The Thing
Universal Pictures | Release Date: October 14, 2011
6.3
USER SCORE
Generally favorable reviews based on 305 Ratings
USER RATING DISTRIBUTION
Positive:
156
Mixed:
109
Negative:
40
Watch Now
Buy on
Stream On
Stream On
Stream On
Stream On
Stream On
Expand
Review this movie
VOTE NOW
 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Check box if your review contains spoilers 0 characters (5000 max)

User Reviews

User scoreBy dateMost helpful
2
Jailhouse_McGeeDec 20, 2012
This is the kind of movie that mistakes grotesque splatter scenes with real horror and a haunting atmosphere. It painfully misses Carpenters art of creating high tension just by the characters interacting. And speaking of characters, most areThis is the kind of movie that mistakes grotesque splatter scenes with real horror and a haunting atmosphere. It painfully misses Carpenters art of creating high tension just by the characters interacting. And speaking of characters, most are underdeveloped and look alike, so there is no point caring about them as they are consumed one by one. The special effects are now CGI, but the original effects are still better, because they are more organic. This movie had high potential, but it's just a big bomb nobody will care about in less than a few years.… Expand
2 of 2 users found this helpful20
All this user's reviews
8
AnnColinsNov 11, 2012
I was a big fan of the first film so I sat down to watch this version with a negative mind set but this was so so much better than I thought. Very impressive effects and a good story. The ending, especially into the end credits was a strokeI was a big fan of the first film so I sat down to watch this version with a negative mind set but this was so so much better than I thought. Very impressive effects and a good story. The ending, especially into the end credits was a stroke of genius by the director. Its links into the first film in the most fantastic way. Fantastic.… Expand
2 of 2 users found this helpful20
All this user's reviews
7
fangaasDec 19, 2011
Was very surprised by this film. From the reviews I had seen I was expecting a lazy rehash of the original but instead found a gut wrenching, highly convincing prequel that is equal to if not better than the original. Sure it isn'tWas very surprised by this film. From the reviews I had seen I was expecting a lazy rehash of the original but instead found a gut wrenching, highly convincing prequel that is equal to if not better than the original. Sure it isn't particularly unique, reusing general horror clichés and positively bursting with generic 'jump' moments, but the convincing and actually quite disturbing monster design and well structured storyline (though you can rule out any concept of character development) ends up in not just a watchable but highly enjoyable thriller. I would definitely recommend it to anyone who enjoyed the original or who enjoys some good old thrills and spills.… Expand
1 of 1 users found this helpful10
All this user's reviews
9
VaeVictisOct 17, 2011
This is a worthy prequel to say the least. While it discards the paranoia and careful considerations of the 1982 version, it instead chooses to create a sense of tension and urgency with even greater effectiveness. While some of the sideThis is a worthy prequel to say the least. While it discards the paranoia and careful considerations of the 1982 version, it instead chooses to create a sense of tension and urgency with even greater effectiveness. While some of the side characters could have used some work, the main characters were likable and sensible (A rare quality in a horror movie). The characters are as quick on the uptake as the audience, and the Thing, while showing less forethought than the 1982 version, is still incredibly intelligent and, most importantly, scary. Mary Elizabeth Winstead in particular gave a stunning performance. Along with some problems with minor characters seemingly existing only to be killed/assimilated is the issue of CG simply not being up to the standard of the old models used by the original movie. While the 1982 version is still king, the prequel is definitely a must-see.… Expand
1 of 1 users found this helpful10
All this user's reviews
7
TokyochuchuFeb 2, 2014
The Thing is a surprisingly taught prequel to the 1982 classic. The film feels nice and old school, with a slow-burn build up and some decent scares. It would have scored higher but the typical, action heavy CGI climax was a bit of a letdown.The Thing is a surprisingly taught prequel to the 1982 classic. The film feels nice and old school, with a slow-burn build up and some decent scares. It would have scored higher but the typical, action heavy CGI climax was a bit of a letdown. Still, not half bad!… Expand
1 of 1 users found this helpful10
All this user's reviews
8
SinisterVortexFeb 13, 2012
I really enjoyed this movie. It constantly maintained a certain level in intrigue that kept me interested to the very end, and even managed to go someplace I didn't expect for this kind of horror movie: inside of a space ship. That's all II really enjoyed this movie. It constantly maintained a certain level in intrigue that kept me interested to the very end, and even managed to go someplace I didn't expect for this kind of horror movie: inside of a space ship. That's all I should tell you about that subject, don't want to actually spoil anything. But anyways, aside from going to awesome and unexpected locations, the movie also is dark and shocking. After an expedition digs up a frozen alien body from the ice of the arctic, they accidentally unleash an alien disease that soon reveals itself to be a possessive and imitative method for the alien's reproduction cycle. Now, I know what you're thinking, that it's just another science fictiony zombie movie. Actually, it's nothing like that. I can't go into any more detail without spoilers, but I can tell you that the horror subject matter is unique enough from other sci fi horror franchises that it most definitely can be considered (reasonably) original. I liked how the plot developed, I like how nightmarish and dark the movie eventually turned out to be, and I especially like the direction it went in the climax. If you're completely new to The Thing franchise, definitely give this movie a watch. And even if you've seen the previous movies, I'd say this one's still worth your time.… Expand
1 of 1 users found this helpful10
All this user's reviews
7
HighwayUKJun 1, 2012
The fact it was a prequel to the original classic movie had me worried, but after seeing it all I can do is offer praise that it was made, as it stiches together many plot gaps from the original movie to make watching them back to backThe fact it was a prequel to the original classic movie had me worried, but after seeing it all I can do is offer praise that it was made, as it stiches together many plot gaps from the original movie to make watching them back to back viable... maybe not that scarey... but then the original had the benefit of being outstanding SFX for the era, modern CGI movies never feel as physical and scarey.… Expand
1 of 1 users found this helpful10
All this user's reviews
8
Khunter4382Oct 15, 2011
Finally, a prequel done RIGHT! This film sets the Norwegian backstory up to a T. Beautifully filmed and the special effects are impressive. The cast is strong enough and the aliens are some of the most grotesque I've seen in a long time. TheFinally, a prequel done RIGHT! This film sets the Norwegian backstory up to a T. Beautifully filmed and the special effects are impressive. The cast is strong enough and the aliens are some of the most grotesque I've seen in a long time. The Thing is truly a thought provoking creature.....what is it's true form? Does it have one? What will it be next, who will it be, and when will it happen? These questions are what makes the story suspenseful and terrifying. Carpenter's version will always be superior but they came pretty damn close with this one. Definitely will be in my collection in the coming year!… Expand
1 of 1 users found this helpful10
All this user's reviews
9
BoabDreepsNov 28, 2011
The hardest job in movies has to be the task of creating a prequel to a cult classic. George Lucas showed us all how to make a supreme mess of this job. His prequels took shape as three massive dumps and then he used the original films asThe hardest job in movies has to be the task of creating a prequel to a cult classic. George Lucas showed us all how to make a supreme mess of this job. His prequels took shape as three massive dumps and then he used the original films as toilet paper. In the case of The Thing (2011) Matthjis van Heijiningen demonstrates how it should be done.
When I first heard that this movie was in production, I had instantly assumed it would be terrible and like the Star Wars prequels, it would also serve to diminish the value of the original.
I'm am delighted to say that it didn't. If anything, this new movie enhances the experience of watching the original.
I watched the entire movie with scepticism. Waiting for gaping plot holes to open up. They didn't happen. The movie is tight and links up perfectly with the beloved 1982 version.

I absolutely love this film. I don't think I can watch one without the other now.
When the DVD comes out, it will get a place in my collection right next to the Carpenter original.

At the time of writing this review:
Critic score: 49
User: 7.1

A demonstration on what value you should put on critic scores.
They've directed me towards a vat of absolute crud this year.… Expand
1 of 1 users found this helpful10
All this user's reviews
10
z14170Nov 26, 2011
IT IS GREAT, NO MATTER WHAT OTHERS SAY. A lot of care was placed in this movie in order to replicate every single detail from the original one. Congratulations to all the Cast and Crew, because you must be proud of your work. I would loveIT IS GREAT, NO MATTER WHAT OTHERS SAY. A lot of care was placed in this movie in order to replicate every single detail from the original one. Congratulations to all the Cast and Crew, because you must be proud of your work. I would love getting a sequel.… Expand
1 of 1 users found this helpful10
All this user's reviews
8
GolderDec 27, 2011
I can see why some people are giving this film a bum review, there are some scene stealing moments from the original movie which really could have been avoided with some more thought out writing.
Overall this is a good revival of a good oldI can see why some people are giving this film a bum review, there are some scene stealing moments from the original movie which really could have been avoided with some more thought out writing.
Overall this is a good revival of a good old cult classic, the film is mostly original in its plot, if it wasn't for those blasted scene stealing moments the film would have gotten a 10 from me. ... There are complaints about the monsters being in CGI. If the monsters were to be achieved by highly detailed models they may have looked way too comical to be scary if they were to move. ... To get a decent scary looking monster that doesn't look comical when it moves takes a lot of time, effort and money, possibly a hell of a lot more than a CGI beasty would take to make. ... The CGI doesn't look bad, there's been a lot worse in the past and these certainly don't deserve the bad rep the paid critics are giving them. I would say the CGI beasties deserve a bit more attention into their incorporation into the movie. something about them makes them stand out and only makes them a little obvious at times. ... That's a lot about the CGI, my apologies, I can't really complain about them, they look good enough so that's that. ... If you're a die hard fan of the original, just take this film with a pinch of salt and you should enjoy it. ... If you're new to the franchise and you like a good horror/survival thriller, this might be your cup of poison.… Expand
1 of 1 users found this helpful10
All this user's reviews
7
josephbalentineDec 5, 2011
This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Most of the time with prequels they ruin the whole series like Jason and Freddy movies, But this is really good kind of boring at the first and watched out they throw quite a few curve balls.… Expand
1 of 1 users found this helpful10
All this user's reviews
7
fastwhiteboyOct 17, 2011
To start off, the new thing is a good movie. It isn't as good as John Carpenter's but it's still good. Before I mention the good parts of it though, I gotta mention the bad. One bad thing about the movie was the lack of suspense it offered.To start off, the new thing is a good movie. It isn't as good as John Carpenter's but it's still good. Before I mention the good parts of it though, I gotta mention the bad. One bad thing about the movie was the lack of suspense it offered. It's not a gorefest like some critics are saying, but it is more violent than the 1982 version and because the violence increased the suspense decreased. Simple movie facts. Also, as the movie trailer shows, the creature pops out of the ice in plain sight. If the movie was more about suspense and less about violence, like John Carpenter's film was, it would've definitely received more praise from critics. Another problem the film had was the lack of character development for a lot of the characters. You really felt like you knew the majority of the characters in the 1982 Thing, but the characters started dying so fast in this film, you were really only well acquainted with a few select characters. Finally, the last thing wrong with the movie was the lack of tension. John Carpenter's characters acted very appropriate for a situation like that. "Stay away from me or I'll kill you." This is totally understandable and probable for people to act any these circumstances. The characters just didn't seem afraid of each other even after they grasped that ANY of them could be the thing, even when they'd separate off into groups. The good parts of the movie were good CGI, staying true to the story of the 1982 movie and tying both movies together well, and overall a very good cast with good acting. Overall the movie was much better than the average critic is rating it, but because it isn't an original idea, and it's not a phenomenal movie, the critic will want to slam it. Point being, it's a good movie, as you can see from the 7.8 user score from 33 users 30 of them being positive. Go see it. If you haven't seen either of the thing's before it, you will really enjoy, and if you have, you will still enjoy a modern view of a classic.… Expand
1 of 1 users found this helpful10
All this user's reviews
7
MIKALEOct 18, 2011
Absolutely worth watching for the creature effects, an amazing mix of puppets and cg making for a truly worthy updated imagining of John Carpenter's Thing creature.

