The Thing (2011) Review (Spoilers)

And it isn't practical effects. Yet. Or much, really.

 This is going to be another quick one, because the worst has happened and I don't think I can clearly focus right now have to give you a proper review of this movie. Like I said in my last review, tragedy was about to come, an early this morning, it came. Again, I'd rather not stick my problems on you guys, but always remember that the scariest thing that can happen is not a ghoul coming to your house, nor a vampire nor any ghosts and goblins that go bump in the night. It's the death of a loved one, and I wish this hadn't happen so close to my grandmother's birthday, but she passed early this morning. Words can't describe how I'm feeling right now, but I can't chicken out on this blog because I promised all of you that I'd get 13 out, and by God, you're getting 13 blog posts this month. Like I said before, hold on to your loved ones as long as you can, please.

With all of this being said let's begin this crappy review. 

The ORIGINAL original version of The Thing was created in the 50s, and it's an enjoyable little film. Then John Carpenter came along and remade it, which is even better. It's a suspenseful monster movie worthy of it's own review. In fact, it'd be the second time I would review a remake that is arguably better than the original, the first one being 2017's It. Wow, "It" and "Thing" are two very vague titles. And both of them are based on books. Strange. 

Anyway, this movie was mostly unnecessary. It did have a lot of good ideas going for it. However that doesn't help most of the film's flaws. the biggest and most glaring flaw that this film has is the lack of suspense that the original (What I'll be calling the 1982 version) had. In fact, one of the biggest things the original had going for it was the suspense.

And don't even get me started about the special effects. the original has some of the greatest gore and alien effects that I've ever seen, and a true testament to how scary and disturbing and realistic that practical effects can look. this one has some practical effects but most of the time you can tell that it's computer-generated... and it looks awful. I've seen worse, but it's insulting to the original. 

The actors are fine, but they don't seem to have the same chemistry as the original crew. In fact, I think the original crew had a lot more personality to it. And our leading lady doesn't nearly have as much charm as Kurt Russel's character, R.J MacReady.

One good thing that I can say about this film are the callbacks to the original. 

(Heavy Spoilers)

Yes, this is a prequel to the original film. The humans who made first contact with The Thing are the cast, and if you've seen the original, you can guess what happens to most of them. Even the ending has the dog from the beginning of the original is shown. We see the dog earlier in the film, and it's the only dog that is shown prominently. That was my first clue. And from then on, the pieces clicked together. 

They even allude to the scene in the original where they try to figure out who's a thing and who's still human. In the original, they had reason to believe that every part of the creature was independent. In the prequel, they only know one thing: The Thing can't recreate non-organic material such as earrings or tooth fillings, and that's how they (almost) find it. 

Even the flamethrowers are back! And yes, flamethrowers were in the short story, too. The action and a little bit of the suspense are there, but in the end, I can't recommend this movie as much as I recommend the original, or even the older version. Do yourself a favor and watch those first. Overall, this film gets a 5.5/10. It doesn't have much going for it, but it's something to watch. It suffers a lot from CGI and leeching off the original.

My Final Thought: There was also a PS2 game that's a sequel to the original. I'll have to track that down.