The Thing (2011)

Featured Audience Ratings

• Adriel L

  
  Cliched science-fiction flick. No substance, too predictable, too many plot holes, and just there to mildly interest.

• Emily A

  
  The creature designs in this movie are some of the scariest I have ever seen onscreen. This movie is the answer to the question first posed in 1982: What the hell happened HERE? You get to see what it was that burst out of the block of ice, how all the fires started, and what exactly… More
  The creature designs in this movie are some of the scariest I have ever seen onscreen. This movie is the answer to the question first posed in 1982: What the hell happened HERE? You get to see what it was that burst out of the block of ice, how all the fires started, and what exactly happened to that charred, two-headed tangle of legs Kurt Russel found out there in the snow. I really like the way this story dovetails seamlessly into John Carpenter's movie, and that attention to detail belies these filmmakers' love of their source material. People who love what they do make good movies, and this crew knew to recreate what worked in the first movie: the character development, the creeping terror of being preyed on by an invisible force within your midst and finally, the nightmarishly twisted mess that the alien being makes of the human anatomy. I'd say that this is just as good as the first movie, and those who liked it will like this one. It has the same strengths and weaknesses, but an added vibe of pessimistic fatalism. I'm going to watch this as a double-feature with the 1982 film, but now I have no idea which one to screen first.

• Samuel R

  
  I had only recently seen adverts for this film. At first, I thought it would be a hopeless remake of John Carpenter's masterpiece. It eventually came out as a pretty decent prequel. For those who have seen the original 1982 version, you would know about certain events that… More
  I had only recently seen adverts for this film. At first, I thought it would be a hopeless remake of John Carpenter's masterpiece. It eventually came out as a pretty decent prequel. For those who have seen the original 1982 version, you would know about certain events that were left unanswered. From the Norwegian base, the two-faced corpse and the dog. This basically answers all those. So, there isn't really a strong story behind it. This is IF you have seen John Carpenter's version. If you could only find one similarity with the original, it has to be the extreme violence and gore. Arguably, the prequel is visually more disturbing, only because of the advancements in technology. Best advice; don't have a full stomach went watching this film. With regards to acting,the attention should focus on Mary Elizabeth Winstead, who gave the most promising role in the film, proving her success to be at the standards with Kurt Russell; being a brilliant protagonist. Overall, it may not be greatest prequel to such a masterpiece. But its easy to say, that its far better than some poor remakes in this century. Positives: Promising acting - mainly Mary Elizabeth Winstead Just as gruesome as the original All questions (almost) successfully answered Negatives: One mistake that screws things up (if you've seen original) Just not as terrifying Visually, another sick bag film Verdict: May not live up to the original masterpiece. But at the moment,is something, if your a fan, to look into.

• Chris M

  
  It may not be better then the John Carpenter classic,but it still has some scare in it. Now this "The Thing" is a prequel to John Carpenter's "The Thing" which was a remake of another thing. I enjoyed the frights in this movie. Surviving is a key element of… More
  It may not be better then the John Carpenter classic,but it still has some scare in it. Now this "The Thing" is a prequel to John Carpenter's "The Thing" which was a remake of another thing. I enjoyed the frights in this movie. Surviving is a key element of this film and I think they nailed it. What I think this film lacks is suspense. Theres no scene where I was held up against my couch in suspenseful terror. The way they set it up to be a prequel was really good. You could probably watch this movie without any of the dialogue and still know whats going on (At times I tried this). Overall, I had a good time with this horror flick, but it falls victim to "not better than the first one" (or second one, or whatever).

• Lanning :

  
  The voice of the minority chimes in. A great third movie in the trilogy. I love the way it ties into the beginning of second in the trilogy. Maybe the best part of this one was seeing the story updated with 2001 technology. <p> Just as taught and scary as number two, but… More
  The voice of the minority chimes in. A great third movie in the trilogy. I love the way it ties into the beginning of second in the trilogy. Maybe the best part of this one was seeing the story updated with 2001 technology. <p> Just as taught and scary as number two, but with nice details from number one. I love this trilogy the same way I do the King Kong trilogy. Every 20 or 30 years or so, you like to see what kind of job they can do with the technology available at the time. For a bit of a long viewing party night, I highly recommend these three together, although it might be interesting to watch the newest one second since it does lead directly into the helicopter chase of the dog which opens the Kurt Russell version.