As for the story, I found it enjoyable but lean and think it reallyAbsolutely worth watching for the creature effects, an amazing mix of puppets and cg making for a truly worthy updated imagining of John Carpenter's Thing creature.

As for the story, I found it enjoyable but lean and think it really struggled at the end. Not at all bad but somewhat familiar territory.

So in the end mostly a SFX driven film but if you're new to the Thing then you'll likely get the most out of this.… Expand
1 of 1 users found this helpful10
All this user's reviews
10
jwtiiiOct 22, 2011
As expected, this provided a richer experience than Carpenter's and quite a bit more than a remake-type prequel. This film is a worthy successor to those entries created around John W. Campbell's landmark novella "Who Goes There?" from 1938.As expected, this provided a richer experience than Carpenter's and quite a bit more than a remake-type prequel. This film is a worthy successor to those entries created around John W. Campbell's landmark novella "Who Goes There?" from 1938. That includes Howard Hawk's 1952 compelling interpretation and - of course - John Carpenter's contribution in 1982. plot - good sci-fi relies on realistic but unusual mortal dangers inevitably imposed by the many weaknessses present in the human condition. Check! [A-] characters - an acute, fear-induced tension/mistrust pits Swedes against Americans, workers against scientists and those motivated by professional ambition against the protagonist who is concerned for the safety of everyone isolated there. [A+] music - Beltrami borrowed Ennio Morricone's score. Good decision. [A] effects - successfully advanced the state-of-the-art from Carpenter's benchmark. [A] hardware - the ship, though detailed, was a disappointment for me. [B-] action - well-paced, quite intense and believable. [A]

This outing is a quality product to be sure - but nothing will beat Carpenter's ending with Kurt Russell and Keith David seated and freezing to death, glaring suspiciously at each other over a bottle of bourbon in the smoky, burning wreckage of an Arctic encampment as night falls. . .… Expand
1 of 1 users found this helpful10
All this user's reviews
8
AllAroundGamerNov 2, 2011
This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. The remake is good and well executed. However, I would have to say the original is better. In this one, The Thing is an entity and can be seen whereas in the original, it was never seen alone so it would be added on to the suspense. It had to be one of the people. That doesn't happen in this remake, but still the movie is good and all the people that have seen the original, should see the remake.… Expand
1 of 1 users found this helpful10
All this user's reviews
7
TheRedZombieFeb 4, 2012
To those people who say that this is a remake, or a remake of a remake, have obviously never seen the the John Carpenter version of this film. This was a prequel people! And as prequels go, it is a pretty solid one at that. I concede thatTo those people who say that this is a remake, or a remake of a remake, have obviously never seen the the John Carpenter version of this film. This was a prequel people! And as prequels go, it is a pretty solid one at that. I concede that this movie will not win any awards, but I have to say that whatever flaws this movie had were small and insignificant to me. I really enjoyed watching this film and I would recommend it to anyone who is a fan of the John Carpenter version.… Expand
1 of 1 users found this helpful10
All this user's reviews
7
ILHMJan 31, 2013
Paleontologist Kate Lloyd is asked to join a Norwegian expedition in the Antarctic after they uncover an ancient alien spacecraft deep beneath the ice, but when one of the shape-shifting creatures awakens from its icy tomb, she will be forcedPaleontologist Kate Lloyd is asked to join a Norwegian expedition in the Antarctic after they uncover an ancient alien spacecraft deep beneath the ice, but when one of the shape-shifting creatures awakens from its icy tomb, she will be forced to determine friend from foe in a battle for survival atop the frozen continent. The 2011 prequel to John Carpenter's classic Science Fiction film THE THING is surprisingly well-made, and serves as a valid companion piece to the original film by filling in the events that preceded it. Matthijs van Heijningen Jr. and his team of set designers have taken great care in recreating the Norwegian base camp and following the frightful events just as they had been described in the previous film. The one major disadvantage that anyone would come to expect falls in the special effects department. Rob Bottin's ground-breaking make-up designs have terrified audiences since 1982, but the computerized monstrosities found here lose much of their effect despite their nasty appearances. Although THE THING presents several new twists on the plot points from before, the plagiarized ideas border quite closely to making this a direct remake. Mary Elizabeth Winstead and her supporting cast do maintain the proper amount of fear and paranoia to make this a successful sequel/prequel/remake, whatever it may be.… Expand
1 of 1 users found this helpful10
All this user's reviews
10
RedMoonApr 12, 2012
this film was good. let along quit a bit of mist scenes in this film i would of liked to of seen in the movie but i guess time is always a factour when it comes to horrors for some reason. quit a short film but it did its time and did itthis film was good. let along quit a bit of mist scenes in this film i would of liked to of seen in the movie but i guess time is always a factour when it comes to horrors for some reason. quit a short film but it did its time and did it well. the actors were chosen poorly(could of worked on finding better people for it) and the scrips had to be worked on. the visual effects were proper. the location was a good place for it. but overall i give it a 8 because i liket one of the actors and the place it was filmed in :) so i recommend it to those sci-fi freaks out there like me :)… Expand
1 of 1 users found this helpful10
All this user's reviews
7
StaticSpineJan 12, 2014
Pretty much similar to the original, though it's a prequel. Has some threads to the original movie. The atmosphere is tense. A decent sci-fi horror, which is rather rare nowadays.
1 of 1 users found this helpful10
All this user's reviews
7
CanaMavrickTwoSep 29, 2012
I thought this was gonna be crap, but it turned out to be decent. Of course it's not as good as the 1982 John Carpenter version, but still worth a watch.
1 of 1 users found this helpful10
All this user's reviews
7
khutchFeb 17, 2013
It works incredibly well, despite being a remake, and showing us a great main character 'The Thing' does not stain or rather the name of his predecessor.
1 of 1 users found this helpful10
All this user's reviews
7
PuciferAug 16, 2013
No, it's not half as good as John Carpenter's 1982 version, nor of Ridley Scott's 1979 masterpiece, "Alien," another film that obviously influenced this film's production. Still, I give them props for stealing, er, "paying homage" to the best...
1 of 1 users found this helpful10
All this user's reviews
7
Meth-dudeApr 9, 2014
I don't know if you liked it as much as i liked it but it's a pretty good movie. I don't know why critics are that mean with him. I know Carpenter's one is better but give it a chance.
1 of 1 users found this helpful10
All this user's reviews
7
muldjordOct 22, 2017
This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. There's a lot to love in this film. First off, I am glad they decided to go with actual Scandinavian actors for a lot of the roles. And I like that they actually speak the language in many scenes - it helps the movie distinguish itself from Carpenters 1982 adaption.
The first half of the film grabbed me and kept me interested. This is mainly where the character development takes place and they are doing a great job of setting the scene of the movie. And I love the first scene with The Thing, where it has escaped the block of ice and hides outside, waiting. I also liked their teeth filling test. It somehow seemed more believable to me than the 1982 blood boil test, which I've always found a bit odd. I mean, why would the blood react so explosively, when it doesn't when they fire a flamethrower at it? No matter, the point of the tests make sense either way.
The movie does start to drag a lot when the action starts taking place. It's basically one big game of hide and seek, with no real interesting stuff going on than just quickly trying to figure out where the creature went, and who it copies next. Then fire that flamethrower and repeat the loop. It also become very confusing and it looses control over who is likely to have been infected and who isn't. It almost seems like it just always picks the least likely and suddenly that person IS the one infected. And those that it should / is most likely to be, it isn't.

The characters also make some immensely stupid decisions from time to time which made me cringe a bit. For instance, Kate at some point says something about not leaving in the vehicles, because you could be trapped in the vehicle with it. Then she proceeds outside with Lars, just the two of them, to disable the vehicles. So she immediately puts herself in the situation she just warned the others about...

All in all, I actually quite liked the movie, but mostly because of the first half or two thirds or so. When it all just became a looped hide n' seek, I kind of just wanted to fast-forward to the end. And the end (after the space ship part) is pretty cool, but also very expected.… Expand
1 of 1 users found this helpful10
All this user's reviews
9
MADRICKY97Feb 11, 2016
One of the good prequel for me!!!! Felt like the 80 s , they render the carpenter stylish way really similar in attitude and story development!!! Old school horror suspense movie that kept you on the edge of your seat , the kind i reallyOne of the good prequel for me!!!! Felt like the 80 s , they render the carpenter stylish way really similar in attitude and story development!!! Old school horror suspense movie that kept you on the edge of your seat , the kind i really liked!!!

Gave it a nine, bought it on blu-ray and watch it again and again, with a big load of pop-corn!!!!bye… Expand
1 of 1 users found this helpful10
All this user's reviews
7
UniqueUsernameAug 29, 2015
This movie is good, both as a prequel to the Carpenter's 1982 The Thing, and as a stand-alone movie. Just because it's not an excellent movie, which the 1982 The Thing is, does not make it a bad movie. Matthijs van Heijningen (the director)This movie is good, both as a prequel to the Carpenter's 1982 The Thing, and as a stand-alone movie. Just because it's not an excellent movie, which the 1982 The Thing is, does not make it a bad movie. Matthijs van Heijningen (the director) is a big fan of John Carpenter's The Thing and put a lot of though and effort into this movie in order to make it tie nicely to the events of the other movie, and to put the same details from the Norwegian camp into this one. The director had a tough task of both borrowing elements from Carpenter's film and staying close to the basic structure and story, but also making it new and different, so that fans of the 1982 film would want to watch this one and not see a less-good exact copy. I think the director pulled this off fairly well. He found the right balance between old and new imo. I won't go into detail about exactly what was old-ish and new-ish in the movie, as this might be kind of a spoiler and ruin your experience a little bit (if you're reading this and have not seen this movie). Now, let's talk more about this movie. The cast does a good job and the performances are mostly convincing. A bit more character development would not have hurt, though. The tone of the movie (music, atmosphere, tension), while not as effective as the 1982 film, is still there and works quite well. The story, plot, and especially the pacing was handled really well imo. Speaking about plot, there are some plot holes and illogical situations in the movie, which at times took me a bit out of the movie. The creature designs were cool, but they are mostly CGI, and while the CGI is fine for the most part, it relies a bit too much on it, and in a few scenes it looks rather bad. The CGI was especially noticeable in the end, and even though I liked the ending into the credits, the 5-10 minutes before that was handled a bit sloppily and was quite predictable. My main complaints of this movie are the lack of character development, the over-reliance on CGI, some plot holes/illogical situations, and the 5-10 minutes before the ending credits. But, overall this movie is as I said before, a good movie. I recommend it both to the fans of John Carpenter's 1982 The Thing so that they can see what happened before that movie, and to the people who have not seen that movie, so that they can first watch this one, then watch Carpenter's :)… Expand
1 of 1 users found this helpful10
All this user's reviews
8
audreythomas25Feb 24, 2016
The fact that The Thing falls flat is proof positive that unlike the film's industrious alien, parasitic remakes can't easily carbon copy the host.

