The Thing

User Score
6.3

Generally favorable reviews- based on 224 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Negative: 30 out of 224

Where To Watch

Stream On
Stream On

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

User Reviews

  1. Oct 21, 2011
    7
    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 - but still believable. The things were suitably CGI.......and not quite as believable.
  2. Nov 11, 2012
    8
    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 stroke of genius by the director. Its links into the first film in the most fantastic way. Fantastic.
  3. Oct 14, 2011
    10
    How do you replicate the horror of John Carpenterâ
  4. Oct 17, 2011
    9
    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 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,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 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
  5. Oct 16, 2011
    9
    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 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 andI 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
  6. Oct 14, 2011
    10
    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 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, butI 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
  7. Oct 15, 2011
    9
    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 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 theTruly 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
  8. drm
    Oct 15, 2011
    8
    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 can definitely see that Matthijs van Heijningen is a meticulous fan of the John Carpenter version. His attention to detail is really quite stunning. MaryOk. 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
  9. Oct 15, 2011
    10
    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 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 +
    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 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
  10. Feb 2, 2012
    9
    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 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 thati 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
  11. Oct 16, 2011
    7
    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 theThe 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
  12. Oct 16, 2011
    8
    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. 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, andIn 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
  13. Oct 15, 2011
    9
    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 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.
  14. Oct 16, 2011
    7
    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 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 betterNot 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
  15. Oct 17, 2011
    7
    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.
  16. Nov 11, 2011
    7
    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 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 setSomeone 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
  17. Oct 16, 2011
    8
    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 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, thisThis 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
  18. Oct 16, 2011
    7
    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's classic...I have been anticipating this movie for a year and got what I expected...a decent horror flick!
  19. Oct 18, 2011
    8
    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'll make the prequel much more enjoyable.
  20. Dec 19, 2011
    7
    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't particularly unique, reusing general horror clichés and positively bursting with generic 'jump' moments, but the convincing and actually quiteWas 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
  21. Mar 18, 2012
    7
    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.
  22. Oct 17, 2011
    9
    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 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 theThis 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
  23. Feb 2, 2014
    7
    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!
  24. Dec 4, 2011
    7
    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 and it was an entertaining movie. It contained too many cliché's though. Like the "evil scientist" guy that has no emotions whatsoever, exceptA 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
  25. Feb 13, 2012
    8
    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 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 movieI 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
  26. Jun 1, 2012
    7
    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 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.
  27. Oct 18, 2011
    10
    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.
  28. Oct 15, 2011
    8
    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. 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 itFinally, 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
  29. Mar 5, 2016
    7
    The Thing (2011) is a prequel that stays true to its predecessor and provides more of the suspense and thrills that made the 1982 Carpenter film memorable. However the film does often feel like a retread of said film and it relies a bit too heavily on CGI. Overall, The Thing (2011) is plenty of fun even though you have seen it done better before.
  30. Nov 28, 2011
    9
    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 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
    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 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
  31. Nov 26, 2011
    10
    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 love getting a sequel.
  32. Dec 27, 2011
    8
    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 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.
    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 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
  33. Oct 16, 2011
    9
    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 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 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
  34. Dec 5, 2011
    7
    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
  35. Oct 17, 2011
    8
    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 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 jobI'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! Collapse
  36. Oct 17, 2011
    7
    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 suspenseTo 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
  37. Oct 18, 2011
    7
    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 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
    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 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
  38. Oct 22, 2011
    10
    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 onAs 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
  39. Mar 5, 2016
    7
    The Thing (2011) is a prequel that stays true to its predecessor and provides more of the suspense and thrills that made the 1982 Carpenter film memorable. However the film does often feel like a retread of said film and it relies a bit too heavily on CGI. Overall, The Thing (2011) is plenty of fun even though you have seen it done better before.
  40. Nov 2, 2011
    8
    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
  41. Feb 4, 2012
    7
    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 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 watchingTo 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
  42. Jan 31, 2013
    7
    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 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 filmPaleontologist 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
  43. Apr 12, 2012
    10
    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 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.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 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
  44. Mar 8, 2016
    7
    The Thing (2011) is a prequel that stays true to its predecessor and provides more of the suspense and thrills that made the 1982 Carpenter film memorable. However the film does often feel like a retread of said film and it relies a bit too heavily on CGI. Overall, The Thing (2011) is plenty of fun even though you have seen it done better before.
  45. Jan 12, 2014
    7
    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.
  46. Sep 29, 2012
    7
    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.
  47. Feb 17, 2013
    7
    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.
  48. Aug 16, 2013
    7
    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...
  49. Apr 9, 2014
    7
    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.
  50. Feb 11, 2016
    9
    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 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
  51. Aug 29, 2015
    7
    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 otherThis 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
  52. Feb 24, 2016
    8
    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 online http://www.watchfree.to/watch-13fe1d-The-Thing-movie-online-free-putlocker.html
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.