When this project was film announced, as with most horror remakes, I shrug first. Following the annoyed shrug that comes out of habit, some obscenities are likely to follow. That was certainly my take as I heard about another remake to "The Thing". Didn't John Carpenter do one in the 80s? Wasn't that good enough? Apparently not. As more came out about this film, I heard it was something of a prequel/Remake. Didn't Rob Zombie try that with one of John Carpenter's films? Didn't that suck? Do we REALLY have to remake this too?
Well, yes and no. It's not a remake at all, it's just a prequel. My best guess on why they marketed the film as a remake is for money purposes. Remakes typically do very well (and this probably would too if it wasn't going against another remake). On the flip side, The Thing is so much of a genre specific entity that not many people would be interested in a marketed prequel. Very smart on the production company but yet it could have turned people off like myself.
The Norwegian base that MacReady and the doctor explore in the remake of The Thing is the topic of this film. Most of the exploration that MacReady does, is connected in this film. The giant whole in the ice, the block of ice missing, the axe in the wall, etc. The Norwegian's have found a startling discovery in the ice and they recruit some Americans to help explore it. One of which is Kate Loyd (Winstead), who is there to help thaw the creature out of the ice. Of course there's others as well but she's the main character. Her performance in the movie, in my opinion as an unbiased movie reviewer, hinges on how the film is perceived. In this reviewer's opinion, she stepped up and delivered a good performance. It's certainly one of the better performances I've seen from a horror remake.
Like many horror films though, they do have their flaws. The scenery of the arctic is beautiful and I would have liked to see more of it. Certain minor things didn't seem to be acknowledged from Carpenter's remake to this. If they were, I was oblivious to them. For example, where was the video camera documenting the events? I certainly didn't like the non suspense in the film. Everything was put straight forward for the viewer. No suspense. At all. I literally guessed everyone who was "The Thing". It was fairly obvious to anyone with a brain. It's easy to see these guys did their homework on Carpenter's horror classic. Unfortunately, it seems to miss some of the defining features on what made that film a great horror film
Even though this film came out almost 30 years after Carpenter's, it's a decent prequel. It certainly could have been better.
Great Film: C-
Enjoyable Film: A-
COMPARED TO JOHN CARPENTER'S "The Thing"
Great Film: C+
Enjoyable Film: A