Watch this movie onlineThe fact that The Thing falls flat is proof positive that unlike the film's industrious alien, parasitic remakes can't easily carbon copy the host.

Watch this movie online http://www.watchfree.to/watch-13fe1d-The-Thing-movie-online-free-putlocker.html… Expand
1 of 1 users found this helpful10
All this user's reviews
3
RyanPrattOct 21, 2011
Skip-it - Even though John Carpenter hasn't made a good film since the 90s, his early-80s version of this film about "things" buried in the ice is 10x better than this remake.
8 of 10 users found this helpful82
All this user's reviews
4
andischatzOct 27, 2011
So much potential, so sadly wasted. There was nothing original in this film whatsoever (I know it's a remake of a remake, but is it too much to expect some new ideas anyway?), it was completely predictable and obvious. From "shock" moments toSo much potential, so sadly wasted. There was nothing original in this film whatsoever (I know it's a remake of a remake, but is it too much to expect some new ideas anyway?), it was completely predictable and obvious. From "shock" moments to monster sounds, nothing came as a surprise. If you've seen the trailer, you can skip the movie. Plot and logic holes throughout and there isn't even any comic relief. It's a good thing they kept it relatively short, so at least it isn't boring. My recommendation: Watch something else.… Expand
6 of 8 users found this helpful62
All this user's reviews
2
TastyJamProjectJul 31, 2012
This remake/prequel/sequel/I don't know what the hell fails on so many levels. I loathe remakes, I think they're unoriginal, insulting and a waste of time - however, this originally pulled me in, and I liked the notion that they wouldn't tryThis remake/prequel/sequel/I don't know what the hell fails on so many levels. I loathe remakes, I think they're unoriginal, insulting and a waste of time - however, this originally pulled me in, and I liked the notion that they wouldn't try and completely copy one of the best horror films of all time, (John Carpenter's "The Thing" is second only to the best horror film of all time, "Alien"), and instead try and fit in with the story. However, this film tries to copy the original, (and yes I realize Carpenter's was a remake of "The Thing from Another World," which itself was a screen adaptation of "Who Goes There?" but Carpenters still stands as superior). We get scenes of testing to see who is an alien, but instead of a logical blood test they have a "filling test" wherein if someone doesn't have fillings, it automatically makes them an alien. As well plot holes abounded, the lead actress was mediocre, (especially when acting with an amazing supporting cast), and the tension rises but never reaches a real climax. In addition, it's sad when a remake has poorer FX than the 1982 film it's based off of... But that in and of itself says something about CGI versus real effects. Overall, it could have been a rare remake/sequel that could have been at least fun and entertaining. This is boring, gross and most of all - mediocre. Don't waste your time.… Expand
3 of 4 users found this helpful31
All this user's reviews
7
mrxdaveOct 21, 2011
I had low expectations, but was pleasantly surprised. Most of the suspense and science of the first film was replaced with action - but it was still a good solid film in its own right. The character development was also a little lacking - butI had low expectations, but was pleasantly surprised. Most of the suspense and science of the first film was replaced with action - but it was still a good solid film in its own right. The character development was also a little lacking - but still believable. The things were suitably CGI.......and not quite as believable.… Expand
2 of 3 users found this helpful21
All this user's reviews
9
xXRenTyrellXxOct 16, 2011
I think this prequel stayed true to the Carpenter version. I have to say that before this movie, I never heard of "The Thing" (1982). While I read up on this one some more, I figured out it was a prequel to the 1982 original. I was veryI think this prequel stayed true to the Carpenter version. I have to say that before this movie, I never heard of "The Thing" (1982). While I read up on this one some more, I figured out it was a prequel to the 1982 original. I was very interested to see it. I watched the Carpenter version (for the first time) after watching "The Thing" (2011, prequel) And I loved it.

It really felt like I was watching the sequel. The film makers of "The Thing" (2011) made it so well, that it really made the Carpenter version feel like a sequel, even though it was made in the 80's. Excellent work.

