X
- 2011
- R
- Universal Pictures
- 1 h 43 m
- 2011
- R
- Universal Pictures
- 1 h 43 m
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 about to wake up. When a simple experiment frees the ...
Directed By: Matthijs van Heijningen Jr.
Written By: Eric Heisserer, John W. Campbell Jr.
- 2011
- R
- Universal Pictures
- 1 h 43 m
- 2011
- R
- Universal Pictures
- 1 h 43 m
The Thing
49
6.3
Where to Watch
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 about to wake up. When a simple experiment frees the ...
Directed By: Matthijs van Heijningen Jr.
Written By: Eric Heisserer, John W. Campbell Jr.
Where to Watch
Top Cast
Metascore
Mixed or Average
Based on 31 Critic Reviews
49
26% Positive
8 Reviews
8 Reviews
61% Mixed
19 Reviews
19 Reviews
13% Negative
4 Reviews
4 Reviews
Metascore
Mixed or Average
Based on 31 Critic Reviews
49
26% Positive
8 Reviews
8 Reviews
61% Mixed
19 Reviews
19 Reviews
13% Negative
4 Reviews
4 Reviews
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."
It's no great thing, just a better Thing than expected.
User Score
Generally Favorable
Based on 317 User Ratings
6.3
51% Positive
162 Ratings
162 Ratings
35% Mixed
112 Ratings
112 Ratings
14% Negative
43 Ratings
43 Ratings
User Score
Generally Favorable
Based on 317 User Ratings
6.3
51% Positive
162 Ratings
162 Ratings
35% Mixed
112 Ratings
112 Ratings
14% Negative
43 Ratings
43 Ratings
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 :)
Report
In terms of scares, this old-fashioned Thing is better than most new things.
It's an imperfect facsimile, guilty of borrowing too many ideas from the earlier film, and then executing them with differing results.
Heijningen doesn't display the instinct of the best Hollywood action directors to give the audience what it craves at the big moments, except for a few gory in-your-face shots.
This debut feature from Matthijs van Heijningen is as stiff as the Antarctic tundra. Where the earlier film pulsed with precisely calibrated paranoia and distinctly drawn characters, this inarticulate replay unfolds as mechanistically as a video game.
This Thing is purely for the gorehounds, and they aren't likely to leave impressed.
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!
Report
Its entertaining enough but is just completely unoriginal. It's almost a shot for shot remake of the 1982 film and depends too heavily on its nostalgia; despite it being a prequel. The characters are pretty forgettable, and the decision to use CGI over practical effects I think backfired. The CGI is really average in a lot of scenes and they don't instil fear and terror in you that the practical effects in the 1982 version did.
Report
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.
Report
Fan of the original? Don't get excited. This will only disappoint you. I did give it a 6 though since it's better than most of the current monster-horror garbage. The most positive thing about this flick I can give is that it gives some effort to providing some details that are found in John Carpenter's "The Thing" the follows this movie in the world's time (though proceeds it by over 20 years and still out performs it by even more).
What you liked from John Carpenter's "The Thing" = a large and excellent cast, lots of kills, unsolved events, uncertain attempts to solve the monster mystery, and non-CGI blood baths.
What you'll get in the re-make of it's prequel (or rather the original that proceeded it) = once again a large and excellent cast, lots of kills as well, nothing like the original as far as mystery goes, attempts to solve it are too early and confident, and oh my goodness lots of the CGI... should just hire Michael Bay at this point (an exaggeration of course).
If you never saw John Carpenter's "The Thing" or if you don't mind CGI then you may enjoy this movie. Though in my opinion it is a very saw shortcoming of what could have been and probably one of many death blows to this short series likely thanks to capitalistic endeavors. It doesn't ruin Mr. Carpenter's though - if you haven't seen that don't waste your time here.
A final tear. Such a great cast with excellent potential... it's so amazing how much CGI ruins and financial gains stain a movies potential.
For those who ridicule comparing it to John Carpenter's film too, just give it up. If you're going to approach a masterpiece then you have it coming. It's a noble goal and one worth the risk of criticism - this was no achievement and deserved it's negative comments.
Report
My friend and I were getting into this film, thinking it was a horror flick. And it was horror. A horror to watch this predictable piece of garbage. I really liked the original and thought this one was also good. Nah, it wasn`t.
My friend and I were mindlessly predicting things that could happen and were right every freaking time.
That wouldn`t be that bad if the monster or the animations would look good, but they really didn`t. At some points i thought I was watching Troll 2. (They`re eating her! Oh my Gooooood!)
Overall, this movie had bad animation, actors that couldn`t resist to smile even in the worst situations, a predictable story and no horror elements at all. There were like 2 jumpscares in the whole movie and one of them is just one guy saying Boo!
So yeah, I wouldn`t recommend it.
Report
Awards
Academy of Science Fiction, Fantasy & Horror Films, USA
• 2 Nominations
Visual Effects Society Awards
• 1 Nomination
Fright Meter Awards
• 1 Nomination
