User Score
6.3

Generally favorable reviews- based on 199 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Negative: 29 out of 199

Review this movie

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
  1. Oct 14, 2011
    4
    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 character development and insulting plot holes. Unlike Carpenter's Thing, this creature attacks without provocation, often at times that are not in it's bestI 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
  2. Oct 21, 2011
    3
    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.
  3. Oct 27, 2011
    4
    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 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 evenSo 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
  4. Oct 17, 2011
    4
    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.
  5. Jul 31, 2012
    2
    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 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,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 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
  6. Oct 18, 2011
    4
    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 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'sI 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
  7. Dec 20, 2012
    2
    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 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 theThis 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
  8. Feb 1, 2012
    0
    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 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
    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 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
  9. Dec 30, 2011
    4
    i hoped that this would be good after having watched the Jonh Carpenter film. but i was disappointing. the first 20 minutes were good, but then it started to go downhill. it failed to build any suspense with the original and restored to "cheap thrills" and "horror music". the visuals were good, but the design of the alien was crazy, not half as good as the original (and it was made 30i hoped that this would be good after having watched the Jonh Carpenter film. but i was disappointing. the first 20 minutes were good, but then it started to go downhill. it failed to build any suspense with the original and restored to "cheap thrills" and "horror music". the visuals were good, but the design of the alien was crazy, not half as good as the original (and it was made 30 years ago). don't watch it, and if you do dont have high expectations. Expand
  10. Apr 16, 2012
    4
    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
  11. Nov 5, 2011
    3
    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 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 storyI 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
  12. Nov 28, 2011
    3
    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 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
    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 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
  13. Feb 6, 2012
    2
    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 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 ifThe 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
  14. Oct 22, 2012
    1
    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 Carpenter film is disgusting. What a piece of garbage, they should be ashamed they even made this
  15. Jun 11, 2012
    0
    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 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 JohnNow 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" Collapse
  16. Jul 12, 2012
    4
    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 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 mePrequel 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
  17. Feb 20, 2013
    1
    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 and isolated atmosphere. What does this movie has? Mary Elizabeth Winstead and other good looking actors...Maybe this will do the job for a certainSee 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
  18. Jun 21, 2013
    1
    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. 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 movieOH 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
  19. Sep 19, 2014
    3
    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 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
    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 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
  20. Oct 27, 2014
    3
    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 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 20Fan 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
Metascore
49

Mixed or average reviews - based on 31 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 8 out of 31
  2. Negative: 4 out of 31
  1. Reviewed by: Brian Miller
    Oct 16, 2011
    60
    As written by Eric Heisserer (Final Destination 5), the new Thing lacks much wit or self-awareness. It's more of a "final girl" formula film, but on ice. Still, why did it take 29 years to create this solid double-feature? And will they unfreeze Russell for a trilogy?
  2. Reviewed by: Rene Rodriguez
    Oct 16, 2011
    38
    There is absolutely nothing in this prequel/remake that improves on the first film or negates it in any way. If you've never seen The Thing - and you really should - stick with the genuine 1982 article and skip this elaborate act of mimicry.
  3. Reviewed by: Ben Sachs
    Oct 16, 2011
    50
    Fails to replicate Carpenter's blue-collar humor or carefully modulated suspense.