Film

What's on at the cinema plus reviews of the latest movie and DVD releases

The Thing (2011)

Director: Matthijs van Heijningen Jr.

Time Out rating

Average user rating

6 reviews

Movie review

From Time Out London

Is this a remake of or a prequel to John Carpenter’s 1982 Antarctic-set alien shocker? The answer is both. The Carpenter version indicated that the neighbouring Norwegian mission in the Antarctic had encountered the shape-shifting extraterrestrial before the Yanks, so here we get to see what happened to the plucky Scandinavians. The set-up, though, is essentially the same – snowbound scientists menaced by a being which can replicate their physicality with such precision it’s hard to be sure who is affected. That’s the core of the 1938 short story (left well alone by the Howard Hawks 1951 movie), and it’s a robust suspense scenario. So this version holds the attention, thanks in part to Mary Elizabeth Winstead as a spirited archaeologist, but offers little that Carpenter didn’t do far better. Efficient enough for newcomers perhaps, but never that chilling, and the predictably dull CGI underlines how far movie magic has regressed in the past couple of decades.

Author: Trevor Johnston

Time Out London Issue 2154: 1 - 6 December, 2011

Email Tweet Share

User reviews of this film

Marsellus said...

Posted on Dec 15 2011 09:21 I can't help thinking the reviews have all been a little harsh. While this film did have a lot of similarities to Carpenter's film, I thought it also tied in quite nicely and works well as a prequel. Of course you could argue that what happened to the Norwegian camp is best left to the audience's imagination but for those who want to pick at the scab, this film is for you. I agree that this film is a little too hack-and-slash though. Perhaps it would have benefited from a few more tension building scenes (as with Carpenter's film). Another small criticism is that the characters are paper thin and forgettable when compared to Carpenter's film (and even those characters were hardly well drawn). On the plus side, I thought the film was disgusting enough and shot in a similar enough style to sit beside the 80s one without it being completely obvious that there has been 25 years between the two films.

Report as inappropriate
violetta said...

Posted on Dec 13 2011 08:44 Find a DVD of the 1982 movie and enjoy - forget this plodding dog. It's not a film that sheds extra insight merely some shots of a spaceship - it's hard to imagine a voracious Thing building anything.

Report as inappropriate
critique said...

Posted on Dec 08 2011 18:47 Efficient pre-make, probably enjoyed more if you haven`t seen the original, but begs the question: aren`t there any new ideas out there?

Report as inappropriate
Gareth said...

Posted on Dec 05 2011 00:44 Yes Dull cgi the orignal looks better even 20 years on cgi, looks too obvious and unbelievable the way the creature moves. It show how heavily movie makers today rely so much of cgi that is distinctly fake. As for the movie itself complete rubbish, no character development or personality, no tension, just boo scares. The main character is so drab and has no personality to speak of, really didn't care about anyone in the film, poor poor directing from start to finish.

Report as inappropriate
scrumpyjack said...

Posted on Dec 03 2011 17:13 "Dull CGI"? Most of it was fantastic! Read TJ's review as it is good for one thing alone, "dull"ing your all ready "dull" expectations (as were mine) then delightfully finding that this is NO disgrace after all! "dull" is a word everyone would attach to THE DEEP BLUE SEA if they were honest...not this. 7/10 but if it were the first, then more.

Report as inappropriate
AMT said...

Posted on Dec 02 2011 23:10 I'd love to see the '82 review, no doubt TO slagged the original film off then

Report as inappropriate