I had to put off seeing The Thing for a while because I hadn't yet fallen in love with The Thing... I mean, John Carpenter's The Thing, not the prequel ... OH MY FREAKING GOSH, why did they give a prequel a name that is exactly the same as the movie it's prequel-izing?! Argh. Okay, if I'm going to mention both movies here, maybe this will clear things up: the 1982 film will hereby be called "Thing 1" (because it's the original) and the prequel will be called "Thing 2." Thank you, Dr. Seuss. Onward.

Scientist Dr. Sander Halvorson recruits young paleontologist Kate Lloyd to dig up an alien specimen found on a research site in Antarctica. The thing is still alive, though, and able to absorb and replicate a person when it attacks. The team fights to survive, but they soon realize they can't let the thing escape the facility - a task made all the more difficult when they don't know who's human, and who's not.

Unlike probably every other horror fan in the world, I did not see Thing 1 until a few months ago and believe it or not, the first time I watched it, I wasn't completely crazy about it. Granted, I was a little distracted and not in the right frame of mind to really appreciate it, so I knew I had to give it another chance. Holy crap... that movie is a-freaking-mazing. I am now in the club of everybody who thinks Thing 1 is one of the best horror movies ever. So... what about Thing 2?

Basically, the problem with Thing 2 - and one that I saw coming a mile away - is that it has a little too much in common with Thing 1. I knew the plot of Thing 2 before I even saw it: people find the thing, they realize the thing is alive, the thing starts to kill, they realize the thing can replicate humans, they stop trusting each other, they die, the survivors fight the thing, they think they kill it but obviously they don't really because this is a prequel. DUH. And yup, that's pretty much what happens. No surprises, and nothing all that new is introduced to enhance the story.

Actually one thing I really liked was the new way they came up with for identifying who's a thing or not, if only because it makes more sense than what they tried to do in Thing 1. When Kate finds tooth fillings on the floor after someone has been attacked by the thing, she figures out that it cannot replicate inorganic material - fillings, steel rods for a broken arm, etc. So then there's a somewhat suspenseful scene where Kate goes around to everybody with a flashlight and looks inside their mouths. The way the scene is played out makes you expect something squiggly to come flying out of somebody's mouth and attack Kate. It doesn't happen, I'm sorry to say, but it was a nicely crafted little moment.

Another problem I have with Thing 2 is the effects. I don't completely hate CGI on principle - it can give us some really cool things to look at in a movie - but it did not work for me at all for Thing 2. When you're basing your prequel off of Thing 1, a movie that is known specifically for its awesome organic effects, and you go all CGI, it just doesn't feel the same. I miss the practical effects, okay? They look a heck of a lot better and are more convincing, plus they are just nasty, real and visceral and that's always fun for a horror fan. Thing 2 was all about somebody's body ripping apart and these weird tentacle things flying every whichaway. The ideas for the effects were very interesting and cool; I only wish they had gone with the practical approach to achieve them. I did like the two-headed thing, though. Props for that.

Mary Elizabeth Winstead replaces Kurt Russell in the role of the person who's really not in charge taking charge of the situation. And she does a pretty good job here - much different than the ditz I only knew her as in Death Proof, by the way. All the other characters and actors are kinda forgettable and I could never tell who was who or what their role was. They are mostly just fodder for the thing and you know who the survivors are going to be right from the beginning, so who cares, right?

If there's one part of Thing 2 that big fans of Thing 1 will love, it is of course the sequence during the end credits. When the movie "ended" the first time, I had a few seconds to go, "Wait, what? How can that be the end? What about the guys in the helicopter and the d-- ohhhhhhhh... there you go!" It's nothing all that big but I'm sure it was greatly appreciated by those who know and love Thing 1 (which now includes me!).

So did I hate Thing 2? No, I really didn't but I could also never recommend it over Thing 1, even though they are kinda the same movie with kinda the same characters. The CGI pulled me out of the movie a lot, but although Thing 2 is not a horrible movie, it won't ever get the same attention or admiration as the original.

Movie Review: The Thing (2011). There are any Movie Review: The Thing (2011) in here.