The Thing (I) (2011) User Reviews

Who Goes There?...

[Xstal · 6/10 · 12 September 2022]

You're stationed at an isolated outpost in Antarctica when you inadvertently discover a flying saucer type spacecraft beneath the frozen surface. Not long after you discover the alien pilot, trapped inside the ice sheet, looks like he may have been there for some time. Unfortunately, after recovering the entombed alien the protocols of containment are soon dispatched to a nearby bin and, before you know it, a rather excitable shapeshifting beast, who likes to take the form of bodies that have been turned inside out, and various other parts that should be internal and not external, is causing chaos and carnage and mayhem and disaster.

While not as good as the 1981 take, it is still a spectacular piece of masterful horror that continually delivers upon each subsequent viewing and provides some depth to the John Carpenter thriller.

It wasn't actually all that bad...

[paul_haakonsen · 6/10 · 24 November 2011]

Initially I had thought this to be yet another of the countless Hollywood remakes, and I was thrilled to find out that it was not so. Being a prequel, this movie definitely had something to live up to, as Carpenter's original version is nothing short of a masterpiece.

This 2011 prequel actually did a good job, and I think it was a good addition to Carpenter's work.

What impressed me was the creature effects. The effects team really had managed to put together something unique here. And there was really a sense of something not-of-this-world about the grotesque shapes and abnormalities the creature assumed. And best of all was that the effects and make-up all looked so life-like and real.

The acting in the movie was good, and I think it was a really great touch that they had put together a mix of American, Danish and Norwegian actors/actresses. And the best part was that people actually did speak Danish and Norwegian, and not just English with a Scandinavian imitated accent, as you tend to see in American movies. So thumbs up on this detail.

As in the original Carpenter movie, they really had caught the feeling of isolation and paranoia in this 2011 movie as well. However, it was a shame that there really wasn't anything new or innovating to be told from the story here. It was a bit like they were just making soup off the broth Carpenter already used back in the day.

However, all in all, "The Thing" (2011) actually did entertain me thoroughly and I think it was a good enough prequel in its own way. Just don't expect something overly new here.

Pales in comparison to Carpenter's classic with nothing new or interesting to offer of its own.

[lnvicta · 5/10 · 23 May 2016]

It's hard for anything to compare to John Carpenter's The Thing. It's one of the greatest horror films ever made, some would argue *the* best. Thankfully, they didn't go the remake route here and instead opted for a prequel that depicted the events that happened in the Norwegian camp prior to the '82 version. In that regard, this movie does an impressive job at tying some knots like showing how the two-faced thing came to be, as well as the origin of the dog from the start of Carpenter's Thing. Sadly, that's where most of the praise ends.

The Thing suffers from what plagues many horror movies these days - underwritten characters and overwhelming CGI. One of the scariest things of Carpenter's version is the practical effects of the "thing". They were horrifying. Here, all subtlety is thrown out the window in favor of huge CGI monsters. It's effectively used in a couple scenes, but the monsters lose their scariness after a while and it just becomes gratuitous. The characters themselves are paper thin. What helped make the '82 version so fantastic is that we got to know the characters, their quirks, their personalities, and we were able to empathize with their situations. In this movie, half of the characters are interchangeable. I didn't even know most of their names. And worse yet, I didn't care about any of them. There's one particular scene that calls back to Carpenter's infamous blood test scene where I realized that most of these people are really dumb and I don't care if any of them die. That's not good in a horror movie. By that point it was just a waiting game for them to get picked off one by one.

The lead performances are strong. For the material they were given, Mary Elizabeth Winstead and Joel Edgerton do a fine job. But that simply isn't enough to carry a movie like this. The Thing is supposed to be scary, and for the most part, it isn't. That's a failure by horror standards. There's some face-value entertainment to be had here, but if you're looking for a substantial prequel to Carpenter's masterpiece, you'll be sorely disappointed.

