Plot: A team of scientists stay at a Norwegian base in Antarctica when a mysterious life-form is discovered. It turns out it's an alien, but it is certainly not friendly. It kills, absorbs and imitates its victims perfectly, so how will they know who is human or not?

Review:

I was never really sure whether or not I wanted this project to happen. Like everyone else, I pretty much hate remakes and reboots, but it's one thing to remake "Prom Night", a movie I have no feelings for. But John Carpenter's 1982 film, "The Thing", happens to be a personal favorite right behind "Jaws". It is- in my opinion- arguably the most successful horror film of all time at being a horror film (not talking money, either). Everything about that movie freaked me out. It had perfect build up, a perfect pay-off, and I never became bored with it. Obviously the concept of remaking it will not make me very happy. But at the same time...I loved the original (and yes, I do know that the original was actually a remake in itself, but I haven't seen that one so it doesn't exist) so much that I found myself wanting to see it again in a new form. Sure, it would probably be dumber, have crappy CGI and have no suspense, but if it could capture just a little bit of the originals greatness then I would be content. Oddly, I didn't become really angry with the project until I learned it was a prequel. It sounds better, but face it, how many ways can the movie end? The reviews came out and seemed typically negative (not that I cared as the 1982 film was also hated upon release), but I had some hope. As I watched it, I came to the realization that it was not a good movie. But I loved the original so much that I could actually enjoy a dumbed down version with shitty CGI and little suspense.

Kate Lloyd (Mary Elizabeth Winstead) is....a scientist of some sort. I actually missed the first few minutes so I sort of missed what she does. She's recruited by Dr. Sander (Ulrich Thomsen) to extract an alien specimen that was found in the ice in Antarctica. Not only is there an alien frozen in the ice, there is also a spaceship (beautiful shot, by the way), which no one seems to find very scary (if I saw proof of aliens, I would pee my pants). The creature is extracted alright, but what begins as a celebration turns into a night of horror as the creature wakes up and begins causing havoc. It merges with its prey, creating a perfect mimic of them, so how do they know who is human or not?

If anything, "The Thing (2011)" answers the question of: What would Carpenter's film be like if it was nonstop action? Now ask yourself- as I believe readers should always consider what is said and not just go off of the general consensus- does this appeal to you? Did you find Carpenter's version to be slow and ponderous? Or maybe you just might enjoy a faster paced film? I'm mixed. Carpenter's film is obviously superior and I felt that the film had a perfect pacing. It built up tension, which explodes into pure terror. It allowed time to flesh out its characters and even flesh out the creature a little bit. Honestly, I'm not sure if it would've been a smart idea for this prequel to even try to play the original at its own game. Creating a faster pace might've cheapened the film overall, but at least it is doing its own thing (no pun intended).

Granted, this is almost crushed by the films constant attempts to remind us of the original with visual and verbal homages. Remember how "Predators" spent so much time trying to get us to remember how awesome "Predator" was? I hate that, as I'd rather a movie make its own memories. Well, this isn't as bad as that (in this regard), but it does have some pointless reminders that this movie DID NOT need. It makes this movie feel much more like a remake that happens to be a prequel. On the other hand, the film does show detail when it comes to recreating the Norwegian base as we saw it in the 1982 film, so that's cool.

With its faster pace, this film might be more accessible to more impatient audiences, and I'm not being condescending either. We all can be shallow when it comes to films and few people can be more shallow than myself. But despite having more action, it still does manage to be a horror film. It has plenty of startling moments, solid gore and decent jump scares. Unfortunately, while I can appreciate an impatient audience, I cannot appreciate an impatient movie. The 1982 film was so effective for many reasons, but some of those reasons include its use of sound, shadows and its dread filled location. It uses the cold to make a point. Here, while it does take place in the snow, it never uses its location to its advantage beyond a few slick shots. The original had chilling shots of mysterious figures darting past a door, characters investigating a noise only to vanish into silence and it had iconic sequences like the blood test (props to this movie for coming up with something new, although it's never used to be scary compared to the blood test). It left a lot to the imagination and it was such an effective ploy that people still debate about what exactly happened during 'whatever' scene. This remake has people running from monsters, dying from monsters, hunting monsters and sometimes yelling at eachother. It's still interesting enough, but feels hurried and lackluster compared to Carpenter's carefully crafted execution.

As for the creatures, the film at first seems intent on using practical effects. Unfortunately, it eventually just uses CGI. I've heard that most of the effects were practical, but CGI was added to them, which defeats the point of practical effects. The CGI is okay for the most part, but there was something more memorable, grotesque and raw about the efects in the original. They were far more horrifying, although these creatures still weren't bad. I guess it comes down whether you prefer the nastier but more stiff monsters or the cleaner, faster moving monsters that CGI allows. There was also something more unpredictable about the monsters in Carpenter's film. We never really know what to expect from them, whereas this one they just shoot out tentacles and grow gaping jaws. Actually, they all felt like rip-offs of "Dreamcatcher", which has been argued as a rip-off of the original "The Thing". Amusing. On a final note, the final monster looked AWFUL. Images of The Scorpion King from "The Mummy Returns" flashed through my mind. That is not a good thing (no pun intended again)!

I apologize for comparing these two movies so often, but if you've seen the original, it's almost impossible not too. "The Thing (1982)"  is likely the most unsettling, startling and frightening film of all time. "The Thing (2011)" is not. It's dumb, uninspired and lazy compared to the original. As its own entity, I guess it can be seen as a dumb but entertaining monsterfest. It does occasionally capture the spirit of it's predecessor and it does have its moments. But will I remember it? Probably not. I suspect that a lot of this movie may have ended up on the cutting room floor but we'll just have to wait and see if that's true or not. Despite my constant attacks, I really didn't hate the movie. I kind of enjoyed it. Does that make me a shallow reviewer for feeling this way?

Yes...yes it does.

Violence: Rated R worthy. It is pretty gruesome.

Overall: If you want too, go ahead and see "The Thing (2011)", just dont expect anything great. If you're on the fence, I'd say wait until DVD.

2/4 Stars