Acting performances were great,, especially Mary Elizabeth Winstead (love her!) It's obvious she has an incredible career ahead of her. If you like horror films, I think you're in for a real treat with this one. Fans of the original SHOULD not be disappointed.… Expand
2 of 3 users found this helpful21
All this user's reviews
9
AceAlexOct 16, 2011
I would just like to point out first that I have seen the John Carpenter version. I thought this was great movie overall to both fans of the original and to newcomers. It does a great job at pleasing both. The actors and actresses did a fineI would just like to point out first that I have seen the John Carpenter version. I thought this was great movie overall to both fans of the original and to newcomers. It does a great job at pleasing both. The actors and actresses did a fine job in my opinion which is just my opinion. The only complaint I really have for the movie is some minor plot holes with this movie and the second and the use of CGIs. I don't think they were bad just overused. I preferred the original use of suspense.… Expand
2 of 3 users found this helpful21
All this user's reviews
4
AramisgOct 14, 2011
I am a huge fan of Carpenter's 29 yr old remake of The Thing. After reading about Heijningen archeological approach to making this prequel I was exited to see his film. Unfortunately this movie suffers from hasty pacing, poor characterI am a huge fan of Carpenter's 29 yr old remake of The Thing. After reading about Heijningen archeological approach to making this prequel I was exited to see his film. Unfortunately this movie suffers from hasty pacing, poor character development and insulting plot holes. Unlike Carpenter's Thing, this creature attacks without provocation, often at times that are not in it's best interest for survival. Early on in the film The Thing causes a fully operational helicopter to crash while it is on board and it's host isn't even suspected. Good job Heijningen. I won't go into the other numerous & obvious plot holes out of respect for those who want to see this movie. Another disappointing feature of this prequel is that for all the effort that is put into making it congruent with Carpenter's movie, they change some very obvious events for no good or interesting reason. Remember watching the Norwegians using thermite charges to blow away the ice from the wrecked spaceship in Carpenter's movie? Thats not what happens in this prequel. I'm giving this movie a 4 because it does have some redeeming qualities. There is an amusing part where you get to hear The Thing observe the main protagonists cleverness. Also, whoever worked on The Thing's design put a lot of love into making it look great. Ultimately though this is just not the thinking persons Thing, for that stick with Carpenter.… Expand
10 of 16 users found this helpful106
All this user's reviews
9
HellionOct 17, 2011
Been a horror buff for many years and know what to look for in these sorts of films. In this case The Thing is one of my favorites and the script, setting, creature, etc is just pristine. Seeing this prequel, I went in with skepticism becauseBeen a horror buff for many years and know what to look for in these sorts of films. In this case The Thing is one of my favorites and the script, setting, creature, etc is just pristine. Seeing this prequel, I went in with skepticism because a lot of the time these films are harsh knock offs copying from the original. Well it does in some places but changes the subjects it gets it right, plays it safe, which is good because the original is a classic. Script is of course weak, weaker then the original but turned out to be excellent, well done special effects and creepy atmosphere. I really liked Mary Elizabeth.. I thought by the end she almost came off as a Ripley like character. Hoping it does well enough to get a sequel to that side of the story. I won't spoil anything but the ending I really enjoyed.. too many happy endings nowadays but this one was good. My brother and I enjoyed it so much might just see it again. My only points would be to improve the script, give Mary more speaking parts and maybe flesh her out a bit more.. only disappointment was the final creature, just was silly having the guys face plastered over it.. but just a nit pick more then anything. Great film and thats saying a lot since a lot of the horror flicks lately have sucked.… Expand
3 of 5 users found this helpful32
All this user's reviews
10
MuxikaOct 14, 2011
How do you replicate the horror of John Carpenterâ
10 of 20 users found this helpful1010
All this user's reviews
9
HeaviermetalOct 15, 2011
Truly a movie made for the fans of "The Thing' and I am one of those huge fans. Very well put together movie, a bit predictable for me and some very minor things here and there I would have liked to have seen better but overall, a solidTruly a movie made for the fans of "The Thing' and I am one of those huge fans. Very well put together movie, a bit predictable for me and some very minor things here and there I would have liked to have seen better but overall, a solid prequel. I would have rated the movie a 10 if it weren't for over use of CGI. ( Not terrible, but the CG still takes you out of the immersion of the film.) Highly recommend this to anyone seeking a good October thrill movie or fans of the thing.… Expand
4 of 8 users found this helpful44
All this user's reviews
4
asjklasOct 17, 2011
While it has its faithful and clever scenes, The Thing is another horror remake full of mindless boo-scares and CGI that's never as effective as the original -- and in this case, John Carpenter's superior 1982 version.
4 of 8 users found this helpful44
All this user's reviews
4
MarcDoyleOct 18, 2011
I had high hopes for this film after having enjoyed the Kurt Russel - John Carpenter flick. It's not terrible, but it's a criminal waste of two great actors - Mary Elizabeth Winstead and Joel Edgerton. When you get people like these twoI had high hopes for this film after having enjoyed the Kurt Russel - John Carpenter flick. It's not terrible, but it's a criminal waste of two great actors - Mary Elizabeth Winstead and Joel Edgerton. When you get people like these two signing on the dotted line to act in your picture, you start taking the whole project more seriously instead of creating a massive tech demo. It's certainly interesting, but how many more movies can we make about the isolation of a science lab in Antarctica? Not many. The most dramatic part of the film takes place during the end credits - when the link this film with the Carpenter film. The music creates wonderful tension at that point. If you're a horror fan, you'll probably like it for what it's worth, but to give it an honest assessment on the 0 - 10 scale, I have to rate it a 4.… Expand
2 of 4 users found this helpful22
All this user's reviews
8
drmOct 15, 2011
Ok. First thing's first (no pun intended). I am a huge fan of the previous two iterations of this movie. That being said, I thought this was a pretty decent addition to the franchise. it wasn't amazing, but it didn't suck either. I canOk. First thing's first (no pun intended). I am a huge fan of the previous two iterations of this movie. That being said, I thought this was a pretty decent addition to the franchise. it wasn't amazing, but it didn't suck either. I can definitely see that Matthijs van Heijningen is a meticulous fan of the John Carpenter version. His attention to detail is really quite stunning. Mary Elizabeth Winstead is very good in this. I think she probably is a far better actress than the script allowed her to be. Can't wait to see what she pops up in next. The Thing itself was technically good. Nice and creepy, but still "computer creepy". There really is no substitute for real goddamn make up effects and prosthetics. There is nothing as scary as Rick Baker's dog transformation scene, in the 82 version, in this movie. Why? Because it was really there, and you got the added benefit of an actor truly interacting with something terrifying. I digress. Also, design-wise, it seems to me that too many people in the CG world are being pooped out on a conveyor belt, thinking that in order to make something creepy, you just need to throw tentacles, a crab claw, and a lamprey mouth on it. These are all terrestrial structures (as in, found here, on Earth). The Thing is an alien. See the problem? The Rick Baker stuff uses all of that imagery too, but there's a whole lot more imagination going on there. Aspects of this Thing's creature design seemed culled directly from a Resident Evil game. Some have brought up the tired old, "Americans don't do subtitles", or the even more specious, "All Norwegians look a like" crap, but none of that is responsible for my blasé score. It is more based on a lack of design creativity, some cumbersome dialog, and some awkward direction, that really prevented this from being the home run it should of been. Did I have fun watching it? You bet your ass I did. Would I watch it again? If it was on TV I would. And really, you do have to give it to Matthijs for putting everything back the way he found it. On that point, he did an exceptional job.… Expand
2 of 4 users found this helpful22
All this user's reviews
7
DarkCriticOct 16, 2011
The Thing is a prequel to the original 1982 version by John Carpenter and it's done pretty well in good expectations. First, The Thing retells the story takes place in Antarctica in 1982 were scientists found the alien spacecraft in the ice.The Thing is a prequel to the original 1982 version by John Carpenter and it's done pretty well in good expectations. First, The Thing retells the story takes place in Antarctica in 1982 were scientists found the alien spacecraft in the ice. When the scientists discover the alien, it release out from the ice and the alien spreads everywhere to everyone 's inside their bodies. It was the same story just like the original one, but in the different way. Second, The Thing has decent characters in prequel. The paleontologist scientist Kate Lloyd (Mary Elizabeth Winstead), American pilot Sam Carter (Joel Edgerton), and other scientists play by many roles that are from Norweigian. The actors did pretty well, but Winstead did very good as the scientist and I like it when she's brave while she using the flamethrower to melt the aliens. Finally, The Thing has special effects to make it good, but sometimes it's a little bit different from the original. The effects are pretty good and the CG aliens are okay, but sometimes it will be better that they stick it the original were the effects that are made by in the 80's that is in stop motion scenes.
In my opinion, The Thing is pretty good and done perfectly to the original which is not a reboot, it's a prequel were they started the beginning until the next movie, so enjoy it!… Expand
1 of 2 users found this helpful11
All this user's reviews
8
vernOct 16, 2011
In comparison to most of the recent remakes/prequels of the past few years (When a Stranger Calls(2006), Prom Night (2008), Halloween (2007), Friday the 13th (2009), A Nightmare on Elm Street (2010)), The Thing (2011) is one of the best. InIn comparison to most of the recent remakes/prequels of the past few years (When a Stranger Calls(2006), Prom Night (2008), Halloween (2007), Friday the 13th (2009), A Nightmare on Elm Street (2010)), The Thing (2011) is one of the best. In terms of the script, acting, and scares, this film beats out all of the films previously listed. The script (although derivative) does its job, and also has a few clever twists and turns as it goes along. Mary Elizabeth Winstead gives a very good lead performance in a character role akin to Ellen Ripley in "Aliens", and carries the movie well as it progresses. And the scares are well-timed and effectively built up with suspense. That is not to say this film is as good as the original (it isn't). But it is a clever companion piece to Carpenter's near masterpiece from 1982. Most fans of the original will appreciate this one, and will enjoy spotting things as they fall into place. Newcomers may also like this one for it's delivery of good scares and a decent story (something that is rare in most modern horror cinema). Definitely worth checking out, especially during this time of year.… Expand
1 of 2 users found this helpful11
All this user's reviews
3
SGRevanNov 5, 2011
I had to see a new movie last night and decided to go for the remake of 'The Thing'. Basicly I'm disappointed... Since I do like horror movies, this one failed to impress me. You have almost no connection to any of the characters, and theI had to see a new movie last night and decided to go for the remake of 'The Thing'. Basicly I'm disappointed... Since I do like horror movies, this one failed to impress me. You have almost no connection to any of the characters, and the horror is overdone imo. The story is too plain and simple for my tastes. My advice? There are other and better horror's out there, ones with better story and characters. Keep your money unless graphical horror is your only reason to see a movie.… Expand
1 of 2 users found this helpful11
All this user's reviews
9
LadiesMan32Oct 15, 2011
Great movie was really surprised. My expectations were quite low for this movie. I am a really big fan of Carpenter's the thing, and was worried that this new prequel would drop the bomb and ruin the name. But it didnt, this movie was muchGreat movie was really surprised. My expectations were quite low for this movie. I am a really big fan of Carpenter's the thing, and was worried that this new prequel would drop the bomb and ruin the name. But it didnt, this movie was much better than i expected. Carpenter's movie is still better but this movie is worth the watch too. Acting, story, effects, atmosphere were all really good.… Expand
1 of 2 users found this helpful11
All this user's reviews
7
BartOct 16, 2011
Not bad, and a lot of fun, but not as good as the Kurt Russel version, which I think had a lot more suspense. I did like the way they payed detail into the original, with the events and plot leading right into the beginning it. When on DVDNot bad, and a lot of fun, but not as good as the Kurt Russel version, which I think had a lot more suspense. I did like the way they payed detail into the original, with the events and plot leading right into the beginning it. When on DVD it will make for a good double feature. I just wish they had a little stronger script, as I left the theatre think it was good but with some better writing it could have been great.… Expand
1 of 2 users found this helpful11
All this user's reviews
7
BubblegumImpOct 17, 2011
The Thing's biggest issue is that it comes across as being redundant. This prequel lacks alot of the subtlety and tension which made the 1982 flick such a cult classic. It also doesn't help that the CGI looks decidedly cheap.
1 of 2 users found this helpful11
All this user's reviews
7
wulfensteinNov 11, 2011
Someone plz plz tell me what is hollywood doing...They FUBAR everything with there remakes and going backwords in the squeals thank you George Lucas with your 1,2,3 now everyone doing it..I am and still is the biggest fan of the 80's kirkSomeone plz plz tell me what is hollywood doing...They FUBAR everything with there remakes and going backwords in the squeals thank you George Lucas with your 1,2,3 now everyone doing it..I am and still is the biggest fan of the 80's kirk russell The thing and also seen the original black and white...I so happy when they made a game which was a sequel..Was really hoping that this would set the ball rolling for the movie...But no they make prequel yes it's fine but those who new to it think o different and when I have to explain to them no this is a prequel not a remake of the first movie god thank you hollywood and your dumb ass ideas plus they didn't really make a effort to change the movie title they could have called it The Thing first contact, or the thing new life something just to introduce people if they haven't heard of the movie before...really it's not that hard..they should have had john carpenter back on the wheel it was his ship so let him be able to produce a sequels..… Expand
1 of 2 users found this helpful11
All this user's reviews
5
NinjaSniperJimNov 28, 2011
Dissapointing. Definately not as good as the original classic. Just watch the original instead. This movie doesnt't have much plot and the Characters and story are forgettable.
1 of 2 users found this helpful11
All this user's reviews
7
FyreStromOct 16, 2011
I've seen the original 30+ times...been my favourite since I was a kid, though this interpretation / prequel is a tad weak in some areas...it was a good film. Well worth your $10 unless you go there to compare directly to John Carpenter'sI've seen the original 30+ times...been my favourite since I was a kid, though this interpretation / prequel is a tad weak in some areas...it was a good film. Well worth your $10 unless you go there to compare directly to John Carpenter's classic...I have been anticipating this movie for a year and got what I expected...a decent horror flick!… Expand
1 of 2 users found this helpful11
All this user's reviews
8
jlplattenOct 18, 2011
I was very surprised on this prequel. From the critic reviews, I thought this movie was going to stink. I was pleasantly surprised. This review is coming from a huge fan of the John Carpenter original. Make sure you watch the original, it'llI was very surprised on this prequel. From the critic reviews, I thought this movie was going to stink. I was pleasantly surprised. This review is coming from a huge fan of the John Carpenter original. Make sure you watch the original, it'll make the prequel much more enjoyable.… Expand
1 of 2 users found this helpful11
All this user's reviews
3
dillingerukNov 28, 2011
The original had the 80's synth soundtrack,the isolation of the artic base,madness and the paranoia that made the human side more scarier than the thing.
They should only make a movie based on a classic if they really believe they canThe original had the 80's synth soundtrack,the isolation of the artic base,madness and the paranoia that made the human side more scarier than the thing.
They should only make a movie based on a classic if they really believe they can deliver.The acting is poor in places with above average cgi.
30 days of night is a much better film than this For isolation and tension.If you want a good reboot of a classic horror watch the crazies!… Expand
1 of 2 users found this helpful11
All this user's reviews
2
Ven-WedeFeb 6, 2012
The first question that must be asked of this uncalled for remake (they call it a prequel, but let's not kid ourselves) is "to whom is this film aimed?". The answer cannot be for nostalgic fans of John Carpenter's film, as they will not inThe first question that must be asked of this uncalled for remake (they call it a prequel, but let's not kid ourselves) is "to whom is this film aimed?". The answer cannot be for nostalgic fans of John Carpenter's film, as they will not in any way be satisfied with this monstrosity. So perhaps it is being made for new horror fans that may have missed out on the 'original'. Well, even if this were the case, they too would be disappointed, as the horror here is just a mix of jump scares and action sequences. All of the tension and psychological fear is replaced with contradiction and inconsistency, and the memorable characters and brutally shocking Thing encounters are replaced with walking monster fodder and CGI assery. Nothing in this film makes the slightest bit of sense, and what is perhaps the most unbelievably DISASTROUS alteration to the formula is just how aware everyone is to the existence of an alien being. The movie's plot relies on the idea that The Thing is nothing more than a bug from Outer Space. Some piss-poor dialogue and offensively blatant direction (point to your teeth so that the stupid audience know what you are holding are teeth!) lead to this being one giant warbling beast of pathetic cinema. Fans of John Carpenter's film should stay well clear of this stinker.… Expand
1 of 2 users found this helpful11
All this user's reviews
1
StarlessBBOct 22, 2012
An insult to the greatest horror film and the movie with the best special effects of all time.
The fact that they went with ugly, fake looking computer animated **** instead of the absolutely breathtaking practical effects of the CarpenterAn insult to the greatest horror film and the movie with the best special effects of all time.
The fact that they went with ugly, fake looking computer animated **** instead of the absolutely breathtaking practical effects of the Carpenter film is disgusting. What a piece of garbage, they should be ashamed they even made this… Expand
1 of 2 users found this helpful11
All this user's reviews
6
jordiJan 27, 2013
This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Esperaba mucho más. Interesante la parte en que descubrimos que sus celulas replican las humanas, pero me cuesta de creer que en ningún momento piensen en explorar la nave extraterrestre.… Expand
1 of 2 users found this helpful11
All this user's reviews
1
oliver1hFeb 20, 2013
See Hollywood people...? This is what happens when you remake a movie that was perfect on its own right! This remake was unnecessary. John Carpenters version was great (rare example of a good remake), because it could create a suspenseful andSee Hollywood people...? This is what happens when you remake a movie that was perfect on its own right! This remake was unnecessary. John Carpenters version was great (rare example of a good remake), because it could create a suspenseful and isolated atmosphere. What does this movie has? Mary Elizabeth Winstead and other good looking actors...Maybe this will do the job for a certain audience but not for me.… Expand
1 of 2 users found this helpful11
All this user's reviews
1
TheRubixGamerJun 21, 2013
OH DEAR...This movie is a mess! I really don't know where to start with this because there are lots of "things" wrong with this movie. For starters the CGI is horrible and I really hate it but the the monster design is pretty cool. TheOH DEAR...This movie is a mess! I really don't know where to start with this because there are lots of "things" wrong with this movie. For starters the CGI is horrible and I really hate it but the the monster design is pretty cool. The biggest problems with this movie is everyone dies in one scene!? Carpenter did it slowly and kept you thinking about who is infected or not but this movie is like "HERP DERP EVERYONE DEAD" Another "thing" is that people get infected FOR NO REASON!? You don't see them have any contact with the thing at all but yet some how they end up infected? There was even a scene where a guy just disappeared and you never see him for the rest of the movie!