Not too bad....the critics are WAYYYYYYY off

[Riddle_Of_Steel · 20 October 2011]

While I am one of the most skeptical of movie-watchers (I sincerely feel that Hollywood is running out of ideas and is finding itself at the very end of its artistic hyperbole-- having no more room to make movies more action-packed, more violent, more provocative, or "more" anything) and normally assume 25 year prequels like this one to be a travesty that is both insulting and disrespectful of the original-- I have to say, they ACTUALLY DID A PRETTY GOOD JOB with this one. I would have screamed for totally different reasons than the directors intended, if this movie had turned out like those awful AvP movies (ruination for both once-proud franchises) or one of George Lucas' prequels. Most of the negative critiques I am hearing, are folks complaining that this movie was "the same" as the 1982 Carpenter movie, or "unoriginal" because it involved the same basic plot premise. HELLO!!!!! Read the director's interviews-- that is EXACTLY what they were shooting for!! This movie is supposed to be the same genre, the same mood, the same eventual outcome-- it is supposed to be a companion piece to the 1982 Carpenter movie! The director's stated goal was to create a prequel that was both RESPECTFUL of the original, and that you could pop the 1982 movie in after watching this one, and not notice much of a difference. The directors went to great lengths to ensure everything from the original movie was explained (in regards to the Norwegians and the many clues left around their camp in the 1982 segment). They did not make it stupid by adding some gangster rapper to the cast to give the movie mass-appeal, they didn't try to introduce some cheesy love-story, they didn't have to use nudity of some hottie chick to draw an audience. The movie stands on its own, but probably won't ever be that popular for just those reasons. THE THING 2011 draws on the same mental resources as the 1982 movie, and establishes the same results (a very good thing). Too much CGI, of course, but that cannot be avoided in this day and age. To sum it up-- if you liked the 1928 Carpenter movie, you will like this one as well, the movie was complete with a dissection scene (with half-absorbed people no less), a climactic battle with a super-thing, and the usual expected paranoia. They took the time to actually setup the mood and to give the characters some personality, as opposed to some rushed, effects-laden George Lucas CGI-fest. I have not ever seen any of the other movies by this director, but am willing to give it a try after seeing this movie. Not too bad at all....especially if you are a die-hard fan of the Carpenter version.

A Remake Disguised in Prequel but Without the Tension of John Carpenter's Masterpiece

[claudio_carvalho · 6/10 · 9 July 2013]

In 1982, the Norwegian Dr. Sander Halvorson (Ulrich Thomsen) invites the paleontologist Kate Lloyd (Mary Elizabeth Winstead) to join his team in his research in the Artic. On the arrival, she learns that they have discovered a spacecraft deep below in the ice. They find a frozen alien life form nearby and they bring to their facility for research. Out of the blue, the alien revives and attack the scientists, contaminating them and assuming the shape of his victim. Kate finds means to identify the creature, but maybe it is too late to save the team members.

In 1982, the master John Carpenter remade the 1951 "The Thing from Another World" ans his movie has become a masterpiece. The story of a shape-shifting alien that can assume any human form is tense, supported by a claustrophobic and depressing scenario, paranoid characters with Kurt Russell in the top of his successful career, haunting music score by Ennio Morricone and John Carpenter's top-notch direction.

This remake disguised in prequel is not totally bad, but follows the format of the present Hollywood movies, supported by special effects but without the atmosphere and the psychological horror of the 1982 movie. My vote is six.

Title (Brazil): "O Enigma do Outro Mundo" ("The Enigma of Another World")

drop the CG, eliminate the saucer, and bring back the blood

[SnoopyStyle · 6/10 · 18 August 2013]

This is a prequel/sequel/reboot/rework to John Carpenter's 1982 classic horror The Thing. There is the big reveal twisting the story to loop it around. They could have played with this a lot more than what they actually did. It's convoluted but I'm willing to buy it. In fact, it added something interesting. Not the same for the FX.