• Reid V

  
  A creative remake/prequel of/to the John Carpenter classic. Pros: The filmmakers do a great job of adding to, rather than revising the mythology of the original. They not only strike a similar tone to the original, but they do so while updating the content for a more modern, albeit… More
  A creative remake/prequel of/to the John Carpenter classic. Pros: The filmmakers do a great job of adding to, rather than revising the mythology of the original. They not only strike a similar tone to the original, but they do so while updating the content for a more modern, albeit less patient audience. One of the things I enjoyed most about this film were the ways in which the director cleverly teased fans of the original into thinking that certain scenes from the beloved classic were going to be replicated, but ends up ultimately taking the viewer into new territory. Cons: The script appears to have been written for macabre middle-schoolers. The dialogue is so hammy & expository that any element of mystery is sucked out of every scene, along with a lot of the suspense. While current technology allows for more freedom in creating a fully-realized monster, the over-reliance on mediocre CGI in this film killed any chances of creating realistic terror. Carpenter used the limited technology of his time to his advantage by generating an atmosphere of distrust for what might be lurking in the shadows, or inside the skin of your fellow man, rather than relying solely on the monster for scares. All in all, a remake with it's heart in the right place. But ultimately doing damage to the legacy it so earnestly attempted to honor.

• Mark W

  
  John Carpenter's "The Thing", released in 1982, is one of my all time favourite Sci-fi/Horror movies. It would have been lunacy to attempt a remake and thankfully, they haven't. This is a prequel to the Carpenter classic and has similar ingredients. What it lacks… More
  John Carpenter's "The Thing", released in 1982, is one of my all time favourite Sci-fi/Horror movies. It would have been lunacy to attempt a remake and thankfully, they haven't. This is a prequel to the Carpenter classic and has similar ingredients. What it lacks though, is the level of terror that Carpenter could achieve. Palaeontologist Kate Lloyd (Mary Elizabeth Winstead) recieves a rare summoning to a Norwegian base in Antarctica to investigate a discovery they've made: an alien ship, buried beneath the ice for thousands of years, and its sole survivor. When it awakes, though, Kate realises it's a shapeshifting monster that won't stop until it's assimilated the entire crew... One of the intriguing parts of John Carpenter's "The Thing" (which was a remake of the 1951 film "The Thing From Another World" and based on short-story "Who Goes There?" by John W. Campbell, Jr) was the mystery surrounding the origins of the alien organism. Set three days before the opening of it's predecessor, this sheds light on what actually happened, and how the marooned Norwegian scientists met their fate before the arrival of MacReady (Kurt Russell) and the American team in the 1982 production. The setting is captured perfectly with the Antarctic outpost recreated, from Carpenter's vision, with meticulous detail but the intrigue of Carpenter's production is the main ingredient that's lacking and the atmosphere isn't nearly as threatening. However, it's still a competently handled horror flick by first time director Matthijs van Heijningen Jr, who, like director's Ridley Scott or James Cameron uses a female as the strong central character. This doesn't compete on the same level as the aforementioned directors' science-fiction work but by using a female character - instead of treading similar ground with a Kurt Russell type hero - it brings a new vision that give this film a feel of it's own. Winstead delivers a believable performance, with a bit of testosterone back-up from the reliable Edgerton. Between them, an able cast of unknowns and good attention to detail, this just about achieves what it sets out to do. If you're a fan of Carpenter's film, then the chances are you'll be interested in seeing this - if only, to get some backstory. If you don't compare or expect too much, then you might just find that this works on it's own terms. Nowhere near in the same class as Carpenter but it's a decent attempt.

• Lewis C

  
  I think The Thing may be unfairly criticized because of its relationship to the beloved 80's movie of the same name, but it's not a bad horror flick. There's total overkill on the CGI special effects at times, but it's reasonably tense and worth checking out if you… More
  I think The Thing may be unfairly criticized because of its relationship to the beloved 80's movie of the same name, but it's not a bad horror flick. There's total overkill on the CGI special effects at times, but it's reasonably tense and worth checking out if you can get past the fact that it's a prequel that basically no one asked for.

• Al S

  
  This is an exceptional prequel to Director, John Carpenters horror classic. It has a solid cast of great actors and tense direction. It shows off some great visuals and some big chills and thrills to go along with it. The suspense is thrilling and effects are jaw-dropping. Horror… More
  This is an exceptional prequel to Director, John Carpenters horror classic. It has a solid cast of great actors and tense direction. It shows off some great visuals and some big chills and thrills to go along with it. The suspense is thrilling and effects are jaw-dropping. Horror films like this rarely come along. A stylish, frightning and spellbinding thrill-ride right to the very end.

