Movie Review: The Thing (2011)

First, a little history.


This story started life as a novella called "Who Goes There?" by John W. Campbell. If the name sounds familiar, it's because one of the most prestigious awards in science fiction bears his name. The story is about an alien found in the ice of Antarctica and thawed out. It then begins changing shape, imitating the life forms around it, and attacks the humans on the base.

It was first made into a film by Howard Hawks in 1951 as "The Thing From Another World". The filmmakers originally wanted to simply call it "The Thing", but another film beat them to the punch with that title. It was about an alien discovered in Antarctic ice, which is then thawed out and attacks the humans on the base. Of course, in this film, James Arness as the Thing was basically a six-foot tall walking carrot.

Thirty-one years later, in 1982, John Carpenter made the film again as "John Carpenter's The Thing". It was called this because Carpenter, in his infinite ego, insisted that his name go above all of his movie titles. This created a problem when he made the Stephen King novel Christine into a film, because King (in his infinite ego) had the same stipulation in his contract. This version basically followed the original story, and is probably the best of the three film versions.

Which brings us to the new version, "The Thing", which also basically follows the original story.

THE GOOD: The special effects are great, and the story has some good jumps in it. The cast all turn in serviceable, if not stellar performances. The filmmakers were smart enough to follow Carpenter's blueprint, all the way down to swiping a couple of his effect ideas.

THE BAD: There are some inexplicable logic problems in the film. As an example, there is one moment where they're trying to determine who's human and who's not. Since the Thing can't replicate non-living tissue, they do this by checking everyone for fillings. So far, so good... except that some of the humans can't be excluded because they have porcelain fillings, which can't be distinguished from dentin. Except... they can. Porcelain looks much more like a natural tooth, except as the person ages and lives the tooth changes colors, whereas the filling doesn't. So after twenty or thirty years the filling still looks pretty much like dentin, but if you're looking for it you can see it. And trust me... these people would be looking HARD.

THE UGLY: The filmmakers never really decided how the Thing does its thing. Does it replicate or hijack human beings? One character says "It replicates the being and then lives inside them." Huh? That doesn't even make any sense. In the 1982 film, it is determined that every cell of the Thing is a separate living entity, and it can infiltrate a human being and basically turn into that being, replacing every cell in its body with its own. I wish that the 2011 filmmakers had had the same clarity of vision, it would have elevated this film from simply good and watchable to almost excellent.

Peace.

Randal