The aliens are now almost all CG. That's a big problem since the original had some of the most iconic real FX. It's a spit in the face for fans to replace it with CGI and it doesn't look good anyways. Going inside the saucer is a big mistake. This stars Mary Elizabeth Winstead, Joel Edgerton, Eric Christian Olsen, but nobody really stands out. This is a good idea but executed without understanding the appeal of the original.

To have fillings or not to have fillings? That's the question...

[Coventry · 6/10 · 26 November 2013]

Prequel, sequel or whatever they want to call it, the most positive comment I can give to "The Thing" is that it sparked my desire to re-watch John Carpenter's 1982 original and perhaps even the almighty 1951 pioneer classic "The Thing from another World", just so I can spot the little connections and audit if everything – in fact - interweaves nicely together. I've read quite a lot of harsh and severely impolite reviews on this film, but personally I must say I enjoyed it very much. Admittedly, however, I might be a bit prejudiced one two specific levels, namely a) I do not worship the Carpenter milestone like many fellow genre lovers do. It's a terrific and very influential classic, of course, but I don't consider it sacred and wouldn't rank it in my personal top 10 or so. And b) I'm a Belgian who spends a lot of time in The Netherlands. What does that have to do with anything, I hear you say? Well, not much indeed, except for the fact that "The Thing" was the directorial debut of Dutch filmmaker Matthijs Van Heijningen Jr., and if you'd know how many Belgian and/or Dutch directors aspire to build up careers in Hollywood, yet how very few of them ever even come close, this is praiseworthy to say the least. Van Heijningen literally came out of nowhere and all of a sudden now directs a relatively large-budgeted Sci-Fi horror flick with a massive reputation and a cast full of fairly famous faces. His father may have earned quite some money producing famous Dutch flicks, but this is nevertheless an impressive and respectable accomplishment.

"The Thing" 2011 is a fast-paced and visually astonishing, albeit unsurprising Sci-Fi/horror shocker. I state unsurprising because the film follows the exact same narrative structure and introduces very similar characters as in John Carpenter's original, which makes this nonetheless some kind of crossover between a prequel and a remake. Norwegian expedition members stumble upon a gigantic spacecraft underneath the thick ice of Antarctica and even discover a deep-frozen alien specimen within the same perimeter. Expedition leader Dr. Halvorson recruits American paleontologist Kate Lloyd to investigate the remains, but he clearly has a hidden agenda and wants to keep the discovery as confidential as possible for reasons of profitability. Whilst under observation, the alien naturally thaws and promptly goes on an unstoppable annihilation rampage thanks to his unique ability to duplicate the people it already killed. The one essential aspect this version lacks is undoubtedly the atmosphere of paranoia and hostility. Once the alien's hunting methods are known, there's general distrust and fear between the characters that isn't illustrated as tense as in Carpenter's film. There's a sequence in which Dr. Lloyd demands that everyone opens their mouth to check if they have teeth fillings, simply because the alien is unable to reproduce artificial body corrections. This particular sequence is a bit suspenseful, but simultaneously overlong and somewhat silly, because – like one of the group members righteously remarks – people suddenly can get banned from the circle "because they floss". On a more positive note "The Thing" definitely outshines the vast majority of other horror releases nowadays, thanks to the presence of authentic characters instead of irritating genre stereotypes... Of course, it would have been quite impossible to cast scantily clad babes and dim-witted jocks as arctic explorers... Also, the 1982 film may have benefited tremendously from Ennio Morricone's musical guidance, but Marco Beltrami provides a new score that is nearly as intense. But the biggest trump of "The Thing", and probably the main reason to grant it at least one viewing, is the gore. Even though all the special effects and make-up is computer engineered, Van Heijningen Jr. and his crew succeeded in making the special effects look as raw and disturbing as in the original. There are multiple gory highlights, for example the forming of the notorious two-headed creature, that will appeal to horror freaks of ALL generations; younger ones as well as skeptical John Carpenter groupies.

