Having loved both the 1951 and 1982 editions of this sci-fi classic (and written a comparison of them in Volume 4, Issue 2), I was dubious about yet another version. Especially after seeing the first preview, which I felt was too cheesy to easily digest. Well, the new one has its share of issues, but it isn’t nearly as bad as I feared.  It is, at times, quite effective, and the last five minutes do something for which I was not at all prepared, but which I devoutly appreciate.

The story mimics that of John Carpenter’s 1982 film almost exactly, with a research team discovering a UFO and occupant buried in Antarctic ice, and rather foolishly digging the occupant out for further study.  The story also references the Christian Nyby 1951 version in several respects, which I feel helps the film maintain its historical integrity (others may think it lacks originality).  But as the film’s last five minutes make clear, the notions of lineage and heritage are very important to the filmmakers.

Matthijs van Heijningen, Jr.’s film (distributed by Universal, which produced the 1982 film) is, in fact, so similar to Carpenter’s version that many people are referring to this new adventure as a remake.  It really isn’t a remake, despite the similarities.  It is simply a cinematic example of history repeating itself, first.  And in order to fully understand that, one needs to watch the 1982 film right after seeing this one.

The flaws in Heijningen’s film are largely due to lack of detail.  The characters are barely more than ciphers; only Mary Elizabeth Winstead’s paleontologist Kate Lloyd has any real depth.  By the way, installing a female as the lead character in this male-dominated, rugged horror story works just fine.  Unlike the earlier versions, the snowbound base is bland and uninteresting; in certain scenes when rooms are burning, it is terribly obvious that the fires are “stunt” fires or even CGI — there is a definitive lack of smoke and actual burning that belie what the eye is supposed to acknowledge.  There are too many slow turns by people as the monster reveals itself behind them, and not enough quick thinking by the characters to suit my taste — although Kate Lloyd’s intuition about teeth fillings is quite clever.

The alien design is just as grotesque as in Carpenter’s version, if not quite as tawdry. I prefer Rob Bottin’s spindlier designs from 1982.  And we never get a real sense of the alien presence behind the human masks it hides behind, as we did in John Carpenter’s masterpiece.  The one big difference is that we get to see the interior of the flying saucer — but this, too, is disappointing.  In that respect, it reminded me of the Close Encounters of the Third Kind Special Edition, which also let us into a UFO, with disappointing, rather boring, results.  Except for the final few minutes, which almost redeemed the movie in my eyes (and ears), this Thing would be a derivative, two-star, forgettable sci-fi adventure.  But as I began to comprehend what Heijningen was doing in those last few minutes and everything fell into place, I gained respect for the film.  The Thing (2011) isn’t great, but it represents a marvelous way to find and fulfill its place in cinematic history.  ✰ ✰ ½.  14 Oct. 2011.