• Jeff "

  
  John Carpenter's The Thing is one of modern horrors all time greatest horror films. This film version had many fans of the original on edge and sceptical. I originally thought that this was going to be a remake, but it's not. The film does have a few nods to Carpenter's… More
  John Carpenter's The Thing is one of modern horrors all time greatest horror films. This film version had many fans of the original on edge and sceptical. I originally thought that this was going to be a remake, but it's not. The film does have a few nods to Carpenter's film, but this version is a prequel to the events leading up to what happens in the 1982 classic. This prequel is a good effort in trying to deliver a new spin on Carpenter's classic. I think that the idea behind this film is very good. Telling the story before the events in Carpenter's classic. Personally, I'm very happy that they didn't remake Carpenter's film, instead opting for a prequel, which is a good idea. Many fans of the 19982 classic are divided over this film, and I can see why. However I o0n the other hand enjoyed the film. Though not a perfect film by any means, this prequel still delivers something that will appeal to fans of the genre. One of the films biggest complaints was the heavy use of CGI effects for the alien mutations and such. The CGI is a bit of an eyesore, but in this day and age, special effects made by hand are no longer in use. However, the film still has enough good horror elements to appeal to fans of the genre. The cast deliver good performances. Mary Elizabeth Winstead is great in her role, and she delivers the best performance of her career. What makes this film stand out is the new angle that the filmmakers took in telling a classic horror story. Sure the use of CGI is questionable, but let's face it, we'll never see handmade special effects again. For what it was, the effects like I stated were an eyesore, but for the most part they were well done. This prequel should be taken with a grain of salt. This is the type of film you either like or hate. Me on the other hand, I liked it, but felt that it could have been better. However this film is not as bad as what many viewers have said about the film. As a diehard fan of Carpenter's classic, I think the filmmakers created a good enough prequel to accompany Carpenter's classic. In the end, this is a fun horror flick designed to thrill the viewer, and it most certainly does that.

• Mike S

  
  Creepingly suspenseful prequel, that faithfully honors John Carpenter's cult classic. Cast-wise, it could have been better, but I liked how they incorporated a lot of Danish and Norwegian actors. It added a bit of a Scandinavian feel to it, which made me feel right at home. Well,… More
  Creepingly suspenseful prequel, that faithfully honors John Carpenter's cult classic. Cast-wise, it could have been better, but I liked how they incorporated a lot of Danish and Norwegian actors. It added a bit of a Scandinavian feel to it, which made me feel right at home. Well, home-ish at least; we don't have too many ancient killer aliens up here in merry old Sweden. Anyways, the only thing I really miss from this film is an engaging lead character. Mary Elizabeth Winstead is quite pretty and all, but she's no Kurt Russell. In fact. most of the cast members here are mere expendable-looking no-names. It benefits the story in one way though, as it made harder to guess who would make it in the end. Die-hard fans of the original will surely nitpick it to death, and although it symbolizes a void of innovation in the office rooms of Hollywood, I think it does a better-than-decent job at keeping us enjoyed at regular intervals. For in terms of music, atmosphere, gore and special effects, this was a surprisingly impressive horror treat, by debuting director Matthijs van Heijningen. I don't think I'll be getting it on Blu-ray, but it's a dependable pick if you're in the mood for some good old-fashioned seat-jumping.

• MisterYoda ?

  
  four stars!!!

• Justin Y

  
  Matthijs van Heijningen Jr. gets the honor to helm a prequel to John Carpenter's cult classic by the same name, and he doesn't disappoint.<p>Conceptually, the plot is heavy on the science fiction, but the story plays out more like a horror thriller; emphasis on the… More
  Matthijs van Heijningen Jr. gets the honor to helm a prequel to John Carpenter's cult classic by the same name, and he doesn't disappoint.<p>Conceptually, the plot is heavy on the science fiction, but the story plays out more like a horror thriller; emphasis on the thriller. The film thrives on the mystery of the story, the suspense, and its Antarctic setting, without much use of the typical jump scares.</p><p>The use of CG is a bit of a disappointment when pitted against live action effects; however, it is unfair to compare it to Carpenter's film that went all out with the creature effects. All in all, the CG is good and it doesn't hold back on the design of "the thing."</p><p>Mary Elizabeth Winstead may seem like a questionable choice to lead a film full of European actors, but she does come through. Watching her handle a flamethrower is truly a delight. The rest of the supporting cast get the job done as well, although there is room for some character buildup.</p>With a suitable 95 minute run time and closing credits, which reveal scenes that lead right up to the beginning of Carpenter's film, <i>The Thing</i> is a movie worth checking out.</p>

