The Thing

The Thing Image
Metascore
49

Mixed or average reviews - based on 31 Critics What's this?

User Score
6.3

Generally favorable reviews- based on 221 Ratings

Your Score
0 out of 10
Rate this:
  • 10
  • 9
  • 8
  • 7
  • 6
  • 5
  • 4
  • 3
  • 2
  • 1
  • 0
  • 0
  • Summary: Paleontologist Kate Lloyd has traveled to the desolate region for the expedition of her lifetime. Joining a Norwegian scientific team that has stumbled across an extraterrestrial ship buried in the ice, she discovers an organism that seems to have died in the crash eons ago. But it is aboutPaleontologist Kate Lloyd has traveled to the desolate region for the expedition of her lifetime. Joining a Norwegian scientific team that has stumbled across an extraterrestrial ship buried in the ice, she discovers an organism that seems to have died in the crash eons ago. But it is about to wake up. When a simple experiment frees the alien from its frozen prison, Kate must join the crew's pilot, Carter, to keep it from killing them off one at a time. And in this vast, intense land, a parasite that can mimic anything it touches will pit human against human as it tries to survive and flourish. (Universal Pictures)

    Collapse

Trailer

Please enter your birth date to continue:
You are not allowed to view this material at this time.
Autoplay: On | Off

Where To Watch

Stream On
Stream On
Score distribution:
  1. Positive: 8 out of 31
  2. Negative: 4 out of 31
  1. Reviewed by: Mike Scott
    Oct 14, 2011
    75
    Yes, it is derivative, but in a year in which films from the 1980s are getting needless remakes seemingly every other week, this one stands out as a rare one that works. That's a good "Thing."
  2. Reviewed by: Andrew O'Hehir
    Oct 13, 2011
    70
    I'm delighted to tell you that the new Thing was made by people who understand what the horror audience wants and don't treat it like a bunch of brain-dead children. Mirabile freakin' dictu.
  3. Reviewed by: Tom Russo
    Oct 13, 2011
    63
    The basic story is identical, and when there are fraught, climactic opportunities for the movie to make a gutsy departure, it passes up the chance.
  4. Reviewed by: Marc Savlov
    Oct 13, 2011
    50
    Heijningen's The Thing is tightly paced, has enough imaginative horror to satisfy even the most jaded gorehound, and never strays too far from its source, so why do you come away from it feeling like it was the runner-up in a daylight nightmare festival?
  5. Reviewed by: Peter Hartlaub
    Oct 13, 2011
    50
    It's an imperfect facsimile, guilty of borrowing too many ideas from the earlier film, and then executing them with differing results.
  6. Reviewed by: Jesse Cataldo
    Oct 13, 2011
    50
    You can tell a lot about the film from its rough handling of the materials supplied by its predecessor, using these commonalities both to identify the bond between the two and signal how much further it's willing to push things.
  7. Reviewed by: Steve Persall
    Oct 12, 2011
    25
    This Thing is purely for the gorehounds, and they aren't likely to leave impressed.

See all 31 Critic Reviews

Score distribution:
  1. Positive: 52 out of 93
  2. Negative: 13 out of 93
  1. Oct 14, 2011
    10
    How do you replicate the horror of John Carpenterâ
  2. 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 .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
  3. 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. ThisI 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. Expand
  4. 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 JohnAbsolutely 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
  5. 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 groupsAnd 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
  6. Jan 23, 2013
    5
    "The Thing" is an original and well-made film, but it makes you boring and slow.
  7. 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 AnotherNow 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

See all 93 User Reviews

Trailers

Related Articles

  1. Fall Movie Preview: The 30 Most-Anticipated Films

    Fall Movie Preview: The 30 Most-Anticipated Films Image
    Published: September 6, 2011
    We preview the 30 top movies arriving this fall, from Steven Soderbergh's "Contagion" to George Clooney's "Ides of March." While you're at it, find release dates and descriptions for the other 60+ fall films, too.
  2. Ranked: Best and Worst Movies Directed by Their Stars

    Ranked: Best and Worst Movies Directed by Their Stars Image
    Published: June 28, 2011
    Can actors direct themselves? We reveal the best and worst movies in our database that were directed by one of the film's stars, a list that runs from "Do the Right Thing" to "Miss March."
  3. Film Friday: This Week's Movie News and New Trailers

    Film Friday: This Week's Movie News and New Trailers Image
    Published: September 9, 2011
    This week, watch trailers for "The Big Year," "Melancholia," and "Human Centipede II," catch clips from "The Descendants" and "The Thing," and learn about upcoming projects from Mel Gibson, Joe Wright and Tom Hooper.
  4. Are Original Movies Really Better than Derivative Works?

    Are Original Movies Really Better than Derivative Works? Image
    Published: April 21, 2011
    Hollywood can't stop making sequels, remakes, and adaptations, but is that really such a bad thing? We analyze five years of data to find out.