User Score
6.3

Generally favorable reviews- based on 196 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Negative: 27 out of 196

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. May 4, 2014
    6
    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 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
  2. 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.
  3. 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!
  4. MSY
    Jan 18, 2014
    6
    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 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
  5. 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.
  6. Dec 15, 2013
    6
    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 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
  7. 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...
  8. Jul 27, 2013
    6
    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 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
  9. 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 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
  10. Apr 4, 2013
    8
    I do not recall the original The Thing to be so action-oriented and I believe the age of suspense in movie-making had ended after the 80's, partially because modern-day technology creates images that are far too sharp and leave too little to the imagination but then again, I can't hold really hold that against a movie. As far as modern day science-fiction goes, The Thing is an excellent movie. It has suspense, an interesting cast, good looking CGI monsters and a plot that flows along neatly. It doesn't try to answer any questions, it just wants the viewer to enjoy the ride without putting too much thought in it. I think it could have easily used half an hour more to explain the motivation of The Thing. Expand
  11. 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 certain audience but not for me. Expand
  12. 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.
  13. 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 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
  14. Jan 27, 2013
    6
    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
  15. Jan 23, 2013
    5
    "The Thing" is an original and well-made film, but it makes you boring and slow.
  16. 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 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
  17. 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.
  18. 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
  19. Oct 16, 2012
    6
    The main problem with this film is that it does nothing John Carpenter
  20. 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.
  21. 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, "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
  22. 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 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
  23. Jun 18, 2012
    5
    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.
  24. 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 John carpenters and in all fairness was the best of the three. The black and white set for a creepy yet realistic feel making you visualize most of the gruesome and scientific aspects on your own; where as the John Carpenters The thing was a survival horror in which you can put yourself in the shows of the amazing R. J. Mcready (aka Kurt "Motherfucking" Russle. It gave you beautiful visuals, plausible science banter, and the fear of the unknown. This movie failed in every area its predecessors amazed. "The Thing" in this movie felt more like a necromorph from the fantastic survival horror Dead Space and is not as appealing. The story seems to push its self through rather then flow as John Carpenters did and did not allow for great character development like the 1950's original did. The characters seem like actors and not like people at all in the sense that you can tell this is a movie. The plot is filled with holes and seems like he had great ideas that didn't really link so he just put bits and pieces together to try and make it flow but it was truly just all over the place and unequivocally bland. For those of us who have seen the two predecessor's in there glory know that what made us so enthralled with the cinematic extravaganza wast he fact that the alien was unpredictable; and in John Carpenters case the unknowing of who or what the creature was or its origin was just amazing and full of spontaneity. This was not achieved in the new version and kills the movie right from the start. From the start you know the alien has a form. This in its self left me with a retched feeling that the rest of the movie the alien will not think analytically, showing its superior knowledge, but that it is thinking more forceful and bold leaving no startling shocking feeling but instead you get a mundane adrenaline like nausea that you would rather skip then continue on with. The movie is no Alfred **** or Guillermo Del Toro master piece and is not even worth paying twenty dollars for the blu-ray with a digital copy. this movie is the type you rent because you watched everything else on netflix or one of those movies you can pick up for five dollars at from a college student with a stand trying to sell dvds for money in Manhattan. I am both appalled they would butcher my favorite movie, but i am even more furious that they would dare, I MEAN DARE, try to link this to the John Carpenters version by trying to tie in Kurt Russel in a sequel or trilogy. This is movie for people with a low IQ and who care very little for the science fiction genre and just watch to see an "Alien". Skip this if you watched the predecessors they are WAY WAY BETTER and deserve more effort to watch then this garbage. Skip this if you just want a new movie and want to experience a good sci-fi because this if far from good and i can suggest way better movies for cheaper like IRobot, Gattaca, or The Fifth Element. Stay way from this if you are even given it for free because it is a glimpse of what will come in the future. That no matter how much the budgets have grown by, and how advanced the technology may be that is utilized, that in the end movies such as this atrocity are going to be made because consumers are dumber, easier to please, and easily manipulated. All those foolish neanderthals who thought this was good have no credibility with me and obviously have no taste. Its true some people are just harsh and most people are looking for simplicity, but my friends use your minds and see this in nothing short of crap. In the words of my lord James Rolfe (aka the Angry Video Game Nerd) "WHAT WERE THEY THINKING" Expand
  25. 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.
  26. Apr 28, 2012
    10
    The Thing is a well made being that delivers a whole lot of tension and is occasionally surprisingly scary. But it is best about this film is that it is so true to the original and that you can watch this before the original and it will make the original feel like a direct sequel to this. By the way, anyone who was seen and loved the original will surely love the ending. NOTE: Real ending is during the credits. Expand
  27. 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
  28. 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. 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
  29. 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.