An uninspired prequel

[KnightsofNi11 · 5/10 · 15 October 2011]

In 1982 John Carpenter released his groundbreaking sci-fi horror masterpiece, The Thing. It involved a group of scientists in Antarctica who must divert from their research to deal with a mysterious creature that has infiltrated their research center. It's a creature that kills off people and then copies them perfectly so as to blend in with everyone else before they attack again. The creature came from another research camp located miles from their own, a desolate and abandoned Norwegian camp. What exactly happened in that doomed research facility has long been a mystery. All we know is that it was a disaster and it where the entire problem began. 2011's The Thing attempts to resolve that mystery by telling the back story of the events which led up to John Carpenter's film. However, in its attempt to fill the gaps and resolve the ambiguities this version of The Thing, to put it bluntly, does a very poor job.

The Thing is technically a prequel, however, it is in many ways just a remake of the 1982 version. It follows the same basic storyline of researchers in Antarctica finding an alien and then being terrorized by said alien. Because of this, we know exactly how The Thing is going to unfold. It's not the film's fault, it's just a simple fact. This puts a major obligation on the shoulders of the film to be highly imaginative and original in its own way. Sadly, The Thing does not do this. It falls short of being a truly inspired retelling of the classic tale and it really gets to be nothing more than a straightforward horror story, and I use the term horror loosely. This version of The Thing possesses none of the raw terror that Carpenter's version elicits. It doesn't capture that same level of visceral suspense that leaves us on the edge of our seat every waking minute of the film. This version is congested with cheap jump scares and gross out moments that sicken more than frighten. What Carpenter did in 1982 just couldn't translate over to this new rendition as it disregards everything that makes the original The Thing such a masterpiece.

I really try to judge films based on themselves alone. I try not to critique films based on other films as I feel like every film deserves to be judged individually. But when you have a film that is more or less purposely identical to its predecessor there's no other way to do it. As is the case with The Thing. I have to compare every element of this new version with the 1982 version and it clearly highlights all the flaws with this new version.

However, the one region where I thought the 2011 version could really surpass the original would be in the visual effects department. And oh how wrong I was. The creature design in The Thing is excellent, I can give it that. There are some very well designed monsters. Unfortunately, it is the CGI renderings of these wicked monsters that lets the design down. There is just something about the CGI in this film that just simply isn't good. It looks fake, it looks cheap, and it looks sloppy. If anything, it makes me appreciate the stop motion effects of the 1982 version so much more. I still have vivid images of the disgusting creatures from the 1982 The Thing, but I'm sure I will quickly forget the underwhelming designs of this new version.

It's sad to see a prequel to one of the greatest films of the 80's go down in flames. Overall, as a film on its own, The Thing isn't terrible, but it isn't very good either. It didn't amaze me and it didn't do any of the things that a good horror film should. But when you compare it to the 1982 version it is a very bad film. It simply gets everything wrong that Carpenter's version got oh so right. Watching The Thing doesn't make you sick to your stomach its so bad, but it severely underwhelms you and has nowhere near the same affect as Carpenter's immaculate version. 2011's version of The Thing won't be remembered and people certainly won't be talking about it 20 years down the line. That role is reserved for John Carpenter's 1982 masterpiece.

Movie done with great respect for source material

[JGDragov · 8/10 · 8 October 2017]

I didn't go see The Thing in 2011 for two reasons. One, I was reluctant to support a prequel when what I had really wanted for thirty years was a sequel. Two, the movie seemed to have vanished from the theaters only after a few weeks. In the meantime, I only heard negative things(no pun intended) about this film so I didn't feel like I was missing out.

However, something really weird happened when I finally caught it on HBO. I liked it! No, I mean I really liked it. To be clear, the criticisms about it being an unnecessary and almost too similar story to John Carpenter's classic are all fair. And, like most sic-fi movies today, there is more cgi than I would care to see. But the people making this movie clearly worship Carpenter's movie every bit as much as any die hard Thing fan. They go to great lengths to match up to the events suggested from the 1982 version and I personally appreciate them doing so. I also liked their method of detecting who was the Thing. It was different than MacReady's test but it was original.(Nothing will ever top the petri dish sequence and dialogue, Carpenter and Russell just nail it).

