La cosa

Incluso en una película bastante buena, a menudo vemos un potencial sin explotar, «algo» mágico en el fondo, ya sea una idea, un pensamiento o una insinuación a partir de la cual se podría crear una obra maestra inolvidable: si su creador cogiera bien la esencia de la historia, se olvidara de todos los clichés y fórmulas probadas, y siguiera su propio camino. Este es exactamente el potencial sin explotar que sentiría hoy en la película de Heijningen si Carpenter antes no lo hubiera explotado a la perfección. Su versión fue un drama íntimo, a través de un espeluznante miedo a un mal no identificable conducido a un terror aterrador. El freak-show digital de Heijningen no es ni íntimo ni dramático, es más literal, más rápido, más épico y más cliché. Sin embargo, funcionó bien para mí, en parte gracias a la ingeniosa idea que Carpenter arraigó en mis pesadillas cuando era niño, y también gracias a algunas ideas nuevas que la movieron del papel de una plagiaria parásita al papel de una pérdida de película digna. Considero que una de esas ideas es el cambio de emancipación del personaje principal de un héroe de acción de los años 80 (Kurt Russell) a una mujer inteligente que es la dentista Mary Elizabeth Ripley. Y gracias por los créditos finales ;-) (20.11.2011)

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)

It's not bad, just completely useless, because the space that the prologue of the first film leaves open is unreasonably narrow for a prequel. In addition, the filmmakers are far too respectful and self-confident, thereby creating something on the edge between a prequel and a remake, which fails due to the inability to evoke the chilling and depressing atmosphere of the original film, but also that they opted for a female protagonist, thus pushing The Thing closer to Alien, which is a type of horror from which Carpenter's opus differs mainly in its focus on collective psychology and a paranoid atmosphere. Heijningen Jr. stayed in the middle - he didn't ruin anything, and he didn't create anything... I don't understand why the sequel in the style of the excellent PC game The Thing wasn't filmed. That has much greater potential... (13.12.2011)

I don't consider myself particularly smart, but unfortunately, I can predict painfully accurately the appearance, expectations, outcome, and my overall impression of a substantial part of films. The film industry is trying to fulfill the task of producing a commercially successful film and at the same time appeal to the target audience. It was clear that the plot of Carpenter's legendary The Thing prequel could not take place among a group of Norwegians in a remote Antarctic base, because the decisive revenue still comes from the American market and the American viewer is truly self-centered, so attempts to place a blockbuster among European, Asian, or South American characters, with few exceptions, do not end well. It was also necessary to consider the female audience and the shift in the actions of female characters, who have been emancipated significantly since the 80s and are leading many action movies. Likewise, it was necessary to consider the significant American ethnic minority, and thus we have the composition of the main characters. The plots of films have also significantly accelerated since the 80s, and the audience has gotten much younger, so that had to be taken into account as well. By the way, at the expense of the film's quality, and because Matthijs van Heijningen clearly admires Carpenter and tries to follow in his footsteps, he doesn't understand what made the original film great. It was characterized by a dominant atmosphere of collective mistrust, hysteria, creeping fear of uncertainty, and the issue of who could still be trusted. If there's one thing missing in Heijningen's film, it's precisely such an atmosphere. Carpenter worked with long shots, and the key scenes were not the ones where the Thing ripped through human bodies, but the ones where the polar explorers confronted each other. If horror fans were able to discuss at length how a flamethrower ended up on a polar base, in Heijningen's film, I find incomparably more logical gaps and obvious nonsense. It's not a disaster, and within the genre, it's perhaps a decent average mainly due to the attractiveness of the source material, but this successor is nowhere near the quality of Carpenter's original film. I assumed it would turn out that way, so I avoided the premiere at the movie theater, and that was the right decision. Overall impression: 40%. (11.02.2012)

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)

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)

The Thing is not a bad movie. A useless film? Yes, but not a bad film. Well, not exactly. The director has a flair for the right horror atmosphere, helped by a more than good score by Marco Beltrami and a bunch of special effects artists who did an amazing job (seriously, because they combined state-of-the-art digital effects with excellent models and masks in a way that would make Stan Winston rejoice). It's worse with the film’s lousy script. The people who wrote it, in my opinion, let themselves get too tied up with the fact that they were writing a prequel and that they had to follow the original film with so many things (the axe in the wall, the ice "sarcophagus", the two-headed monster, the dog, the polar bear with his throat cut...) that they forgot about originality. Alas. I liked the beginning of the film, which honored the short story template, I liked ideas like the one with the seals and just about every scene with The Thing in action, but I still felt like I was watching something I'd already seen once before that had "only" been dressed up in a fancier coat. I was also sad to see how the script flubbed the characters (most of them are easily confused individuals) and several times also the logic (the helicopter crash and who survived it). Still, I was not offended by the new version of The Thing and I would not dare to give it less than a slightly above average three stars. (31.01.2012)

An unoriginal and incredibly austere prequel that, while it delights with its return to a chilling setting and a detailed development of the plot concept with deep respect to the legendary first film, is not worth much as a standalone film/horror work. Carpenter had compelling characters and a psychologically exceptional script within the genre, which wrapped all that horror and depression even tighter in a unique survival drama. Heijningen's characters are bland, and there are so many that we barely have time to get truly attached to any of them, and the script is a wild parade of slightly over-digitised monsters and a bunch of clichés typical of modern blockbuster sci-fi horror. The Thing had a perfect atmosphere of isolation and despair, and managed to terrify even with simple but super-clever story motifs (the examination of drawn blood with a hot wire); here, such innovation and ideas are sorely lacking, and each appearance of the monster, however visually striking, is nowhere near suggestively shocking enough to truly unsettle us. And also, the original had a brilliant soundtrack that made the blood run cold, while the sequel boasts a soundtrack as mediocre as the vast majority of its genre peers.... It's not a dud if we, as fans of The Thing, appreciate Heijningen's nostalgic wink to the past, or rather the future, culminating in the awesome closing credits, but given the plot it should have been much better... (03.01.2012)

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)