This film is a huge mess and the ending is really disappointing!… Expand
1 of 2 users found this helpful11
All this user's reviews
3
DraythusSep 19, 2014
My friend and I were getting into this film, thinking it was a horror flick. And it was horror. A horror to watch this predictable piece of garbage. I really liked the original and thought this one was also good. Nah, it wasn`t.
My friendMy friend and I were getting into this film, thinking it was a horror flick. And it was horror. A horror to watch this predictable piece of garbage. I really liked the original and thought this one was also good. Nah, it wasn`t.
My friend and I were mindlessly predicting things that could happen and were right every freaking time.
That wouldn`t be that bad if the monster or the animations would look good, but they really didn`t. At some points i thought I was watching Troll 2. (They`re eating her! Oh my Gooooood!)
Overall, this movie had bad animation, actors that couldn`t resist to smile even in the worst situations, a predictable story and no horror elements at all. There were like 2 jumpscares in the whole movie and one of them is just one guy saying Boo!
So yeah, I wouldn`t recommend it.… Expand
1 of 2 users found this helpful11
All this user's reviews
0
Ptoto1474Nov 7, 2021
This is stupid unrealistic inconsistent **** . Everything in this movie goes out of its way to have drama shots and dialogue, which would never happen in real life. I can't believe even after 20 years, it still sucks.

Find an alien frozen inThis is stupid unrealistic inconsistent **** . Everything in this movie goes out of its way to have drama shots and dialogue, which would never happen in real life. I can't believe even after 20 years, it still sucks.

Find an alien frozen in ice? Better take it before contacting anyone and put it inside where the ice can melt for some reason!

Doing an autopsy on an alien? Better only use short gloves to be protected. They couldn't be bothered to put on a mask, yet a full-body suit and clean room. Then they start casually talking to each other over the literal alien body that could carry a lot of viruses like nothing.

Alien creature trying to kill someone next to two people with weapons that can kill it? The two people stand there in shock and don't do anything at all, even after the same person kills a man in an instant.

I could go on, because the movie's whole plot is based on how garbage the writers are, I'm going to say every scene but one in this movie is -5/10. The best scene in this movie is the three second one where the guy looks for his flashlight on his person. I'm not joking. The scene is around 1:00:29.

The saddest part about this is that the plot, scenes, everything had to go through multiple people beforehand. The characters in this movie literally committed a crime against humanity. How did nobody at the studio not see how stupid this is?… Expand
1 of 2 users found this helpful11
All this user's reviews
10
gimmedatsammichOct 14, 2011
I have seen a lot of horror movies. I've seen hundreds of slasher, alien, ghost, vampire, and zombie movies. It is my favorite genre. However, they stopped scaring me a long time ago. That doesn't mean I don't enjoy them anymore, but theyI have seen a lot of horror movies. I've seen hundreds of slasher, alien, ghost, vampire, and zombie movies. It is my favorite genre. However, they stopped scaring me a long time ago. That doesn't mean I don't enjoy them anymore, but they have lost that ability to make me sink into my seat and cover my eyes in horror. Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not saying this movie did that to me, but it was the first to have an actual EFFECT on me in a long, long time. It hurts my pride to say this...but I was actually frightened during a scene 3/4ths of the way through this movie. This scene, which I will say nothing about, scared the piss out of me. It was the best thing I've seen in a horror movie in 30 years, since Jack Nicholson's descent into madness in The Shining. Think I'm exaggerating? I'm not. This movie was superb. The acting was uniformly terrific and convincing, the effects were splendidly grotesque, and the pacing was brilliant. The terror just mounts and mounts until the horrifying conclusion. Please, take the advice of a horror aficianado: go see this movie...and stay through the credits.… Expand
6 of 14 users found this helpful68
All this user's reviews
9
ArkonBladeFeb 2, 2012
i was very pleased with this film . i loved the 1982 version of The Thing it was ground breaking and the effect where and still are amazing . This is not a Remake like it almost would seem by the name . It is in fact a prequel set just beforei was very pleased with this film . i loved the 1982 version of The Thing it was ground breaking and the effect where and still are amazing . This is not a Remake like it almost would seem by the name . It is in fact a prequel set just before the events with kurt russell, now having seen the 1982 version about 10x i kinda know whats gona happen for the most part in this film , now that doesnt mean there wasnt alot to enjoy , seeing cool new versions of the thing (which are very well done) , and still being in suspense on who is infected and who isn't. they stayed very true to leading up to every thing in carpenters version of the thing . the only thing that could have made this a much better film is if this was a sequel and we got to find out what happend to kurt russell and kieth david... maybe a trilogy?... hopefully. still though silid movie all around.… Expand
2 of 5 users found this helpful23
All this user's reviews
0
Behemoth1993Jun 11, 2012
Now my friends I am going to be very frank with you. I am a HUGE; I MEAN HUGE fan of the "The Thing" both the 1950's "The Thing Form Another World" and MY ALL TIME FAVORITE "John Carpenters The Thing". Both of which put you in a situationNow my friends I am going to be very frank with you. I am a HUGE; I MEAN HUGE fan of the "The Thing" both the 1950's "The Thing Form Another World" and MY ALL TIME FAVORITE "John Carpenters The Thing". Both of which put you in a situation where you can do nothing but sit and wait for death or do everything in your power to stop it. The 1950's the thing was much different then John carpenters and in all fairness was the best of the three. The black and white set for a creepy yet realistic feel making you visualize most of the gruesome and scientific aspects on your own; where as the John Carpenters The thing was a survival horror in which you can put yourself in the shows of the amazing R. J. Mcready (aka Kurt "Motherfucking" Russle. It gave you beautiful visuals, plausible science banter, and the fear of the unknown. This movie failed in every area its predecessors amazed. "The Thing" in this movie felt more like a necromorph from the fantastic survival horror Dead Space and is not as appealing. The story seems to push its self through rather then flow as John Carpenters did and did not allow for great character development like the 1950's original did. The characters seem like actors and not like people at all in the sense that you can tell this is a movie. The plot is filled with holes and seems like he had great ideas that didn't really link so he just put bits and pieces together to try and make it flow but it was truly just all over the place and unequivocally bland. For those of us who have seen the two predecessor's in there glory know that what made us so enthralled with the cinematic extravaganza wast he fact that the alien was unpredictable; and in John Carpenters case the unknowing of who or what the creature was or its origin was just amazing and full of spontaneity. This was not achieved in the new version and kills the movie right from the start. From the start you know the alien has a form. This in its self left me with a retched feeling that the rest of the movie the alien will not think analytically, showing its superior knowledge, but that it is thinking more forceful and bold leaving no startling shocking feeling but instead you get a mundane adrenaline like nausea that you would rather skip then continue on with. The movie is no Alfred **** or Guillermo Del Toro master piece and is not even worth paying twenty dollars for the blu-ray with a digital copy. this movie is the type you rent because you watched everything else on netflix or one of those movies you can pick up for five dollars at from a college student with a stand trying to sell dvds for money in Manhattan. I am both appalled they would butcher my favorite movie, but i am even more furious that they would dare, I MEAN DARE, try to link this to the John Carpenters version by trying to tie in Kurt Russel in a sequel or trilogy. This is movie for people with a low IQ and who care very little for the science fiction genre and just watch to see an "Alien". Skip this if you watched the predecessors they are WAY WAY BETTER and deserve more effort to watch then this garbage. Skip this if you just want a new movie and want to experience a good sci-fi because this if far from good and i can suggest way better movies for cheaper like IRobot, Gattaca, or The Fifth Element. Stay way from this if you are even given it for free because it is a glimpse of what will come in the future. That no matter how much the budgets have grown by, and how advanced the technology may be that is utilized, that in the end movies such as this atrocity are going to be made because consumers are dumber, easier to please, and easily manipulated. All those foolish neanderthals who thought this was good have no credibility with me and obviously have no taste. Its true some people are just harsh and most people are looking for simplicity, but my friends use your minds and see this in nothing short of crap. In the words of my lord James Rolfe (aka the Angry Video Game Nerd) "WHAT WERE THEY THINKING"… Expand
2 of 5 users found this helpful23
All this user's reviews
10
beavermaticOct 15, 2011
Awesome prequel... graphics up to snuff. Actors were decent. Score wasn't too shabby, and the action/intensity was all there. Storyline got better and better as it went along. Atmosphere was just right for the style of the story, which doesAwesome prequel... graphics up to snuff. Actors were decent. Score wasn't too shabby, and the action/intensity was all there. Storyline got better and better as it went along. Atmosphere was just right for the style of the story, which does differ slightly from Carpenter's version. Definitely a great expansion to the THE THING universe.

