While it was not very well received commercially or critically when it first came out in 1982, The Thing is now remembered as one of the best horror movies ever made, if not the greatest horror movie of all time, period. Thus, I can understand why fans of director John Carpenter’s paranoia-fueled creature feature masterpiece like me were a little apprehensive when it was announced that Universal Studios was developing a prequel that would come out in October 2011. However, what I could not understand, after finally seeing the film myself one night at a friend’s house, was why people responded with such overwhelming negativity to it.
I cannot say that I personally love director Matthijs van Heijningen Jr.’s movie about a shapeshifting alien wreaking havoc in Antarctica and even agree with some of the points that even the harshest reviews state, but I still found it to be an effectively thrilling and competently crafted extension of the original classic (which itself is sort of a remake and, by definition, one of the best horror movie remakes there is). After I saw that it was trending on Netflix, I thought I would revisit 2011’s The Thing and see if I still felt the same way about it more than a decade later and, in some ways, I do. Before you decide to banish me to your own personal version of horror fan jail, at least give me the chance to explain my argument — starting with, perhaps, the film’s most notorious point of contention.
The CGI Is Really Not That Bad
Rob Bottin, the makeup artist for 1982’s The Thing, worked so hard and so tirelessly to make the amorphous alien’s grotesque transformations as realistic as possible, that he literally had to be hospitalized for exhaustion at the end of the shoot. The gloriously convincing practical effects are one of most essential reasons why many believe the film still holds up so well after more than 40 years. It is also one of the main reasons why the CGI-heavy prequel is so reviled.
Listen, I could not agree more that the visual effects in 2011’s The Thing do not hold a candle to Bottin’s work, but I think it is just a little unfair to compare those breathtaking practical effects to the computer generated carnage that hundreds worked on for the new film. In fact, I think much of the CGI is pretty first rate, even after after more than a decade since the film released, and results in some very inventive and terrifying moments of body horror that practical effects could not achieve on their own.
Its Further Scientific Explanation Of The Alien Is Fascinating
While 1982’s The Thing is one of the most highly regarded films of the horror/science-fiction crossover persuasion, it is more concerned with its suspenseful tone than it is with the science behind the horror. That’s perfectly fine and I would even argue that we do not even need a deeper explanation of how this shape-shifting alien operates to be terrified by it. However, is it not at least kind of cool to know that a film that does provide a deeper analysis of the creature exists?
I genuinely found myself really interested in what the research crew in 2011’s The Thing were discovering about the creature that had not been previously explored in the last film. For instance, the unfinished copy of one of the alien’s victims that they found growing inside its remains was, certainly, a fascinating sight and the shot of its cells and imitating human cells under a microscope was chilling. Again, I will admit that we never really needed to know this information, but the way it builds on the lore of the original film and the way it is presented was satisfying to me.
The Dental Work Interrogation Scene Is Pretty Intense
The one scene in 1982’s The Thing that best represents the film’s relentlessly suspenseful tone is when R.J. MacReady (one of Kurt Russell’s most badass roles) figures out who is still human by placing heated copper wire in samples of each person’s blood and witnessing the reaction. I already gave the prequel major kudos for merely hinting at the iconic moment and not trying to directly recreate it like some other films like this might be tempted to do. However, what I was really impressed by is how they reinvent the scene in tone and concept.
After a set of discarded dental fillings initially helps her realize imitations are among them, paleontologist Kate Lloyd (Mary Elizabeth Winstead) uses the concept to, hopefully, catch the imitations in the act. She asks each remaining survivor to open their mouths to see if there is any inorganic material inside — an otherwise clever interrogation method that, understandably, proves controversial to some. I mean, imagine having porcelain fillings or none at all and, thus, falling under suspicion of being an alien. That thought alone had me fully invested in the scene.
The Cast Carries The Film Very Well
Of course, that intense scene or any other moment of drama throughout — with credit given to screenwriter Eric Heisserer — would not work without a top-notch cast. Just like the 1982 film, I think 2011’s The Thing boasts a very talented ensemble — especially Winstead, who channels her inner Ellen Ripley as the central hero, Kate Lloyd, and Joel Edgerton as Carter, who rocks a flamethrower almost as well as Russell’s MacReady.
I also think Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje had one of the better reactions to a creature I have seen recently and NCIS: Los Angeles star Eric Christian Olsen’s death scene is made all the more disturbing by his shrieks of terror. Also, Ulrich Thomsen effortlessly makes Dr. Sander Halvorson a really off-putting creep even before he is suspected of being an imitation, but the greatest scene-stealer of them all in my opinion, is the late Jørgen Langhelle as Lars.
It Works Best If You Can Distance It From The 1982 Film
As I established at the very top of the article, The Thing is pretty much the definition of a cult classic. It was one of the greatest failures of its time when it was first released — with some blaming the success of a much more lighthearted alien movie called E.T. the Extra-terrestrial — long before it was regarded as a masterpiece by a growing legion of fans. I honestly would not be surprised if the 2011 film one day achieves a similar reputation, but only if we can find a way to disassociate the two films from one another.
To be perfectly honest, my love for the 1982 movie definitely makes it hard to like 2011’s The Thing at times. However, the more I tried to keep an open mind and avoid comparing the two — no matter how difficult that may often be — the better I enjoyed it. I am actually convinced that, if this was not a prequel to a classic, I think it would been much better received as a fun, clever, stylish creature feature.
Probably my biggest issue with 2011’s The Thing — which, I hate to admit, is a byproduct of comparing it to the original — is how quick the creature is to reveal itself at times, even after it has the humans all fooled. Otherwise, even if I do have a few issues with it and have no strong desire to watch again in the near future, it is something that I am glad to have seen and is far from anything I would include on my own personal “bad horror movies” list. Hopefully more people choose to see this movie the way I do, unless it has only made them suspect that I am an alien myself.