If you're a fan of the original looking for something completely different or a "new take" on The Thing From Another world, than this movie is not for you. But if you're like me, and always wondered who put that ax through the door or what events led up to the two-headed thing burnt up in the snow at the Norwegion compound than I highly recommend this flick.

Impressive by Hollywood standards, but can't sustain the same classic suspense as the original

[neji107 · 7/10 · 13 October 2011]

What really made John Carpenter's The Thing so magical was not its sci- fi elements, its alien movie aspects or even, I daresay, its splendid 1980s animatronic gore. It was the psychological tension! The issue of trust was a horrifying prospect: Who can you trust? Are you who you say you are? How can I tell what you say is the truth? At any moment, someone could be an alien waiting for the opportune moment to burst out and consume the vulnerable person. As a prequel to John Carpenter's work, The Thing (2011) taps respectfully into this raw suspense from the start, but towards the end loses its direction and falls victim to the Hollywood clichés of a typical alien monster film.

The Thing prequel (for simplicity I'll call the 1982 film "John Carpenter's") covers what happened in the Norwegian base. Kate Lloyd (Mary Elizabeth Winstead) is recruited cautiously by Dr. Sander Halvorson (Ulrich Thomsen) to aid in an Antarctic dig of a great scientific discovery: an alien specimen found frozen in the ice near its ship. With the help of Norwegian scientists, they recover the body to the safety of the base, but soon learn that it is still alive… and has the ability to assume the shape of that which it kills.

The first half of the story follows how John Carpenter's film goes down almost exactly. (I won't say anything about how it fares against 1951 The Thing from Another World… because I haven't seen it.) After the alien has proved to infect several humans already, extreme paranoia and distrust breaks out among the surviving crew. Kate quickly assumes the Kurt Russell-type leader, herding the survivors into open areas and investigating methods of exposing the monster. Tensions run extremely high, as they did in John Carpenter's, and at these moments I felt The Thing prequel had a good thing going for it. The suspense was thrilling and engaging, and aliens were bursting out of bodies at wholly unexpected times. The acting was consistently solid; Winstead did her part well, and the use of authentic Scandinavian actors was an added bonus. Within thirty minutes the film had paid enough homage to the original to be a worthy predecessor – more than I expected it to do in the first place -- but then it decided to take its own stylistic turn, which most would consider to be fine but Carpenter fans not so much.

First, the age of animatronics is over. It's realistic to expect the effects in every Hollywood movie these days to rely on CGI, The Thing (2011) being no exception. So while it lacked that creepy gooey tangible feel of John Carpenter's animatronics, The Thing prequel had plenty of fast- paced alien sequences while still looking fairly good. The monster design stays pretty faithful, including wiry tentacles and frighteningly random mouths. Of course at this point though, these kind of CGI effects are nothing we haven't seen before; many times it seemed to be a zombie-type monster rather than Carpenter's amorphous alien, and in that sense was a bit unbelievable.

Second, the movie switched tone halfway from primarily a psychological thriller to an alien, sci-fi flick. Whilst in Carpenter's film the alien tended only to burst out into its true form necessarily when discovered, in The Thing prequel it is glorified with an ungodly amount of screen time. The film quickly loses its intensity as it dwindles away into an ordinary monster chase around the Norwegian base.

By measures of any typical Hollywood monster horror film, The Thing is still an engaging and impressive ride. But trying to continue in the same spirit as John Carpenter's, the film fails to sustain the classic psychological suspense it starts out with. 7.5/10

Modern studio horror has turned to crap

[sweetooth0 · 2/10 · 15 October 2011]

I sincerely believe that if it had been handled properly this movie could have stood proudly alongside the Carpenter version.

If the filmmakers had balls the entire movie would have been in Norwegian with subtitles. It made zero sense that they would need to bring in people from American and Britain. Are there no radio operators or palaeontologists in Norway? Characters completely contradict this later in the movie when they are desperate to ensure no outsiders come to the base to steal their discovery. Stupid.

