I had a problem with the in-your-face nature of how the Thing went about its practices. Most daunting was how it was so illogical; it attacked people often when they were surrounded by others, even when armed with weapons it must have realized at a point could kill it in a painful, hot way. It wasn't subtle, it didn't 'scan' the area for vantage points or hiding spots in case it screws up its assimilation attempts (in Carpenter's film, the dog thing goes about the camp, finding out the layout of the place, and listens in on the crew members and finds out how it can go about its activities).
The beginning of the film was better than the ending, even though the ending is
spot-on, faithful to how the canonical sequel began (the man with the slit throat, the split-face corpse, the bloodied axe embedded into the wall, and the block of ice with a large opening are all present). Indeed, the beginning of the film, all 20 or so minutes of it, gives a feeling of some mystery, like, "what is this thing? Where is it from?" However, that is thrown out the window the moment it literally leaps into action and begins its assault on the crew members without a care in the world what happens. Surely the creature would be as weary of foreign lifeforms as the humans are (except for the Sanders character, who was unbelievably naive and should I say, stupid); why would it choose to throw itself into possible danger like that? Oh, that's right, the writers of the film wouldn't have a movie if they gave it more of a dimension than what it ended up having, because they had little imagination.
The characters were virtually card-board cutouts, most of them soulless or lacking of any depth to make them interesting. There was some paranoia development between the characters, I'll give the film this merit, but it didn't have the same feel as the sequel. Plus, why bother being paranoid about people when for little reason, the Thing assimilates someone completely random with no indication as to why, where, or how the person became a victim. I did like this film's own take on the identity test, which relied on, get this, tooth fillings. There actually was some logic to be found in this little plot device, as when it tried to assimilate a person (unsuccessfully I might add), it rejected a metal leg plate during the process because it was inorganic. That's a simple AND clever plot device and it is a plus for the film. However, this is one of the elements of the film that gives it the classification of "remake", seeing as it borrowed many elements from Carpenter's film, as if the design team of the film had nothing else to go on.
Atmosphere is a helpful way to give a film identity, and this film doesn't disappoint, for the most part. It doesn't help that the creature takes no liberties, doesn't seem to hatch any effective plan to take people over, and that even when it goes about its business, there's always people right there to burn it to death. There is a lot of tension during these moments, but the film is chock full of them that it doesn't allow for much ambiance, any breaks from action, which in Carpenter's film were used to great effect thanks to Morricone's stunning soundtrack. While I forgot the name of the person responsible for this film's soundtrack, it was rather forgettable other than the remix of "Humanity" heard at the end sequence, which sounded too much like the original anyway.
CGI was heavily used in this film. It didn't bother me, though, because I've come to accept this method of film effects (except for some cases. 'Deep Blue Sea', I'm looking at you!). Frankly, they were well done, but they didn't have the visceral feel that Rob Bottin's creations from the Carpenter film had. Indeed, many of the mutations were unoriginal or uninspired; Bottin had things like flesh flowers, a huge set of dinosaur-like teeth inside of one's chest, massive deformed-looking claws, a huge skull of what looked like a huge and mean looking dog, and many other things. This Thing almost always had a set of octopus jaws in the chest of the host, and crab-like claws. That's about all that I could say of it because the creature design was decent at best.
In closing, this is a decent film, but it doesn't add anything new to The Thing canon. There was little imagination, it made way too many nods to the Carpenter original, and character development and interaction was, in most cases, nonexistent. And the creature, while still as scary as ever because of its shape-shifting abilities and the way it mutates, is made one-dimensional and somewhat boring. Paranoia is still there, but there's nothing else to speak of. I guess the only real upside to this film is that it'll expose this canon to more people, and might invigorate some interest in it to generate a possible sequel. However, because of the ambiguous nature of the ending of Carpenter's film, it'll be hard to fill such shoes.
C+
+ Does have some faith to the Carpenter film
+ Retains some of the paranoia you'd think people would feel in such a situation
+ CGI is not bad, but it isn't spectacular, either
+ The beginning gives some sense of wonderment
- Doesn't try anything really new, but does have some twists
- Too many nods to the original
- Monster behavior, and the situations where it attacks, are illogical
- Forgettable soundtrack and the atmosphere is almost nullified by the constant action
- Not as scary as it is gory and intense. In that case, it is more of a sci-fi thriller than a sci-fi horror film.
Additional note: Congrats on the clever identity test method, guys.
