The Thing Underwhelms

Theatrical poster for The Thing

Imagine stumbling upon a mysterious alien creature in the ice caps of Antarctica while going on about your everyday job as a Paleontologist. As you begin to further investigate this strange “thing,” you soon discover a terrifying truth: it can replicate human DNA. 

“The Thing” serves as prequel to the 1982 John Carpenter’s “The Thing.” But don’t be fooled into thinking this is a remake because of the same title of its predecessor.

The film starts off with a trio of Norwegian scientists, who accidently find themselves beneath the ice caps and encounter an unknown spacecraft. Soon after this discovery, Paleontologist at Columbia University, Kate Lloyd, and along with her research assistant, are summoned to help Dr. Sander Halvorson and the rest of his crew to shed some light on this new creature. Do I need to further explain what happens?

            Nearly three decades after the release of “The Thing,” Universal Studios decides that it would be a wonderful idea to re-vamp the series. As great as it sounds, the problem is that only fans of the original will likely know what in the world is going on the film. But newcomers may be welcome to enjoy it. 

Mary Elizabeth Winstead plays Kate Lloyd

“The Thing” is riddled with special effects and computer generated imagery (CGI), but it’s kind of what one would expect living in an era of technology. Carpenter’s film took a more “raw” approach since the film used practically no special effects or CGI because of the time era it was made in.

            The 2011 film effectively makes use of technological capabilities, which is apparent during the transformation scenes, making the movie-going experience twice as gross and fun to look at.

            But the problem here isn’t the age gap of both films or the “exploitation” of special effects and CGI; it’s the cheap scares and clichés that are riddled throughout the entire film. 

When a campy horror film uses formulaic rules of a typical horror film, it’s fine because it doesn’t take itself too seriously. But when films as anticipated as “The Thing” is released, it’s hard not to roll your eyes when the character says “I’ll go check out that sound outside in the middle a snowstorm all alone.” With all the hype, we ask ourselves, “Is this the best they’ve got?”

            I couldn’t help but predict when something bad was going to happen in the film. The clichés were, should I say, “right around the corner.” Effective in a theater? Sure, but only because the volume is blasted. Effective at home? Nope.

            “The Thing” does not boast a big-named cast but there are some relatively known faces including Mary Elizabeth Winstead and Joel Edgerton.

            The majority of the characters don’t really serve a purpose other than to supply a list of kills, which is needed in a film like this and it does clear some ambiguity for the Carpenter version. We have the female heroin that is somewhat relatable to Ellen Ripley of the Alien series, but does not live up to horror standard’s expectations.

            The second and third act of the film primarily focuses on character trust and deceit. As members of the excavation group begin to transform into the “Thing,” characters become skeptical of one another and find themselves in quite a debacle.

            By the end of the day, it’s a matter of what we would actually do in the situation like this.

Leave the site and possibly open the gateway for the “Thing” to get out into society? Or forcibly quarantine everyone who is involved with the “Thing?” But how can we be so sure that everyone in the room isn’t already infected. For Kate Lloyd, though, risk isn’t an option.

            What made the film effective for me was the story itself more so than its execution. Certainly, I would be terrified being stuck in Antarctica with no way out and being trapped in a room with twelve other people who might be an alien. But what’s worse is that these little deviants act like your friend and then get you when you are alone and vulnerable. Sounds scary, right?

“Underwhelming” is the proper word that corresponds to “The Thing.” It’s not necessarily a bad movie but it is far from “great.” I commend “The Thing” for its ambiguous subplots, which is essentially what draws you into the film. 

Unfortunately, the film becomes a routine after the first hour and it’s only a matter of time before you look at your watch. But for what it is, it gets its job done.

Grade: C+