The Thing

Carpenter’s The Thing is on a different level, but I’m glad that van Heijningen has at least sort of got into the same building :-) His new The Thing is a really nice effect horror movie, nothing memorable, but also nothing that can make anyone mad, there’s other stuff for that. It’s true that the people at the base are hard to tell from each other. It’s true that the layout of the base is never made very clear. It’s true that the paranoid atmosphere could have been better. But still, it was nice to watch from beginning to end. The digital character of the effects can be seen at times, but they were also thrilling in some scenes. Horror art it might not be, but it’s good horror fun. 7/10. (24/11/2011)

Matthijs van Heijningen (fuck how does he expect to get into the subconscious with that name) may have played Silent Hill and Dead Space and enjoyed watching Hellraiser, so it’s kind of a shame he hasn't seen the original The Thing he was prequelling. An horror movie utterly devoid of ambition where nothing works apart from the two creatures, and it's distressing to watch the film try to pretend it’s not the case. The CGI is terribly boring, the characters are as flat as Milla Jovovich, instead of a final climax we get a routine visit to a spaceship (incidentally, the fact that the hole to it was supposed to be blown by the Norwegians is somewhat forgotten), and whereas in the original the space nastiness was rather sneaky and insidious, here it rearranges rooms with the nonchalance of the Hulk. Puke up and forget. (20/11/2011)

A film that, while simple and partly a remake, still managed to deliver many memorable scenes. It is atmospheric, technically very well made (old-school effects in a modern package), and with good performances. Yes, the Antartic landscape greatly contributes to the success of the whole piece, but for a film where I didn't expect much, to get a proper dose of tension and entertainment? That hasn't happened to me within the Hollywood mainstream for a long time. So definitely a thumbs up, and it doesn't embarrass the original film by Carpenter at all. (22/02/2012)

I was afraid that it would be a weak broth, but ultimately I was pleasantly surprised by this new Thing. A solid genre movie. Although it suffers from some ailments typical for American remakes, it still has something to offer. The disgusting things are duly revolting, Beltrami’s music thunders or sends chills down the spine, and Joel Edgerton successfully fills Kurt Russell’s shoes. I originally gave it three stars, but the scene in the closing credits that harkens back to the first Thing forced me to close my eyes and give it an extra star. This picture deserves it. (03/12/2011)

Even in a generally good film, we often see unused potential, that magical “something” in the background, whether an idea, a thought or a hint that could have turned that good film into an unforgettable masterpiece – if its creator had grasped the essence of the story correctly, dispensed with all of the clichés and tried-and-tested formulas and gone his own way. That’s just the kind of unexploited potential I would have picked up on in Heijningen’s film today if John Carpenter hadn’t perfectly put it to use before him. Carpenter’s version was an intimate drama built into a terrifying horror flick through the creeping fear of an unidentifiable evil. Heijningen’s digital freakshow is neither intimate nor a drama; it is more literal, faster, more epic and more riddled with clichés. In spite of that, however, it worked decently for me, thanks to the brilliant idea that Carpenter embedded in my childhood nightmares, and thanks also to the few new ideas that elevated it from the position of parasitic plagiarism to the role of dignified film fiasco. I consider the emancipatory change of protagonist from the ’80s action hero (Kurt Russell) to an intelligent woman, dentist Mary Elizabeth Ripley, to be one of those good ideas. And I give thanks for the closing credits ;-). (20/11/2011)