Think of it as Jurassic Park + Aliens + X-files + Predator + The Thing (1982) + Dawn of the Dead = The Thing 2011

I see a lot of people trying to turn this into some sort of competition with the '82 John Carpenter release I mean, seriously, look at what people are saying they are trying to top. Carpenter as director/producer, Morricone for the score, and actors like Russell and Brimley? Seriously? You will never, ever, ever top that... no matter how much money you have, how hard you try. It will never be undone because it was all the right timing and magic to make that a timeless masterpiece that just can't be beaten.

Instead, the prequel focuses on not trying to outdo Carpenter's, but expand on it... and it does it amazingly well. A very worthy prequel indeed! I just think to many people are trying to toss the two films into competition, when the production and development teams themselves have stated they were not attempting to "beat" carpenters masterpiece, but fill in the blanks and give a very detailed back story.

Carpenters version is thriller, panic, and group fear with some action.

STRIKE's version was action, chaos, anxiety and the tragedy that occurred leading up to the events of Carpenters with a far more descriptive background on the thing itself... yet still not unveiling all the secrets of this unusual alien monster.

And for the effort, and one happy fan, I still say it deserves right around a 9/10. Especially considering prequels and additions and remakes today... this one stands out like the "dawn of the dead" STRIKE update.

Very entertaining, and the ending scene during the credits really reached out and touched my nostalgic heart... the crowd actually cheered. I took friends to see it on release night tonight as well, and all 6 of them... and this is a first, came out loving it. 2 of them had not even seen the Carpenter version. Now that's impressive!… Expand
2 of 6 users found this helpful24
All this user's reviews
0
LoucetiosFeb 1, 2012
Awful, just finished watching it.

Honestly it rushes through itself.. we barely have the time to get to know a characters name before **** has broken loose and everyone is dying horribly. Half the shots are just Mary Elizabeth WinsteadAwful, just finished watching it.

Honestly it rushes through itself.. we barely have the time to get to know a characters name before **** has broken loose and everyone is dying horribly.

Half the shots are just Mary Elizabeth Winstead looking worried, and the others are a few snippets of irrelevant dialogue.

Nobody seems to care that their friends are getting ripped to **** shreds. The one moment of tension where theyâ… Expand
2 of 6 users found this helpful24
All this user's reviews
6
kakupacalNov 11, 2011
A missed opportunity is the key phrase for this one. Not a terrible movie but it squanders the goodwill that the 1982 version has generated by failing to deliver the elements that have made that movie a horror classic. Wonky plot holes areA missed opportunity is the key phrase for this one. Not a terrible movie but it squanders the goodwill that the 1982 version has generated by failing to deliver the elements that have made that movie a horror classic. Wonky plot holes are tragically underdeveloped characters undercut the environment and atmosphere... and it's a real shame that so many opportunities for physical effects were tossed aside to make way for noisy cgi that fails to be very convincing.

The acting is solid and the sets are nicely reminiscent of the earlier movie so this one is definitely worth a rental but keep your expectations firmly in check.

And one minor nitpick: why spend tens of millions of dollars on special effects if you're still going to use powdered styrofoam pellets to make your uber-fake snow flakes? Ugh...… Expand
1 of 3 users found this helpful12
All this user's reviews
6
jstrickler872Oct 14, 2011
its was the same but changed up a bit from the original. exposed to be a sequel, but felt more like it was a remake. there were so many laughable parts that shouldn't be laughable.
1 of 3 users found this helpful12
All this user's reviews
8
Knicksfan7Oct 16, 2011
This was a good creature movie. It was frightening at times, and creepy at others. I was on the edge of my seat quite a bit. It was definitely a success in explaining the original story, a great prequel. My only issue with it was the actingThis was a good creature movie. It was frightening at times, and creepy at others. I was on the edge of my seat quite a bit. It was definitely a success in explaining the original story, a great prequel. My only issue with it was the acting through different periods in the movie. The people in the film didnt seem to be too frightened or in too much of a rush to get away from this, this "thing". The acting couldve been much better, but the story, and how they went about showing what happened before the original was excellent. This movie definitely did justice to the original, and i must say, the creature(s) is one of the most frightening, and grotesque thing(s) I have ever seen in any movie prior. I only have the one criticism, and that was the acting, but other than that, this was a fantastic creature film. Frightening, creepy, on the edge of your seat fun. Whether your a huge fan of the original, or you havent even seen the original, you must see this movie. Definitely worth your time, and your money. 8/10… Expand
1 of 3 users found this helpful12
All this user's reviews
8
Sharkey1337Oct 17, 2011
I'm a huge fan of John Carpenter's "The Thing" film, so I was somewhat anxious when I heard they were doing a prequel starring the Norwegian camp seen in the first film. To my delight, the film was actually pretty decent and goes along withI'm a huge fan of John Carpenter's "The Thing" film, so I was somewhat anxious when I heard they were doing a prequel starring the Norwegian camp seen in the first film. To my delight, the film was actually pretty decent and goes along with the origal film rather nicely, aside from some glaring plot holes that don't match up with the first film. The entire acting crew does a marvelous job and the special effects are pretty nice. The film only slightly treads on rehashing scenes of the first film, the spots are few but are painfully obvious to fans. Thankfully the film forges new material on the creature, giving it a uniqueness from its predecessor. The main difference with this Thing is that it's more of a monster flick than the suspenseful horror that Carpenter delivered. It's definitely faster paced and ends sooner than you may want to, at least for me as I was really enjoying it. Hopefully we'll see an extended director's cut that delves more into suspense and story that may have been cut out. For fans of the first film, the final ending scenes are the most spectacular in linking directly into the opening of the first Thing. Recommended for horror/sci-fi fans!… Expand
1 of 3 users found this helpful12
All this user's reviews
3
freedomFriesOct 27, 2014
Fan of the original? Don't get excited. This will only disappoint you. I did give it a 6 though since it's better than most of the current monster-horror garbage. The most positive thing about this flick I can give is that it gives someFan of the original? Don't get excited. This will only disappoint you. I did give it a 6 though since it's better than most of the current monster-horror garbage. The most positive thing about this flick I can give is that it gives some effort to providing some details that are found in John Carpenter's "The Thing" the follows this movie in the world's time (though proceeds it by over 20 years and still out performs it by even more).

What you liked from John Carpenter's "The Thing" = a large and excellent cast, lots of kills, unsolved events, uncertain attempts to solve the monster mystery, and non-CGI blood baths.

What you'll get in the re-make of it's prequel (or rather the original that proceeded it) = once again a large and excellent cast, lots of kills as well, nothing like the original as far as mystery goes, attempts to solve it are too early and confident, and oh my goodness lots of the CGI... should just hire Michael Bay at this point (an exaggeration of course).

If you never saw John Carpenter's "The Thing" or if you don't mind CGI then you may enjoy this movie. Though in my opinion it is a very saw shortcoming of what could have been and probably one of many death blows to this short series likely thanks to capitalistic endeavors. It doesn't ruin Mr. Carpenter's though - if you haven't seen that don't waste your time here.

A final tear. Such a great cast with excellent potential... it's so amazing how much CGI ruins and financial gains stain a movies potential.

For those who ridicule comparing it to John Carpenter's film too, just give it up. If you're going to approach a masterpiece then you have it coming. It's a noble goal and one worth the risk of criticism - this was no achievement and deserved it's negative comments.… Expand
1 of 3 users found this helpful12
All this user's reviews
6
Andys_ReviewsOct 16, 2012
The main problem with this film is that it does nothing John Carpenter
0 of 1 users found this helpful01
All this user's reviews
4
phillyjeffApr 16, 2012
Another fine example of how computer generated effects has ruined a movie. What made the original so great was the fact you only got glimpses of the creature. Pretty much this is a poor sequel
0 of 1 users found this helpful01
All this user's reviews
5
asthobaskoroJun 18, 2012
First I haven't seen Carpenter's so I won't compare it, it's prequel after all. The Thing is an alien-horror movie but neither scary nor thrill. Mary Elizabeth Winstead even couldn't save it.
0 of 1 users found this helpful01
All this user's reviews
6
garethvkOct 14, 2011
After the success of a videogame based on the original film, rumors of a sequel arose many times but never came to fruition, with creative differences between Universal and John Carpenter cited as the main reason. It was oft-speculated thatAfter the success of a videogame based on the original film, rumors of a sequel arose many times but never came to fruition, with creative differences between Universal and John Carpenter cited as the main reason. It was oft-speculated that Carpenter made a deal to write and produce a sequel provided he got to name has director. But when he opted to name himself director the studio balked and the project fell apart. In the aftermath, rumors of a miniseries on the SyfY channel arose along with the possibility of retelling the story with 20-somethings on a tropical island but (thankfully) they never saw the light of day. Rather than do a sequel or remake, Universal opted to jump start the franchise with a prequel that covers the events leading up to the John Carpenter film. It is set in 1982 at a Norwegian research station in Antarctica shortly before the scientists make an amazing discovery. When they uncover an alien craft that had been buried in the ice for over 100,000 years, as well as a frozen crewmember from the craft, they quickly celebrate the scientific discovery of a lifetime. Kate Lloyd (Mary Elizabeth Winstead), is recruited by a famed scientist to travel to the desolate continent to research the find. Told only that they are about to research an amazing discovery, Kate and a team of specialists arrive and are absolutely stunned by the magnitude of their discovery. Kate urges caution but is overridden by the expedition leader Dr. Halvorsan (Ulrich Thomsen), who insists on taking a tissue sample of the frozen creature encassed in a block of ice. Later that evening while celebrating, the very much alive creature escapes from its icy prison and begins to systematically hunt the members of the research team. The creature is eventually trapped and burned which causes some consternation over the loss of the creature for further scientific study, but many in the camp applaud its loss after seeing firsthand the destruction it is capable of. After a bizarre series of events, Kate makes the startling discovery that the cells of the creature are able to imitate and perfectly replicate any thing that it comes in contact with. As a result, not only is the creature very much alive, but the individuals in the camp may no longer be human. Trapped in a remote location with an advancing winter storm, suspicions and paranoia go through the roof as the survivors are pitted against one another, unsure of who is still human. What follows is a high-octane adventure awash in action and grizzly special-effects as the two species are locked in the ultimate battle for survival. The film has a good supporting cast and Joel Edgerton does solid supporting work as an American helicopter pilot assigned to the camp. Eric Christian Olsen provides a steadying presence as a research assistant but his character is not as developed as it could be. It is known that he and Kate know each other but their past history is undefined which makes their relationship a bit puzzling in the film especially when the survivors begin to pick sides. While the movie is not going to make fans forget the original, it is a very worthy companion piece. As the film was winding down I found myself checking off a couple of inconsistencies with the original film, but was very pleasantly surprised when this was all explained during the end credits which perfectly synced the end of this film with the opening of John Carpenterâ… Expand
0 of 2 users found this helpful02
All this user's reviews
5
eTurkeyFeb 25, 2012
Set as a prequel to the 1982 film of the same name, "The Thing" is horror/thriller set in Antarctica which follows a team of scientists as they struggle to stay alive after unearthing an alien from another planet. Perhaps the best aspect ofSet as a prequel to the 1982 film of the same name, "The Thing" is horror/thriller set in Antarctica which follows a team of scientists as they struggle to stay alive after unearthing an alien from another planet. Perhaps the best aspect of this movie is the fear of paranoia emulating from each of the survivors as they try to determine which one of them is not human before It's too late. This flick is okay but it offers NOTHING new or exciting to the series and could almost be a remake of the original remake.… Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful01
All this user's reviews
6
BigFatFattyNov 29, 2011
Pretty good considering how much better I knew the original was going to be. In being true to the original, the director did a lot of stuff right and a lot of stuff wrong, but mostly right I suppose. The thing monsters were pretty cool andPretty good considering how much better I knew the original was going to be. In being true to the original, the director did a lot of stuff right and a lot of stuff wrong, but mostly right I suppose. The thing monsters were pretty cool and creative. There were some pretty corny moments between chacters with a few odd plot choices. Overall they did a good job here tying the prequel that didn't need to happen into the original.… Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful01
All this user's reviews
6
BuzterOneJan 20, 2012
This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. I love J.Carpenter's The Thing and i saw it with an open mind. If you think this CGI effects are better then the 82 version you're .. i dont even have the words for it. And how it just exploads all the f******* time in this movie. It looks like unfinished effects in almost all scenes. And if this movie didnt have the text: "1982 Antarctica" at the beginning i would never .. f*** it! I cant buy that. They listen to "Men at work" but they dress like the 90s.. nice cover up movie. It feelt like the Elm Street remake at some points. Many pointless jump scares and they skipped character development. The only one i liked was Lars but he was outknocked 2/3 of the movie by Adebisi from Oz. But i liked the joke in the beginning and i never heard that before. They could have built more suspense between the US and NOR people cuz they dont realize what they are saying in some scenes. It was an "Avarage" horror movie. Nothing more and nothing less in my eyes.… Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful01
All this user's reviews
6
zoezoezoeFeb 13, 2012
I loved the 1950's version, put off watching the John Carpenter 1982 version for a long time (because I knew I would get scared) but I was eager to see what the recent prequel to The Thing would be like! Would it be frightening like the 80sI loved the 1950's version, put off watching the John Carpenter 1982 version for a long time (because I knew I would get scared) but I was eager to see what the recent prequel to The Thing would be like! Would it be frightening like the 80s film? Or just another sad excuse for a film because they wanted to pump out a prequel/re-make? That seems to be the go these days.

