Read Mixed User Reviews for The Thing (2011)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

4

Shajac19Feb 16, 2020

This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. A travesty compared to the 1982 and 1951 classics. Clearly trying more to horrify with bad CGI than to live up to the originals. The performances from Mary Elizabeth Winstead and Joel Edgerton are pretty good but do not justify Universal greenlighting this cheap attempt to capitalize on one of the greatest horror franchises ever. This movie is fairly enjoyable but makes me wonder why I can't just go watch the 1982 version and live with Kurt Russell in ignorance of the whereabouts of the Norwegian crew.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

6

LumdogAug 17, 2021

Its entertaining enough but is just completely unoriginal. It's almost a shot for shot remake of the 1982 film and depends too heavily on its nostalgia; despite it being a prequel. The characters are pretty forgettable, and the decision toIts entertaining enough but is just completely unoriginal. It's almost a shot for shot remake of the 1982 film and depends too heavily on its nostalgia; despite it being a prequel. The characters are pretty forgettable, and the decision to use CGI over practical effects I think backfired. The CGI is really average in a lot of scenes and they don't instil fear and terror in you that the practical effects in the 1982 version did.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews