The Thing (2011)

As a massive the thing fan I went into this very sceptical but it was quite good! It explains a lot and has great character development. One of the things I wasn’t too stoked about was the lack of practical effects but there was some in there, oh yeah you get to see the thing in its natural form

*contains some spoilers* The Thing (2011) has received something of a critical drubbing in the press. Certainly, there's plenty of reasons to be cautious - marketed as a reboot (with the same title), yet tying in completely with the 1982 John Carpenter movie of the same name as a prequel. Then there was the strange gestation period where apparently, according to an interview with the writer on movie website Bloody Disgusting, various rewrites and reshoots were performed, and much of the original physical effects work was either removed or composited over in CGI. Anyway, for the laymen - The Thing is based on a classic short story, Who Goes There by John W. Campbell, Jr., written in 1938. It largely deals with the same plot - a group of Norwegian scientists literally fall onto the find of the century in the form of a giant, crash-landed alien craft in the middle of the Antarctic. Finding the crafts inhuman pilot frozen in the ice, they do what any good scientist would do and excavate it before taking the corpse back to base. Then the leader of the expedition, a doctor named Sanders, brings in an little-known paleontologist named Kate Lloyd, played by Mary Elizabeth Winstead (her character being a reference to 1951's The Thing From Another World). Naturally, things go awry on her arrival when they bore a sample of the creature from the ice-block, and it thaws out and escapes before assimilating the hapless base crew in a variety of somewhat disgusting ways. The Thing, you see, is an intelligent alien virus that can imitate any living creature. There are two ways to approach this movie - that of a fan of John Carpenters superior, and stone-cold-classic, 1982 "sequel", in which lies a path of possible disappointment, and that of someone looking for a good horror without any knowledge of it. As a horror, it works. It's actually quite a well made film, with a few problems exhibited through some over-zealous use of CGI and perhaps a little lack of imagination when it comes to the creature effects. But the point is there's very rarely a film released like this that goes quite as far out. The lead-in to the creature escaping has a great sense of dread, it's well directed visually and the actors, despite having little to play with (in this shortened Theatrical cut at least), really seem to be putting in their all. Joel Edgerton as chopper pilot Carter acquits himself well, and the various Norwegian characters are all, despite their sketched-over personalities, genuinely engaging in their performances. When The Thing does bust out, the film manages to maintain the doomy tone of the original, only at a somewhat more hyperactive paste. The Thing is a creature on the run and on the offense. Its motive seems purely to escape, attacking when cornered much like the original, only with an aggressiveness not seen in John Carpenters film. The movie gives way somewhat to a purely chase-the-monster framework towards the end, but MEW's Kate is a character you're happy to stick with and the film ends on a satisfyingly refreshing grim note. Now, I've mentioned the original a few times already - naturally, I'm a fan. Many fans of John Carpenters "sequel" are going to, maybe justifiably, loathe this film. It's pacing is too fast, I've already read unnecessary comments online about the female lead, plus it's very much a facscimile of a superior film. There are no suprises here. The motivation of the Thing might appear muddied in comparison to its need to hide in the original, but I'd argue that The Thing learns to hide after it's slaughtered again and again in this film. There are other issues, mainly of detail (how the ship is buried, how The Thing escapes its ice block etc), but a lot of complaints center on the use of CGI. Now, the effects in the original weren't perfect, but the amazing way John Carpenter turned the screw with his Kubrickian camera, long tracking shots and concentration on quiet moments of reflection and character added tension; so when it eventually bursts on screen in an explosion of rubber and vomit, you ARE genuinely shocked. And it holds up today. True, some of the effects are incredibly bad now, but they still work when the film is viewed as a whole and the surreal imagery really hasn't been beaten. Certainly it hasn't been here. Some scenes do manage to capture the feel of the beast, but overall the plastic CGI takes away some of the realism and the creature design has taken something of a dive. It's also lacking in green/yellow goo which made some of the original Thing scenes stomach-churningly horrid. I referenced earlier that there had been a lot of changes since principal photography by the studio, based on screening feedback. Now, I understand the importance of feedback in developing a movie, but Hollywood's filmmaking-by-committee has often been proved wrong, and on reading that interview I honestly feel the producers at Universal missed a trick. As a fan, I'd loved to have seen the original cut, sans CGI effects (they made them pracitcally to start) and with the extended scenes that allegedly contained far more character driven sections and gave the Norwegian cast members far more to do. For what its worth, it looks like these will be available on the Bluray disc, but it's an absolute shame that the longer, better paced and presumably more interesting to watch version will forever be under wraps. Here's hoping Universal sees fit to put out a Directors Cut. As it stands, The Thing 2011 is an above-average horror, and more than makes the grade compared to the recent glut of remakes and sequels. It might be a pale imitation of the film it segues into, but I can't say I didn't enjoy it. If you want an effective shocker with effects to make your loved ones gag, it's worth it. Just bear in mind if you're a fan of the original you might come away disappointed.

Great film, very interesting direction!

