The plot first “wowed” horror fanatics 59 years ago, followed by a spine-chilling remake 29 years later. Now “The Thing” is back, but this time around it’s leaving viewers bored, agitated and confused.
“The Thing” hit the big screen last Friday and barely pulled in $8.5 million over its opening weekend.
This movie is supposed to serve as a prequel to John Carpenter’s 1982 version of “The Thing” and although the film is equipped with a decent cast, it still couldn’t reach the success of its predecessors.
Director Matthijs van Heijningen has a difficult time telling a good story and instead leads us through painfully obvious plots.
The film is slow, lacks build-up, creativity and interconnection.
The film takes us to a barren Norwegian base in Antarctica, where paleontologist Kate Lloyd (Mary Elizabeth Winstead) is conducting scientific research.
Winstead is no rookie to the film industry, as she is most notably known for films such as “Final Destination 3,” “Live Free or Die Hard” and “Black Christmas.”
While on her expedition, she digs up a seemingly ancient organism that ends up being an alien creature.
Just as the crew begins celebrating their historic find, the creature bursts out of the melting ice block that was housing it.
This was the first of very few scenes that actually gave the audience a “scare.”
Probably the most fascinating characteristic of the creature is that it has the ability to turn itself into a replica of any human being.
One by one, the researchers start becoming infected by this unknown alien.
Kate decides to team up with the crew’s pilot, Carter (Joel Edgerton), and the two of them  make it their mission to catch “The Thing” before it kills them all.
Edgerton has been seem in films such as “King Arthur” and “Star Wars Episode I and II.”
The film had a solid theme, but no real developing story and the monotonous alien hunt drags along for the rest of the movie.
Winstead gave it her all, but unfortunately she couldn’t hold up to the role of the original character R.J. MacReady, who was played by Kurt Russell.
The actors in general make admirable attempts at lifting the value of the movie with their acting performances, despite poor direction.
Viewers go through more than half of the film, with no background or thorough understanding of the film’s characters.
“The Thing” did at least make good use of special effects, and although the second half of the movie was a back-and-forth movement between finding the next victim and having that individual being killed by the creature, the plot started off on the right track.
It was also disappointing to see that the best scenes of the movie were simply recreations from the original.
In the end, the movie brought us to the start of the 1982 “The Thing” and the atmosphere had an awkward vibe.
The audience didn’t seem to know what to say or do and as they left, there was nothing but a few murmurs and long yawns until the theater was empty.