I guarantee the English speaking characters were included because the filmmakers think the audience is stupid and can't handle reading in a movie. And of course the Americans are the heroes and the Norwegians are nothing but walking meat bags waiting to get ripped apart and eaten.

The casting of women really didn't bother me too much as any sort of tacked on romantic sub-plot was completely absent. At least they got that right. But with no romance and no gender conflict, did they need to be women? Or was this just a studio decision to appeal to a wider demographic?

The rampant use of sub-par CG destroys this movie. This should have been a showcase for every advancement made in practical effects since 1982. They had some real talent working on it (Alec Guinness and Tom Woodruff Jr.) but all they got to do was sculpt a few dead aliens on lab tables. Everything else, including a majority of the gore, was rendered with cheap looking computer animation. This movie should have been mind blowing. Instead I was pulled right out of it by how terribly unconvincing the creatures looked every time they were on screen, which is a lot. Why didn't they get Rob Bottin back? Even as a consultant it couldn't have hurt. The CG should have complemented the practical work (see Pan's Labyrinth or Alexander Aja's Hills Have Eyes for how to do this right), instead it totally replaces it.

What adds insult to injury is that throughout production the filmmakers kept saying how they were going to do as much as possible using practical effects. I guess that just makes them liars. What a waste.

The creatures don't even sound right. The original monsters sounded unique with their haunting, almost sorrowful howling. Here they just make everything sound like Aliens, except way too loud, to the point where it actually becomes painful as your bombarded with high pitched shrieks constantly.

Another thing that bugged me: glaring continuity errors. This is a prequel to a movie that's been watched repeatedly for 20+ years, the importance of continuity is paramount. In the original the American team watches tapes of the Norwegians where they clearly blow the alien craft out of the ice with explosives. The characters even say "they're using Thermite charges" and it shows the explosion on the video. In this, the ice above the ship breaks when the creature turns on its ship. I read in an interview that the director always had a copy of the '82 version on hand to check for continuity. How do you miss that? When the ship is shown in the original it is in a vast snow plane. Where did the vehicles and cave from this movie go? The stories are seemingly hours apart, so I don't think they got covered up in a storm. Sloppy film making.

It states at the start it's 1982. We see Kate Lloyd examining the inside of a specimen using a camera on a tube. Next to her is a flat-screen computer monitor with a display showing modern looking video, text and graphics. Funny, I don't recall that technology existing in 1982. Take a look at the computer simulation used in the original: 2-bit graphics with non-existent animation. You were lucky back then if you had a computer that could render more than green and black on the screen. How hard would it have been to secure a CRT TV from a pawn shop and hook up the video feed using RCA cables from a camcorder? Because I have a feeling that is exactly what they would have been using.

The 1982 version has one of the most memorable soundtracks in movie history. The music totally adds to the bleakness and horror. Here, it's your standard throwaway Hollywood score that you'll forget the minute you leave the cinema. The classic theme is heard at the end, and by then it's too little too late.

Finally, the 2011 movie thinks that having random characters transform into monsters at unexpected times without any sort of logic, simply to have an onslaught of cheap jump scares, is suspenseful. You never see 95% of them come into any contact with the creatures. I get that they were trying to keep you on your toes, but the mystery should have been better developed like it was in the original. The creature in the original wanted to stay hidden as much as possible, in this they transform into monsters wantonly. Instead of suspense and paranoia, you just have a monster chase movie, with monsters that don't hold up.

The writer was the same guy who worked on the abysmal Nightmare on Elm Street remake. The constant monsters popping out closely mirrors the tactic he used in NOES with micro naps so Freddy could pop out and essentially say "boo!" constantly. Your 0 for 2 buddy.

The only reasons I rated this movie a 2 and not a 1 is that story-wise it wasn't too offending and did manage to tie in well with the original (continuity errors aside), the acting was fine (although there's basically zero character development), and despite how fake the CG looked, the creature designs were cool (just so poorly executed).

