt,Abraham and Newman acquired a taste for producing remakes, started searching Hollywood libraries, and eventually set their choice on “The Thing”. They even managed to convince a big Hollywood studio – “Universal” in the viability of the questionable (in hindsight) project.
Remaking or rebooting a well-known classic is always a risky undertaking that requires first-class effort, starting from finding a visionary director, whose talent is comparable to the talent of the director of the original movie. It also requires a good screenwriter, capable of creating a having an independent value, distinctive script, comparable to the original. A solid acting and imaginative high quality special effects (if applicable) are a must as well.
Out of all these requirements, the 2011 remake satisfies only one: decent acting. It is especially true for Mary Elizabeth Winstead who delivers an outstanding performance as paleontologist Kate Lloyd, who quickly becomes an informal leader of the facing an imminent danger Antarctica colony. The rest of the not widely known cast does a solid job supporting the strong female lead. I would specifically like to mention Ulrich Thomsen, who managed to create an interesting, memorable character (Dr. Sander Halvorson) despite having a very limited screen time at his disposal.
Matthijs van Heijningen Jr.’s directing was professional but quite ordinary, not even remotely comparable to the uniquely styled John Carpenter’s directing. The script (Eric Heisserer), although engaging, was light on mystery and intrigue and too predictable even for a remake and even more so for a prequel. It predominantly dwelled on cheap scares and failed to continuously maintain an adequate level of creepiness. In addition, the subplot related to the alien space ship, was somewhat vague, confusing, and leading nowhere. It is possible, that the authors were planning to utilize it in the sequel, but taking into account how poorly “The Thing” did in the theatres, the sequel is not very likely to happen.
Finally, it is hard to underestimate the importance of the visual effects in an alien creature horror flick like “The Thing”. Unfortunately, what we saw in the 2011 movie was less than inspiring. Not only the special effects lacked inventiveness and imagination, but they also seemed to be somewhat unbalanced: excessive up to the point of being unnatural even for an alien horror movie in some scenes, and scarce, derivative, and underdeveloped in the other scenes. The movie’s over-reliance on the digital effects for creating the monsters was aggravated by the lack of attention to the smaller surrounding details, extremely important for making the monsters look believable and creepy.
Overall, 2011 “The Thing” can definitely serve as a decent one-time thoughtless entertainment for a horror movie fan, but it is hardly useful for anything more than that.
