Although this The Thing is a prequel in that we see the events which led up to the '82 version, it's actually pretty much the same story as Carpenter's film. There are a few tweaks, and throwing in a woman as the person who steps forward to sort out matters once the alien begins attacking is a twist that works well. But is the 2011 version necessary? Do we need to revisit The Thing at this point in time? Yes and no. If this take on an alien that can replicate the appearance of any human had been given a story that truly separated it from the past, then yes, reviving The Thing wouldn't be a bad idea. But this new film doesn't establish itself as a whole new beast so much as it does just show off new CGI creatures while hitting the same beats from Carpenter's film.
The 2011 prequel finds an American paleontologist named Kate (Mary Elizabeth Winstead) along with a small team of scientists trekking to a Norwegian base where the men stationed there have reported finding something frozen solid inside the ice. They don't know what it is or where it came from, but one thing they're sure of is it's not human... And because this is a horror film, someone is going to mess with the massive block of ice The Thing is frozen in. Don't these people ever watch horror movies? You do not poke at an alien, even one encased in ice.
After Dr. Sander Halvorson (Ulrich Thomsen) discards Kate's advice to not try and extract a tissue sample while they're in such an inhospitable climate out in the middle of nowhere, The Thing explodes out of the ice and immediately begins killing and then replicating members of the group. Kate quickly deduces that The Thing can not copy inorganic material (such as fillings and metal braces), which just reinforces the fact women are indeed smarter than men. Sorry, I had to get that dig in. Taking charge, Kate tries to separate the real humans from aliens in human disguise. Will she be successful? Well, this is a 'don't call it a remake it's a prequel', so you know the answer.
There's really nothing about this The Thing that sets it apart from Carpenter's film. The characters are similar, what happens once The Thing is loose is similar, and the plot is also very similar. It's more of a remake than a prequel, and I'm guessing the only reason Universal didn't just label it that way is because of the stigma associated with remakes. Calling it a prequel allows everyone involved to not just justify the film's existence and release in theaters, but to also hold off complaints from Carpenter's The Thing fans. But those complaints will come once the film's actually out there and fans see how closely this The Thing follows the other The Thing. Which brings up the question, why is this one called The Thing - again - if it's a prequel?
Mary Elizabeth Winstead and Joel Edgerton in 'The Thing'
© Universal PicturesComparisons to the '82 film aside, 2011's The Thing just isn't all that scary. There's a lot of repetition of gory scenes of the alien absorbing its human victims, and because we don't really know or care about those victims, it all gets a little 'ho-hum, there goes another one' after a while. The CGI is good to great, but this The Thing lacks the punch. It's not an adrenaline-pumping, grab-your-armrests horror film, but instead it's disappointingly tame.
GRADE: C-
The Thing was directed by Matthijs van Heijningen Jr. and is rated R for strong creature violence and gore, disturbing images, and language.
Theatrical Release: October 14, 2011