• Everett J

  
  "The Thing" is a prequel to the 1980's, "The Thing". This takes place right before the events of that movie. It's pretty much the same movie, except the characters are different. Scientists find an organism that can shape shift into people, and it… More
  "The Thing" is a prequel to the 1980's, "The Thing". This takes place right before the events of that movie. It's pretty much the same movie, except the characters are different. Scientists find an organism that can shape shift into people, and it looks pretty crazy when it's, its own alien self. The effects are pretty weak. The alien looks really fake, and instead of being scary and effective, it's hokey and laughable. You never really care for any of the characters, and honestly, I was hoping they would all die pretty gory deaths. I'm not a big fan of the original, so I didn't really care for this. It's just like all the other horror remakes/prequels/bad sequels. In other words, it's forgettable and meaningless. When people wanna watch "The Thing", they'll get the original, not this garbage. Fans of the original will probably enjoy it(although not as much). If you don't like the original, then just watch something else. This is a real time waster of a flick.

• Luke B

  
  Fans were rightfully up in arms over a remake of The Thing. Luckily what we get is a rather clever prequel, that pays homage to the original, yet refuses to reference it too heavily. Jumping into classic series can always be a gamble, and a lot of the time the studio heads are too… More
  Fans were rightfully up in arms over a remake of The Thing. Luckily what we get is a rather clever prequel, that pays homage to the original, yet refuses to reference it too heavily. Jumping into classic series can always be a gamble, and a lot of the time the studio heads are too scared to sever the umbilical cord. Even Rise of the Planet of the Apes forced in lines form the original. This is a film that follows the guys at the Norwegian research lab that Kurt Russell and co. found in the original. It doesn't tread too much of the same ground, by ignoring most of the paranoia and going for a non-stop monster movie. The creature effects are fantastic, but I can never admire them for creativeness since they were formed in a computer. It's effective, but not admirable. Nothing hits like the head separation/stomach mouth etc. Winstead does a great job at being a logical and fierce protagonist. She isn't always likeable, but that's what makes her so relatable. I would have gone for a higher rating if they hadn't wiped out so many characters in such a short time.

• Phil H

  
  The anticipation and final outcome of this prequel have been split right down the middle, was it a good idea in the first place?, should it have been a sequel with Russell? or perhaps completely remade, opinions differ hugely. For me this has not been as bad as I expected in all… More
  The anticipation and final outcome of this prequel have been split right down the middle, was it a good idea in the first place?, should it have been a sequel with Russell? or perhaps completely remade, opinions differ hugely. For me this has not been as bad as I expected in all honesty, I have seen much worse in recent years with the influx of reboots and remakes and this prequel isn't all that bad. Yes the big wigs have been rather crafty, they wanted a sequel but decided not to out of fear I think haha, same for remake, why remake a cult? instead they turned to a prequel which basically gave them the oppertunity to make another which was pretty much more of the same but with an excuse. So yes its more of the same and it all looks the same seeing as its set right before the original, OK no problem. The look is good, sets are good, costume is good, it all looks really real, cold and the cast are actually quite decent, wisely using unknowns for the majority. I also liked the kind of 'Alien' feel to the build up with Winstead clearly having a 'Ripley' type character of sorts. Problem one of course is the effects, personally I think its a mixed bag, its all cgi of course but some of it looks pretty good whilst other bits look poor. I think the effects department (including Woodruff Jr.) did a good job in trying to create the creature around what was hinted at in brief moments of the original whilst also trying to keep it in tone with the creature we have seen already and at the same time making it different. I think the 'Juliette-thing' looked really good simply as a huge razor teethed gaping maw on legs with her head dangling round the back and there are some nice moments such as 'Griggs' starting to transform. Unfortunately the rest does seem rather unoriginal and dull simply utilizing the age old tentacles notion that doesn't really fit with the original and with later designs that looked like a 'Sarlacc' with legs or something from the 'Resident Evil' franchise. One thing that did disappoint me was the lack of info on the creature, I was really hoping for some insight on its background, where it may have come from, why?, how and why did it crash?, is there an entire race?, why so hostile?, assimilate for food?, what does its original form look like? were there more inside the ship seeing as its so huge?, how did they create such technology originally and how do they pilot the ship in their form? etc...So many questions but you get nothing which is a shame really, maybe some don't wish to know but I'm just real curious :) The whole film does seem a little pointless I admit as we can all guess what happened before the creature makes it into Carpenters film, but I do think they addressed the continuity quite well despite one or two issues and I loved how they made this prequel flow perfectly into the old original. Not really scary or that dark and forboding but its not too far off, not sure what is suppose to have happened to 'Kate' in the end and the whole dog ending also made me think 'why not just run off in that form right from the start?' hehe. My final thoughts....I quite liked it, better than most are saying methinks. My advice is simply watch this then the original Carpenter film straight afterwards and this film actually does seem allot better than you might have previously thought, they do connect together nicely.