Great remake, classic film that stands the test if time, really enjoyed it.

John Carpenter's The Thing [Blu-ray][Region Free ] was an example of a worthwhile remake. It captured a certain paranoia of the times, made some oblique social commentary and applied a relatively decent budget to an essentially B movie story. In particular, it showed visually a creativity in effects which had not been seen before - notable for their shot in-camera reality. This time round, we have the same B-movie story retrod. Although it is a prequel, telling the story from the Norwegian camp that Kurt Russell and co. visit in the Carpenter version, it hits many of the same beats - the twist on the blood test scene is interesting, for example. However, we never quite get into the characters or atmosphere of the camp in the way that Carpenter set up, and certainly the tension is never generated in the same way. There are no shocks and surprises, other than the cheap `make a loud noise to give the audience a jump' type, mostly because the film eschews the sense of distrust caused by a creature that only reveals itself when forced to.. here the creature seems to appear at the drop of a hat. The effects are (mostly) CG this time round, which I assumed would rob them of their real-feel bite.. and yet, they have stuck closely to the aesthetics of the original so the CG-ness is played down in a way that does them credit. Although the characters never feel particularly well defined, the cast do their best - Mary Elizabeth Winstead is actually satisfyingly low key and unshowy, and comes across almost Ripley-like in her ability to rise to the challenge, particularly in the final scenes, which edge away from the genre in the direction of sci-fi. The rest of the cast all look convincing, but we don't feel we know them enough to care much what happens. All in all, not a disaster then.. just oddly irrelevant and unnecessary. It's not badly done, one just ends up wondering why do a remake / reimagining / prequel if you don't have anything new to bring to the table? It's exciting enough, and well put together, but feels perhaps a little too familiar. If there are people out there who have not seen the previous version, this will doubtless seem just fine. To those who have seen Carpenter's version, this is a non-essential retread.

Very good prequel to the original movie.

It is true that if you don't know this is a "prequel" you might think it a remake of Carpenter's epic. As far as I can tell the only info as to what it is - is in very small print on the back of the DVD case. So....Got that out of the way! Prequel it is, and it works very well most of the time. Excellent, spectacular locations, interiors, moody and atmospheric, a good solid cast of mostly (to me) unknown Norwegian? actors, let by Mary Elizabeth Wanstead and Joel Edgerton. Ths CGI/SFX are good and the creature(s) are scary and horrible. Coming in at a respectable 97 mins there is little room for boredom. Where I had my personal doubts was the fact that, almost inevitably there are stretches where the resemblance to Carpenter's film are very obvious indeed. Well worth getting though. My wife and I enjoyed it and the picture, sound and subtitles are excellent. IMPORTANT...When the final end credits begin DO NOT turn off! There are more very vital scenes to come in between these end credits. Recomended and it does make a respectable trio of "THING" films.

I stayed away from watching this as I'd heard it was a modern remake of John Carpenter's 'The Thing' and not a very good one. And this is the problem when you listen to reviews from morons with a chip on their shoulder (and there's quite a few!) or those who haven't actually watched the movie. Firstly, it's not a remake or reboot, it's a PREQUEL. Secondly, it's a bloody good movie. Why some people have difficulty understanding the concept that this movie is set prior to Carpenter's film, yet understand perfectly that Rouge One (with no Bothan spies in sight) is an immediate prequel to Star Wars A New Hope, sure beats the heck outta me. Okay, maybe it's the title that has confused these dribbling dullards, which admittedly was a very lazy and poor choice on the part of the film-makers to call it 'The Thing' when they could have better (and just as easily) called it 'The Thing: Norwegian Camp' or 'The Thing: Beginning' to tip people off that it's NOT a remake, re-envisioning or reboot of Carpenter's classic. So, now I'll repeat myself to be clear (I hope), the story here is set immediately BEFORE Carpenter's The Thing. The Thing is a precursor to The Thing. Let that sink in for a minute, or ten....Take your time, no rush. Alright, hope you get it now? OK. This dvd has some bonus features like deleted scenes, cast interviews, director's commentary and behind-the-scenes featurettes which are great. The only downside is the heavy reliance on cgi to augment the practical effects and the choice of not keeping fully with the aesthetic of the early 1980's (complete with ugly sweaters and equally ugly hairstyles) established by Carpenter's film, which is when this prequel was set.

A good prequel to the original movie I enjoyed watching it and you probably will also

A me il film è piaciuto, cgi sicuramente sub-par ma film godibile.

Muy buena pelicula, excelente servicio llego a tiempo

très bon préquel du remake qu'a réaliser carpenter.

The Thing is that rarity of prequels: a film that actually holds up in comparison to the original. This Thing does not try to be better than the original of course: but the producers and cast work admirably to craft a tale that holds up as the chapter unseen before the very first frames of Carpenters now classic the Thing. This is the story of the Norwegian expedition whose tragic contact with that unnamed alien sets up the events of the original. Gripping, claustrophobic and insanely good. I highly recommend. And if you do watch this film? Watch the credits... to the end.