BUT while laughing at some of the puppets and special effects used through the film, it was about as good as any alien prequel was going to get! They built up a good detailed story that led straight into the original film, the Norwegian characters were played by Norwegian men and not American actors with crappy accents and they kept the right amount of horror without making me hide under the doona more than once! They may have gone a little overboard with the puppets used to replicate the aliens emerging from the human hosts, but I'm unsure whether it was purposefully done to look like the 80's version or not. They were very well done, but they just made me giggle.

John Carpenters The Thing is a bit of a cult classic among sci-fi lovers, but this one doesn't quite take the cake. It's a good film but has nothing on its original counterpart. I recommend watching it though because, well, how else do you know how the aliens came to be in the snow...… Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful01
All this user's reviews
5
Midge115Feb 26, 2012
Let me just start off this review by laying something down: It is impossible to talk about this film without mentioning John Carpenter's version. This movie is a prequel and it must be compared to what was on the table in 1982. The Thing isLet me just start off this review by laying something down: It is impossible to talk about this film without mentioning John Carpenter's version. This movie is a prequel and it must be compared to what was on the table in 1982. The Thing is something I was excited to see a prequel to. I saw John Carpenter's version of The Thing for the first time last August and instantly fell in love with it. Since then, I have seen the original and this prequel four times each. I have also written a short story based off of John Carpenter's version. Least to say, I'm a huge fan of the concept of "The Thing." I went into the theater expecting nothing besides amazingly horrific monsters and that is almost what I got. It was good to see The Thing have a modern prequel, but I think that the director should have stuck with what John Carpenter had done in his time. I wanted this prequel to revolutionize modern horror like John Carpenter's did back in 1982. I didn't want to see the predictable jump scares when everything gets real quiet, I didn't want to have a large cast of characters so that they could all die off. I wanted a small cast so as to understand who the characters are and to feel their fear. I wanted slow horror where the sight and sound of the Thing is so terrifying that I almost close my eyes. However, to my disappointment, I received none of these. And I don't like having to say "The Thing 2011" whenever I talk about this film. I wanted the director to come up with a new name or at least a name that included "The Thing" in it. When I wrote my short story based off of Carpenter's version, I came up with a satisfactory name in under five minutes: "The Thing Under the Ice." The director, whose name I cannot pronounce, blamed the title on "not being able to come up with one that fit." That's just ridiculous. But, I digress. Another thing I didn't like about the movie was that the Thing itself relied on stupidity. In the original, it was intelligent and knew when the best time was to transform into a horrific clawed monster. In this it did so whenever it got the chance so there could be a quick, dis-satisfactory chase scene. In fact, I didn't like the design of most of the monsters. In Carpenter's version, many of the monsters were wild looking an alien, such as the one that came out of Norris' chest in the defibrillator scene. It looked like a mini version of him and it had many spider like legs and such. No Thing in The Thing 2011 looks remotely similar to the terrifying creatures that Carpenter had. Instead it focused on the meat, claws, and teeth. The one legitimately scary Thing in this prequel is the Split Face monster. The reason this one was so scary? Its design is actually from the John Carpenter film! Its corpse is seen in the original! This speaks for itself and shows that the original had much scarier designs for its monsters, like the dog thing that still unsettles me to this day. Anyhow, there were things I enjoyed about the movie. The transformations were detailed and unnerving, and I think the use of CGI in such scenes was a good decision. No animatronics could do the kind of realistic tearing and moving around of flesh that CGI can do. I also liked how they used a combination of animatronics and CGI in certain scenes. The severed hand things are actually puppets, the Split Face thing is a combination of animatronics (the body and head) and CGI. By the way, the Split Face Thing is the creature with two faces if you didn't understand what I meant when I called it that. The scene with the Thing in the helicopter is also mostly animatronics. The special effects crew just went over everything with a fine (yet slightly unrealistic) layer of CGI. To all who complain about the CGI: We're living in a modern era and the way things are done change. Don't get me wrong, I think the puppets and animatronics in the Carpenter version are amazing and better than CGI, but even compared to today, those robots are very advanced and very expensive. Anyhow, I also liked the main female role. I think that it was a nice spin compared to the all male cast in the original. I think the actors all did their jobs very well. I especially like Joel Edgerton's acting in the scene in which he is hiding in a kitchen with a knife. He seems legitimately frightened half to death and acts it out with such finesse that I felt his fear. Overall the movie was entertaining and it's fun to watch with friends when you don't really care for too much intense involvement with the film. It lacks the extreme paranoia of the original and this film is only frightening in certain scenes. Like I said, it's fun to watch, but don't expect much.… Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful01
All this user's reviews
4
charlieW24Jul 12, 2012
Prequel to the 1982 classic 'The Thing' , is again, 'The Thing.' But this 'The Thing' is no where near as good as the original. The prequel to the cult classic feels like almost to much of a homage to the original and that its only realPrequel to the 1982 classic 'The Thing' , is again, 'The Thing.' But this 'The Thing' is no where near as good as the original. The prequel to the cult classic feels like almost to much of a homage to the original and that its only real purpose is to be a prequel, and show some things to the audience who have seen the original that will make the go 'Oh, thats why thats there.' Dont get me wrong, these are one of the best parts of the movie, seeing how objects got there and knowing where things may go next. But you constantly fet a feeling of knowing whats going to happen next, simplycause its a rehash of the original. Yes, the action pieces are entertaining and if you haven't seen the original will be very entertained and suprised at how the dreams play out. But unlike the original there is no character build, the main character will give you slight sympathy, but the rest, you do not really care what happens to them. The last 1/4 set in the spaceship feels different to the original, but it'd could've been so much more. Overall, as said this film could have been a great prequel to a great film and done so much more, but it feels wasted, as if they just decided the original 'The Thing' worked so they're gonna do it again. It's just average, but it could literally have been great.… Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful01
All this user's reviews
6
moonman1994Jul 27, 2013
Although The Thing does not live up to the 1982 movie of the same name which this film was a prequel to it definitely had its moments. The thing as a monster is still creepy and it was interesting to see the story of the previous team thatAlthough The Thing does not live up to the 1982 movie of the same name which this film was a prequel to it definitely had its moments. The thing as a monster is still creepy and it was interesting to see the story of the previous team that had discovered it and of course how that tied in to the beginning of the 1982 film. There are many things about this film that make it seem like it is a remake and that is it's downfall as a film but independent of that it was very entertaining and the there was nothing to complain about as far as acting goes.… Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful01
All this user's reviews
5
RikiegeJan 23, 2013
"The Thing" is an original and well-made film, but it makes you boring and slow.
0 of 2 users found this helpful02
All this user's reviews
6
ThegodfathersonDec 15, 2013
And therein lies the biggest issue with this Thing prequel: it asks us to believe that the same sequence of events could happen to two groups of similar people, all within a short time span (a few days). While the outcome was alwaysAnd therein lies the biggest issue with this Thing prequel: it asks us to believe that the same sequence of events could happen to two groups of similar people, all within a short time span (a few days). While the outcome was always predetermined, the filmmakers behind this new chapter missed the opportunity to put their own unique spin on how these events played into that ending. Even the end credit sequence which directly connects this film to the opening scene of Carpenter’s feels like a heavy-handed contrivance meant to remind us (in case we forgot) that this was a prequel, and not a remake. But again, like The Thing itself, it’s hard to make that distinction just by looking. Luckily for the filmmakers, the imitation of a good movie still results in a fairly suitable (if flawed) copy.… Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful01
All this user's reviews
6
MSYJan 18, 2014
It is by no means a bad movie but it does not compare to the 1982 version by any stretch of the imagination. One of the best things about Carpenter's "The Thing" was that it built up the suspense perfectly, the alien tried to blend in andIt is by no means a bad movie but it does not compare to the 1982 version by any stretch of the imagination. One of the best things about Carpenter's "The Thing" was that it built up the suspense perfectly, the alien tried to blend in and keep us guessing about who the alien has imitated, in this version it was not necessary because the alien would go on a rampage and try to kill everyone every 5 minutes.… Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful01
All this user's reviews
5
Larry223Oct 23, 2014
Uno de mis mayores problemas con la película es que el monstruo, tiene muy poca lógica. Para empezar no parece una creatura inteligente, puede actuar como alguien mas pero ataca sin mas, no responde por defenderse si no por simplemente matar.Uno de mis mayores problemas con la película es que el monstruo, tiene muy poca lógica. Para empezar no parece una creatura inteligente, puede actuar como alguien mas pero ataca sin mas, no responde por defenderse si no por simplemente matar. Además que su biología es desastrosa, tiene tentáculos, garras, manos, dientes, etc. No se como puede pilotear una nave y no creo que pueda cambiar a cualquier cosa que haya asimilado en cualquier momento. Los Xenomorfos de la serie Alien son mucho mas realista a pesar de ser algo exagerados, pero tienen toda una biología enorme respaldándolos y la cosa parece mas bien un arma biológica como el Xenomorfo pero menos realista al punto que es imposible creerse que es inteligente y real. Los personajes no están muy bien desarrollados y la mayoría están hay para morir. Los efectos se ven a veces bien y a veces mal, es algo lenta y aburrida, la cosa no es tan interesante de investigar como un Xenomorfo. No es una mala película pero no es buena tampoco. Le doy un 05/10, es promedio, poco mas poco menos.… Expand
0 of 2 users found this helpful02
All this user's reviews
5
SolInvictaMay 23, 2016
Pales in comparison to Carpenter's version with nothing new or interesting to offer of its own. Thankfully they didn't go the remake route here and instead opted for a prequel that depicted the events that happened in the Norwegian camp priorPales in comparison to Carpenter's version with nothing new or interesting to offer of its own. Thankfully they didn't go the remake route here and instead opted for a prequel that depicted the events that happened in the Norwegian camp prior to the '82 version. In that regard, this movie does an impressive job at tying some knots like showing how the two-faced thing came to be, as well as the origin of the dog from the start of Carpenter's Thing. Sadly, that's where most of the praise ends.