• Dead A

  
  Nothing to be amazed but it's alright.

• A.D. V

  
  Perhaps it was all the negative reviews or maybe it was the fact that I knew it would never compare to John Carpenter's superior film but I found myself not hating the prequel like I expected to. It has alot of problems (character development, acting) but the surprise came from… More
  Perhaps it was all the negative reviews or maybe it was the fact that I knew it would never compare to John Carpenter's superior film but I found myself not hating the prequel like I expected to. It has alot of problems (character development, acting) but the surprise came from what did not suck. The effects while mainly CG were actually much better than the usual crap that the average film contains and the attention to detail was commendable keeping continuity for the most part with the events that would follow in Carpenter's film. It's nothing great but it does make me want to rewatch the original film again so I guess that's something.

• First L

  
  In 1982, John Carpenter made the scariest movie I'd ever seen in my life (a record it would hold for another 15 or 20 years). "The Thing" was an intransigent horror: unknown, inescapable, and unstoppable (three terror-generating things found in almost any good horror… More
  In 1982, John Carpenter made the scariest movie I'd ever seen in my life (a record it would hold for another 15 or 20 years). "The Thing" was an intransigent horror: unknown, inescapable, and unstoppable (three terror-generating things found in almost any good horror picture). The Thing dared you to look at things generally left to the shadows of the imagination, creating effects and images never seen before. Carpenter's thing-from-another-world was a fully-lit grotesquery that was as dazzling in it's inventiveness as it was terrifying. Which brings us to 2011's "The Thing". It's a prequel to the Carpenter version, and feels very much like an homage to the earlier film, with it's similar- sounding soundtrack and 80s vibe. The Thing also plays up the sci-fi elements from the previous versions as well. It's with the special effects however, that the latter day Thing wants most to remind us of the original and, coincidentally where it comes up most short. The filmmakers use computer effects to ape the effects of the original, but there is a distinct lack of purpose to it all. The alien in Carpenter's movie could form it's body to whatever purpose that would further it's survival; the modern Thing seems to form it's body soley for the purpose of frightening us. Unfortunately, re-hashed ideas are rarely as scary as the original concepts, and so much of the computer effects have a "been there, done that" quality to them. Taking something that was once creative and original and rehashing it into something very standard (in today's horror film market) does nothing but de-value and cheapen the genre as a whole. This version of The Thing is every bit as toxic as something like "Indiana Jones as the Crystal Skull" is to fans of the original "Raiders of the Lost Ark". Or any other latter day horror re-make (Halloween, Friday the 13th) for that matter.

• Robert C

  
  Fans of John Carpenter's (1982) version of The Thing, will appreciate the attention to detail that went into making this prequel. Usual I am leary of "prequels", but the Carpenter version was the perfect set up for a prequel and this new film fills in all of the… More
  Fans of John Carpenter's (1982) version of The Thing, will appreciate the attention to detail that went into making this prequel. Usual I am leary of "prequels", but the Carpenter version was the perfect set up for a prequel and this new film fills in all of the blanks about just what went on at the "Norwegian Camp". And the fact that this film leaves us exactly where we start off in the 1982 version, should make for a great double feature. My only complaint is that there is far too much CGI in this new version. Though it made for a much more agile "thing"...there is just something to be said for old fashioned puppets and animatronic creatures. Aside from that, it is well done. Lots of scares, great atmosphere, good acting and just enough blood and guts to keep you cringing. Just in time for Halloween!

Read all 20 featured audience ratings