  30. Feb 26, 2012
    5
    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 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
  31. Feb 25, 2012
    5
    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 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
  32. 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 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
  33. Feb 13, 2012
    6
    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 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
  34. 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 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
  35. 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 watching this film and I would recommend it to anyone who is a fan of the John Carpenter version. Expand
  36. 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 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
  37. 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 one moment of tension where theyâ Expand
  38. Jan 20, 2012
    6
    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
  39. 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 30 years ago). don't watch it, and if you do dont have high expectations. Expand
  40. 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.
    ... 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
  41. 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 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
  42. 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
  43. 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, 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
  44. Dec 1, 2011
    5
    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
  45. Nov 29, 2011
    6
    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 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
  46. Nov 28, 2011
    5
    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.
  47. 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
    reboot of a classic horror watch the crazies! Expand
  48. 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
    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
  49. 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.
  50. 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 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
  51. Nov 11, 2011
    6
    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 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
  52. 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 story and characters. Keep your money unless graphical horror is your only reason to see a movie. Expand
  53. 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
  54. Nov 1, 2011
    10
    This prequel is a well-made, tense, atmosphere and surprisingly scary flick that pays respect to the previous film and is better than I thought it would be. Great Halloween treat.
  55. 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 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
  56. 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 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
  57. 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.
  58. 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.
  59. 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'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
  60. 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.
  61. 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.
  62. 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
    likely get the most out of this. Expand
  63. 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.
  64. 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 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
  65. 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 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
  66. 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, 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
  67. 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 job and the special effects are pretty nice. The film only slightly treads on rehashing scenes of the first film, the spots are few but are painfully obvious to fans. Thankfully the film forges new material on the creature, giving it a uniqueness from its predecessor. The main difference with this Thing is that it's more of a monster flick than the suspenseful horror that Carpenter delivered. It's definitely faster paced and ends sooner than you may want to, at least for me as I was really enjoying it. Hopefully we'll see an extended director's cut that delves more into suspense and story that may have been cut out. For fans of the first film, the final ending scenes are the most spectacular in linking directly into the opening of the first Thing. Recommended for horror/sci-fi fans! Expand
  68. 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.
  69. 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 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
  70. 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 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
  71. 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, 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
  72. 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!
  73. 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 better writing it could have been great. Expand
  74. 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, 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
  75. 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 and the use of CGIs. I don't think they were bad just overused. I preferred the original use of suspense. Expand
  76. Oct 16, 2011
    6
    One thing to say right off the bat is that this is miles better than today's sci-fi and horror offerings. I'm not saying that it's miles and miles better, but it does have an edge. It starts out slow and builds up like the old days; like Carpenter's 1982 incarnation of the story. When comparing it to today's genre films, I'm inclined to give it a better rating, somewhere around a 7. When compared to Carpenter's film, my hands are tied. It's nowhere near the level of masterpiece that Carpenter's film is. The reason being that this film does not focus on any of the plot points and themes that the original film does. Carpenter's film is about paranoia. It's about waiting to see what happens next instead of really having the ability to do anything about it. It's about people being frustrated with this inability to confront their enemies (because they don't know who they are) and frustrated with each other. None of Carpenter's characters could ever work together to solve a problem because of their paranoia. Paranoia is dealt with in this 2011 prequel for about fifteen minutes. Paul WS Anderson might as well have directed this movie. By that I mean that most of the characters are killed off in a very short amount of time and then we're left with a chase scene that lasts for the final 30% of the running time. Instead of things flowing organically and naturally like in Carpenter's film, this movies is simply just a series of events happening one after another. There's no time for us to speculate as to who isn't a human being...someone will suddenly just spring out of their skin and grow tentacles. This becomes jarring instead of actually frightening. That being said, the creature designs are now not as original or scary. Rob Bottin was able to create creatures for the original film that were hard to look at. We didn't know where the front was, where the eyes were in some cases. They were formless and disturbing. The monster's now have obvious mouths and teeth reaching out for their victims which becomes easier for our minds to digest and easier to look at. This is thanks to the slowly declining efforts of Amalgamated Dynamics' Tom Woodruff and Alec Gillis who cut their teeth working for Stan Winston. Overall I think this is a decent movie, but instead of trying to get us to think, it just wants us to react. It wants our reactions to unimpressive CGI effects and jump scares, neither of which were at all prevalent in the 1982 original. This movie looks fake and feels artificial. In the end though, it still beats most of the other science fiction and horror films that have been released within the past few years. It's also more satisfying than other series offerings such as AvP and Predators. Expand
  77. Oct 16, 2011
    10
    The Thing is a tense, atmospheric and scary prequel to the cult classic that is a fun and frightening film that is on par with the original and should be viewed at Halloween time
  78. 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 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
  79. 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.
  80. 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 the film.) Highly recommend this to anyone seeking a good October thrill movie or fans of the thing. Expand
  81. 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 +
    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
  82. 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. 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
  83. 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, 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
  84. 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 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
  85. Oct 14, 2011
    6
    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.
  86. Oct 14, 2011
    10
    How do you replicate the horror of John Carpenterâ
  87. Oct 14, 2011
    6
    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 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
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.