Saved by a mix of nostalgia for the 1951 original (to which this is a sort-of remake) and the 1982 film (to which this is a sort-of prequel), and some clever puppetry. I wish it pushed its self-awareness a little harder (I loved that it played with the Black-guy-always-dies-first horror stereotype – though, unfortunately, he still dies eventually. But then so does most everyone).
Don't overlook the implications of the creature's "replication" as part of this film's actual remaking, subtle subtext of "The Thing" as 'Hollywood' itself. Heisserer does clarify how the creature replicates biology as well as behavior: the pre-emptive and violent behavior observed and learned are just as critical of Earthly survivalism as either Hawks or Carpenter. Who should win, Kate or lessons of Humanity?
Heijningen reportedly studied Carpenter's film with the meticulousness of a fanboy. How could he get it so wrong? Or the writers? Why are the heroics at a Norwegian camp reserved for American charcters who seem arbitrarily recruited just to make this an English-language film? Why are the threads of the first film tied to the prequel only during the end credits like an afterthought? This sad prequel needs a do-over.
It's not bad, but it's not good either. It's definitely inferior to the Carpenter version, and it doesn't add anything new to the formula. It just feels like an unnecessary movie. Also, the computer-generated monster effects simply don't look real. It's kind of sad that the monster effects from 30 years ago look better than the effects in this movie.
Wow, I haven't seen a film this bad in a long while. The screen and headphones Winstead's intro felt anachronistic, I didn't care for any of the characters, no tension, action for actions sake, the cg was laughably bad (I was laughing during the climax), and it took no chances, visually and content wise. I kept watching hoping it would get better but it never did, I would skip this one. Move alone, move along.
I didn't exactly have high expectations but I thought this was a considerable waste of time. The dialogue was so trite, it's like they weren't even trying. Mary Elizabeth Winstead miscast and somehow filmed in the most unflattering way possible. Some intriguing body horror elements ruined by an over-use of CGI. Really just a trashy monster movie like "The Relic." None of the paranoia or class of Carpenter's original.
I've got no delusions about being pretty much in the most loathable position ever when it comes to this movie: Yes, I really liked the original, and yes, I really liked this one too. A lot of it is a rehash, but it still works, and quite well. I thought Mary was great, I liked that we actually got a closer look at the sci-fi alien stuff than we did in the '82 film, and I found it well shot.
This so-called prequel is nothing but an imitation of the original. I think it has potential to be fresh and entertaining. But instead of showing us new ideas and interesting actions, the filmmaker chose to playing safe (or too lazy?) by using the exact same formula as the original. Not exactly the same when it comes to the addition of two chicks here, but it has nothing to do with the overall movie. Forgettable.
Besides almost everything else that is bad the CGI completely ruined this film. I gave it a 2 because at least they tried to create practical effects, too bad the studio decided to step in in post and mess that up. The acting was not great. The part that leads into john carpenter's the thing was during the credits, basically an after thought. Takes place in 80's and looks like modern day. horrible film.
A little too beholden to Carpenter's version, a huge missed opportunity glossing over the male / female AND US / Europe dynamics, and perhaps a bit too much CGI, but much better than the naysayers would lead you to believe. This film's version of The Test is right up there w/ Carpenter's in terms of ratcheted tension, & the most grueling death is positively Cronenbergian (if he had an in with ILM).