I admit I was as sceptical as anyone when I heard this would be a prequel the John Carpenter's 1982 classic of the same name. That being said, I was over-joyed that it wasn't going to be a *remake* because to do so would be insulting. Then I have to admit I became optimistic when I read that the filmmakers refused to do a remake as the '82 film was perfect. So it sounds like a movie was finally getting made by fans of the original. But just remembering how other Prequels completely ignored or just royally screwed up the continuities of the previous entries in a franchise, X-Men: First Class and Wolverine both acted almost like the first 3 films didn't happen. The Star Wars prequel trilogy is probably the closest to acknowledging the original trilogy. But even still, there are continuity errors. Underworld: Rise Of The Lycans...and so on and so on. None of these are necessarily BAD films, personally I enjoy all of them as standalone movies. But I find it difficult to get in to them very much when there's a blatant disregard for the previous films.
So here we have The Thing, 2011. I won't get into details about the movie, as I'm sure you're familiar with the premise by now. It chronicles the events of the Norwegian camp that two characters visit in the '82 film. This is one film where the crew took great care to respect the '82 film and not contradict it. Are there still continuity errors? Of course! Are they so offencive to the eyes that you can't stand watching this movie because they don't jive with the original? No! Well, I'm sure some self-proclaimed "Super-Fans" of John Carpenter's film may find that to be the case. But in terms of continuity for a prequel? This is probably the best at acknowledging its predecessor than any other film.
As for the film itself? I must say it's pretty enjoyable. Keeping in mind that it's NOT John Carpenter's The Thing and is about a RECENTLY THAWED creature, who in my opinion doesn't quite know how to deal with humans right out of the ice block. Which gives this film the opportunity to inject a bit more action into it than the 82. It gives this film a different tone, but once again, they weren't trying to remake JC's movie. Though there are some blatant homages. But once again, the other film is 30 years old. There's a fair chunk of the audience who wouldn't have seen it. So some nods to it don't phase me one bit. There are too many characters in this movie. So the movie suffers in that regard because they needed a set amount of them anyway (for continuity purposes). The movie tries to give each character at least something to do. But unfortunately, when you spread this out over a 100 minute movie, it also takes away from some of the main characters. This makes it harder to connect with any of them so you don't feel as bad when they start dying. I think this movie could have benefited from an extra 15-20 minutes more running time. Simply for dialogue and character development. It seemed like no time at all from finding the creature, to it thawing, to all hell breaking loose.
Bottom line, it's a fun popcorn movie. Is it as good as John Carpenter's '82 film? No. Is it a worthy companion piece to it? Yes. It could have been much much worse in every regard. So it gets a 9 out of 10 from me if for no other reason than it did a good job, albeit not a perfect job of connecting with the original.
So here we have The Thing, 2011. I won't get into details about the movie, as I'm sure you're familiar with the premise by now. It chronicles the events of the Norwegian camp that two characters visit in the '82 film. This is one film where the crew took great care to respect the '82 film and not contradict it. Are there still continuity errors? Of course! Are they so offencive to the eyes that you can't stand watching this movie because they don't jive with the original? No! Well, I'm sure some self-proclaimed "Super-Fans" of John Carpenter's film may find that to be the case. But in terms of continuity for a prequel? This is probably the best at acknowledging its predecessor than any other film.
As for the film itself? I must say it's pretty enjoyable. Keeping in mind that it's NOT John Carpenter's The Thing and is about a RECENTLY THAWED creature, who in my opinion doesn't quite know how to deal with humans right out of the ice block. Which gives this film the opportunity to inject a bit more action into it than the 82. It gives this film a different tone, but once again, they weren't trying to remake JC's movie. Though there are some blatant homages. But once again, the other film is 30 years old. There's a fair chunk of the audience who wouldn't have seen it. So some nods to it don't phase me one bit. There are too many characters in this movie. So the movie suffers in that regard because they needed a set amount of them anyway (for continuity purposes). The movie tries to give each character at least something to do. But unfortunately, when you spread this out over a 100 minute movie, it also takes away from some of the main characters. This makes it harder to connect with any of them so you don't feel as bad when they start dying. I think this movie could have benefited from an extra 15-20 minutes more running time. Simply for dialogue and character development. It seemed like no time at all from finding the creature, to it thawing, to all hell breaking loose.
Bottom line, it's a fun popcorn movie. Is it as good as John Carpenter's '82 film? No. Is it a worthy companion piece to it? Yes. It could have been much much worse in every regard. So it gets a 9 out of 10 from me if for no other reason than it did a good job, albeit not a perfect job of connecting with the original.