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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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 71 The Sheep Detectives
SEE ALL
Essential Links
New on Amazon Prime Video
New on Netflix
Coming Soon to DVD/Blu-ray
SEE ALL