Okay, here's the thing about 'The Thing'...

[Ben_Horror · 8/10 · 13 December 2011]

When it was announced that this was going into production, there was a level of confusion/curiosity regarding what exactly it would be: remake/reboot/sequel/prequel? Also, would it utilize prosthetic effects like the 1982 original, or would it go all out CGI splatter? As it turns out, it's a combination of the former and the latter. The new 'The Thing' wants to have its cake and eat it too: you see, technically, it's a prequel but for some reason, the makers have molded it as kind of a remake as well. That's both clever and rather infuriating in equal measures. With regards to the effects, yes, they are CGI for the most part, but they look practical and are done well.

Story-wise, with the exception of some additions, it hits the same beats as John Carpenter's original movie too. An alien vessel is discovered frozen in the Antarctic permafrost by a Norwegian research team. Finding a mysterious life form, they bring it back to their research station. Even though there's no mention of an American in the original, the makers shoehorn one in here, clearly unconvinced that a movie comprised entirely of Europeans would sell. And likewise, it's a female – once again, you get the feeling they're not confident that an all male cast would sell this time round and are taking no chances.

The American, a palaeontologist (Mary Elizabeth Winstead), is drafted into the equation by a member of the research group. Then they set about participating in a scientific study of the alien creature. Only problem is, it returns to life, and being a shape shifter that can replicate any living organism, starts to hide amongst the group, leading to lots of finger pointing, flame throwers, explosions and suspicion fueled arguments. Sounds rather familiar, right?

Whereas the original 1982 movie was all about paranoia and the fear of the unknown - the alien hid among the human hosts, desperate to remain concealed at all costs, only showing itself when it felt its identity was compromised - it's distinctly not the case here. In this movie, the creature revels in revealing itself at every available opportunity. With bells ringing. It screams and shrieks its presence to such an extent that all notions of a story based on the mistrust and doubt of an isolated group of characters goes out the window. What's the point in being a shape shifter if you're going to constantly give the game away? Then there's another aspect that doesn't quite ring true: early on in the movie, the characters witness a violent helicopter crash. The logical thing would be to go out to investigate it and search for survivors… but for some reason, they all choose to ignore it. Additionally, one can't help but wish the makers had called the movie by a different title; after all, if it's meant to be an official prequel to the 'The Thing', why call it the same name?

It's not that it's bad movie; as remakes go, it's really rather good and executed with a lot of style. Sequel-wise, it's up there with Psycho 2. As with the original, we get a scene where there's a 'big test' as Mary Elisabeth attempts to ascertain who's who in the group. In the original, Kurt Russell used blood samples; here, they go for an admittedly clever spin on that scene, while being totally different, adds a new aspect to the creature while also playing as some kind of homage. You might even conclude that since this is a prequel, then you must know the ending, right? After all, we saw how it ended in the opening scenes of the original 1982 movie starring Kurt Russell. Wrong. While they don't violate the events, they take the movie in a whole different direction but still shrewdly stick with the original time- line.

Mary Elizabeth Winstead is very good in this. She doesn't strut around with a "Look at me, I'm so gorgeous" expression; in fact she plays the role - sans make up, for the most part – with a level of icy, cool female conviction unseen in a movie about a creature from outer space since a little movie made in 1979 called 'Alien'. It can't be an accident that she reminds the viewer of the Ripley character played by Sigourney Weaver in the same movie and even possess a similarly unconventional beauty. Based on this, it wouldn't be surprising if she ended up replacing Weaver in the inevitable reboot/remake etc. of that franchise.

The John Carpenter original was rightly celebrated for its surreal effects, giving audiences something that was genuinely cutting edge and never seen before at the time. Happily, there is lot of utterly bizarre transformations going on here as well that will make your jaw drop: a guy's face splits open; two men fuse together and in an attempt to outdo the spider-head of the original, we see a monstrous four-legged creation stalking its prey. While everything is 90% CGI, once again it's done in such a way that it almost homages the original. For the most part the effects here look similar to the 1982 movie, except they're done with a sheen that only CG could create.