The Thing suffers from what plagues many horror movies these days - underwritten characters and overwhelming CGI. One of the scariest things of Carpenter's version is the practical effects of the "thing". They were horrifying. Here, all subtlety is thrown out the window in favor of huge CGI monsters. It's effectively used in a couple scenes, but the monsters lose their scariness after a while and it just becomes gratuitous. The characters themselves are paper thin. What helped make the '82 version so fantastic is that we got to know the characters, their quirks, their personalities, and we were able to empathize with their situations. In this movie, half of the characters are interchangeable. I didn't even know most of their names. And worse yet, I didn't care about any of them. There's one particular scene that calls back to Carpenter's infamous blood test scene where I realized that most of these people are all dumb and I don't care if any of them die. That's not good in a horror movie. By that point it was just a waiting game for them to get picked off one by one.

The lead performances are strong. For the material they were given, Mary Elizabeth Winstead and Joel Edgerton do a fine job. But that simply isn't enough to carry a movie like this. The Thing is supposed to be scary, and for the most part, it isn't. That's a failure by horror standards. There's some face-value entertainment to be had here, but if you're looking for a substantial prequel to Carpenter's masterpiece, you'll be sorely disappointed.… Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful01
All this user's reviews
8
PanchogulJun 8, 2020
A juzgar por los comentarios, muchos no saben los conceptos de Remake y Precuela, esta película NO es remake en lo absoluto, por lo que hacer comparaciones en base a eso es absurdo.

A mi gusto es una película muy buena y entretenida, si, laA juzgar por los comentarios, muchos no saben los conceptos de Remake y Precuela, esta película NO es remake en lo absoluto, por lo que hacer comparaciones en base a eso es absurdo.

A mi gusto es una película muy buena y entretenida, si, la película de John Carpenter es un verdadero clásico, pero esta precuela es lo suficientemente buena para defenderse por sí sola.… Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful01
All this user's reviews
9
respwnAug 7, 2021
Extremely underrated. I don't get the negative reviews. Because of them I was expecting a trash movie, but it was actually decent. Of course it's not a life changing experience, but it's incredibly true to the 80s original and acts as aExtremely underrated. I don't get the negative reviews. Because of them I was expecting a trash movie, but it was actually decent. Of course it's not a life changing experience, but it's incredibly true to the 80s original and acts as a sequel with all ties near-perfectly connected. You might argue, that some rare parts might be a little quirky and even foreseeable at times, especially if you know the original movie, but it's by far not bad at all. It's not trash and it's worth watching.… Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful01
All this user's reviews
7
kris2furMar 18, 2012
I really enjoyed this movie, I love the special effects and the varying differences with the first one. Though I have never seen it. I really went into this movie with an open mind and it was not disappointing.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
7
Kris_dDec 4, 2011
A decent movie. I'm a big fan of carpenter's original and honestly, this comes nowhere near it. The original had a much more tense feel thanks to the atmosphere and music. There was definately some suspense in this one, the gore is nice andA decent movie. I'm a big fan of carpenter's original and honestly, this comes nowhere near it. The original had a much more tense feel thanks to the atmosphere and music. There was definately some suspense in this one, the gore is nice and it was an entertaining movie. It contained too many cliché's though. Like the "evil scientist" guy that has no emotions whatsoever, except for what they found. Or the fact that they realize anyone could be the thing, yet they hang out in pairs. But i honestly enjoyed it and expected worse. It just missed the intense claustrophobic feel the first one had.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
10
explodrOct 18, 2011
This was an awesome setup for the sequel, which came out in 1982. I felt that I was horrified to my fullest amount, and I was satisfied with the ending and plot. Great movie.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
6
RtheomMay 4, 2014
Definitely a case of trying to match the original without putting effort into it. Don't get me wrong, they have a lot of little references in there, but those small items aren't what made the original great. There's so much action, there's noDefinitely a case of trying to match the original without putting effort into it. Don't get me wrong, they have a lot of little references in there, but those small items aren't what made the original great. There's so much action, there's no suspense, and while it wasn't necessarily a bad movie, it has no place with Carpenter's The Thing. If nothing else they SHOULD HAVE STAYED AWAY FROM CG! You would swear the monsters were cell drawn sometimes, they're so obviously not a real thing, and that was part of what made the original so great. You had REAL gore going on! You could almost feel it in your mouth, and that was super gross! These monsters felt like your typical Saturday Morning Cartoon aliens. If you're gonna watch this movie, make sure you see the original first.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
5
Flowerday11Dec 1, 2011
This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. The Thing prequel isn't an awful film but it does look as such compared to the near perfect John Carpenter remake. ****SPOLER ALERT****

The reason the thing (JC remake) was so tense was that it used guile and deception to intercept people on their own, wouldn't make any mistakes and you genuinely had no idea who was human and who wasn't. In this film on 3 or 4 occasions the thing actually attacks in plain sight of other people which goes against the original (JC remake). The main reason I am marking it as a 5 is because the graphics were quite shoddy, they copied quite a lot from the original (standing in a ring around the 1st burnt team member discussing wh,o or what ,they are against and that some may not be human) and it also left a MASSIVE plot hole in the end. The woman survived?!?! There were no survivors!!!!!!!

for those of you who haven't seen the john carpenter version, i beg you to watch it first!!… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
5
TyranianApr 30, 2020
'The Thing' is a lot like The Flood from Halo and the film itself is a moderately entertaining but dumb scifi-horror.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
4
marcmyworksDec 20, 2016
A prequel that is so in your face with scares and CGI and bad acting and characters you couldn't care less for, that it makes me wonder... would I have actually liked this film if I hadn't seen the (brilliant) original from 1982? I'd stillA prequel that is so in your face with scares and CGI and bad acting and characters you couldn't care less for, that it makes me wonder... would I have actually liked this film if I hadn't seen the (brilliant) original from 1982? I'd still like to think I wouldn't.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
4
inaneswineNov 14, 2017
Pretty much everything about this prequel is inferior to Carpenter's version. While the original relied on practical effects, this version extensively uses poor CGI to create an unconvincing and unscary mess of a creature that actually breaksPretty much everything about this prequel is inferior to Carpenter's version. While the original relied on practical effects, this version extensively uses poor CGI to create an unconvincing and unscary mess of a creature that actually breaks most of the rules established by Carpenter. Like most of his scores, Marco Beltrami's music is intrusive and spoils the action sequences. And finally, all the characters resort to overused horror movie tropes that can be seen coming a mile away. In its own right, it may not be too bad. As part of a franchise, it does terribly.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
5
JPKJul 14, 2019
Mediocre Reboot
The Thing may have some good scares, But it has bad CGI, flimsy writing, and bland characters.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
5
Bernardo_SSep 19, 2018
This was not as good of a movie compared to the 1982 movie that came before it.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
8
spacebear1Jan 2, 2018
Matthijs van Heijningen's The Thing is a fantastic prelude to the 1982 film of the same name. I liked all of the characters and the cinematography was spectacular as well as most of the suspense. My only real complaints were some of the filmMatthijs van Heijningen's The Thing is a fantastic prelude to the 1982 film of the same name. I liked all of the characters and the cinematography was spectacular as well as most of the suspense. My only real complaints were some of the film was a bit predictable and some of the CGI wasn't that great. But in the end, I thought this was a fantastic film.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
5
beeanadouOct 26, 2020
This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. How to identify an alien：
1.trust the leading heroine's instincts
2. disproportionately to be ill-tempered… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
5
CasandraComplexApr 15, 2022
This THIRD film called The Thing is a prequel to the 1982 John Carpenter REMAKE of the original (1950'ish) It also does pretty well as a stand alone film as well. This prequel had a lot going for it but it felt as though some one has a visionThis THIRD film called The Thing is a prequel to the 1982 John Carpenter REMAKE of the original (1950'ish) It also does pretty well as a stand alone film as well. This prequel had a lot going for it but it felt as though some one has a vision for this film and lost contril of it.. because there is a jarring sensation when we lurch from good storytelling and atmosphere to then suddenly you find yourself in a generic treatment of shock and jump scares. The main difference between this prequel and John Carpenters remake is in one word,"ATMOSPHERE" John always had the best spooky soundtracks that created tension from opening credits to the end credits. The soundtrack from this prequel felt sooo generic that I barely took notice and loses all effect if the scenes that are illustrated with the sound score have all been done a thousand times by now and just makes the squeaky menacing strings cliché.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
prev
Page:
More From This Movie

49 Critic Reviews

6.3 User Reviews

Details & Credits|Trailers

Current Movie Releases
By MetascoreBy User Score
1 81 28 Years Later: The Bone Temple
2 77 Project Hail Mary
3 75 Send Help
4 73 Hoppers
5 72 The Sheep Detectives
SEE ALL
Essential Links
New on Amazon Prime Video
New on Netflix
Coming Soon to DVD/Blu-ray
SEE ALL