The Thing

Little harsh Thom. Was never going to compete with Carpenter's classic – though as sequel/prequels go, is a lot better than five fingers through the face.

Little harsh Thom. Was never going to compete with Carpenter's classic – though as sequel/prequels go, is a lot better than five fingers through the face.

This review is all wrong, seems the writer had made his mind up before his arse touched the seat. As respectful a prequel as any Thing fan could hope for - dovetails in perfectly yet stands in his own, which is particularly noteworthy this long after Carpenter's effort.

Can’t see much wrong with the review myself, Thingymajig.

“... it's dumbfounding as to why the title remains the same on this insulting inclusion to the canon.” – A prequel having the same name to the first film is idiotic.

“... its generic death-to-death scripting carries none of the taught paranoia, rich characterisation or the emotional investment of its predecessor.” – The Norwegian crew are laughably underwritten, with characters amounting to little more than ‘mean science guys’ or ‘hairy nice guys with beards’. You can’t root for characters that you can't tell apart and don’t know anything about.

“Once awoken from its slumber the alien sets forth on a killing spree, picking off those imitable one-by-one in increasingly gory puppetry of human corpse show pieces – complete with CGI that can't match the invention and artistry of Rob Bottin's work in Carpenter's picture.” Again, spot on. The CGI will look terrible in a few years' time, while Bottin’s FX work is still nutty, surreal and brilliant after three decades.

30 years after Hawks’ version, Carpenter made something uniquely his while honouring the original. 30 years on from Carpenter’s film Matthijs van Heijningen has made a lazy, uninventive rehash of the 1982 Thing and stuck on a coda that links it to Carpenter's version. There's no imagination, style or wit at work.

You should demand better from today’s filmmakers, Thinymajig