If John Carpenter’s version of “The Thing” had not existed, then Matthijs van Heijningen, Jr’s film would have been much better received because, while it isn’t bad, it is not nearly as effective as Carpenter’s film

After watching Matthijs van Heijningen, Jr’s prequel to John Carpenter’s “The Thing,” (itself a remake of Christian Nyby’s “The Thing From Another World”) you can tell that he respects the source material.

The problem is mainly that it’s a different type of film than the film that it is supposedly a prequel to. In Carpenter’s film, oddly enough, the monster isn’t as important as how its presence effects the eleven men unable to escape because of hostile Antarctic surroundings.  The original film is about paranoia, it’s about who do you trust when anyone can be a threat.

There’s the important difference: Carpenter’s film is a character piece, that uses the device of a being that can mimic the appearance of any warm-blooded being as a means of motivating action.  You could literally insert a something like a extremely contagious virus and have, at heart, the same movie.

While the idea of a monster is crucial to van Heijningen’s film, because the plot isn’t sturdy enough to carry the film otherwise.  And if that weren’t bad enough, there are too many people, so when they are taken by the creature, you don’t care because they were never fully realized in the first place.

So, while there are elements of the paranoia and suspicion that ran like blood though the original film, it’s not enough.   So what are the options?

You can make a more conventional horror film, which is OK, because there are some entertaining films where the creatures aren’t exactly shy; the Alien films and “The Howling” being two examples.

But the problem is, once again, John Carpenter’s film.

The creature in van Heijningen’Jr., film is visually an interesting one, but it acts in a fashion that the is often inconsistent with that from the original film.  I assume that part of this inconsistency is due to the current state of special effects–CGI was in its infancy in 1982–while now not only worlds, but entire beings can be created entirely in CGI, which the current film takes advantage of.

The new creatures are horrific, as well as fascinating in their visual complexity, but they lack of subtlety, especially for a creature whose primary defense is the ability to mimic the form of other beings, doesn’t make sense.

Van Heijningen’s film does have some clever points that the original film missed, such as the way that the creature is detected.  It’s brilliant, and manages not only to work logically but is markedly different from the first film.

Mary Elizabeth Winstead is effective in the role as an American paleontologist, partially because the character isn’t–at first–a fighter, though her response to events is logical enough that when she becomes one it makes sense.  Joel Edgerton (“Warrior”) and Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje (“Oz”) are essentially wasted because the both characters are introduced, and vanish for about a third of the movie.

The Norwegian actors range from impressive to decent, but since there are too many of them, and none are given enough time to develop as characters, they’re little more than sacrificial lambs.

In fact, there are all sorts of neat details that remind viewers that this film is related to Carpenter’s film, though the most obvious is overlooked, which is a sense of period. The original film took place in the 1980’s, and there were all sorts of details that grounded it in that period.  The prequel has a timeless quality about it, and I don’t mean that in the sense of being memorable.  Instead I mean that you literally cannot tell when what year the film takes place in.  It could be the eighties, nineties, or even today because there’s nothing that the characters do, or say that places in a particular period of time.

Then there’s the music for the prequel, composed by Marco Beltrami.  It’s not bad, particularly when it references Ennio Morricone’s original score, though there are moments when it gets particularly bombastic, as if what was being scored was an action film, which isn’t a good thing, especially when compared to Carpenter’s film.

That being said, this new Thing is an interesting one, but lacks the ambition, subtext, and much of the practical effects of the original.

Stay to the end credits, by the way.  The way that director links the prequel with Carpenter’s film works really, really well.