In conclusion, is it any good? Yes, it is. It's not the disaster some snotty critics would have you believe. While it's not as good as John Carpenter's move (but then, what is?), it still honors the original while effectively and cleverly building the story that lead to the events in that movie. Yes, the aforementioned 'Thing' does shout and scream a bit too much, giving away its presence all too often, but that could easily be interpreted as a legacy of its inexperience with humans. This is a prequel, after all. But don't worry - by the time Kurt Russell and pals come along, it will have learned its lesson.

Inferior, albeit mildly entertaining, prequel

[Leofwine_draca · 6/10 · 18 September 2012]

This movie, billed as a prelude to the John Carpenter original telling the story of the Norwegian camp seen at the beginning of that film, was bound to struggle from the start. Although technically it's a prequel, it feels much more like a remake of the Carpenter movie, albeit with a few twists here and there to differentiate it. As most movie fans will tell you, the Carpenter movie is an outstanding piece of filmmaking, and I don't think anybody can ever hope to equal it. 2011's THE THING doesn't even come close.

Saying that, this film is not without merit. As a stand-alone film, it's actually pretty decent: well paced and fairly disturbing in places. It goes without saying that it would be a lot better if the original movie didn't exist; I'm sure some would be hailing it as a modern day classic. Those familiar with the Carpenter movie will be under no illusions about just how derivative this is.

Still, THE THING utilises some excellent CGI effects work (for the most part) that brings the body-horror storyline to vivid life; a crucial set-piece that takes place towards the climax is grim, gruesome and chilling in equal measure. However, it's perhaps a little bit too explicit and fast-paced; there are monster encounters galore and constant action, whereas a more subtle approach layered with tension and paranoia would have been more effective.

The cast don't get much of a look in, and Mary Elizabeth Winstead displays the same level of blandness as I've seen from her other movies; you just can't remember her face once the film finishes. Also, things get a little too science-fictiony at the climax, which goes all out and loses some believability as a result. Had they remained more restrained, the end result would have been much more realistic - and frightening.

A pale imitation of Carpenter's masterpiece

[NonSequiturL · 5/10 · 12 October 2011]

Let me preface this review with two things: first, I apologize for the pun/cliché in the title; second, I'm a major fan of John Carpenter's 1982 effort. I've watched it countless times and always cite it as my favorite film. With that in mind, I approached this remake/prequel with great caution.

To get the good stuff out of the way, I have to praise the filmmakers for keeping very close to John Carpenter's style. The lingering shots of cold, mysterious hallways while atmospheric synth music plays notes of dread are present and accounted for. The creature transformations are interesting and despite being computer generated, are generally well executed. The script is cleverly written, hitting all the notes needed to work as a prequel as well as a story that will work for new audiences.

All around, the film is entertaining brain candy. There's lots of action, creature effects and explosions to ensure you won't be bored. Its faithfulness to the style of its predecessor and its willingness to please fans and audiences are why I'm giving this film a 5 instead of something much lower.

But that's where the good stuff ends.

The effectiveness of The Thing's story relies on its mysteries, and our fear of the unknown. What happened at the Norwegian base has been a subject of debate amongst fans for many years, and finally someone has gone and ruined that debate. That's the central problem with the movie—it's a story that never needed to be told, and in telling it, the mythos becomes damaged. At least we still don't know what happened to Macready and Childs!

At the risk of sounding sexist, I'll state outright that casting a young woman as the main protagonist was a major mistake. The 1982 film was unique in that the cast was populated by a bunch of grizzled, old character actors. By including women, we lose a lot of the subtext afforded by the all male cast in Carpenter's version. Also, the film asks us to stretch our disbelief by wanting us to accept a group of Norwegians—already reluctant to bring anyone else in on their discovery—are willing to bring in a young American woman to help. Opening up the story outside of Antartica at its very beginning also brings us away from the sense of isolation so thick in the 1982 film.

While I said earlier that the creature transformations are interesting and fun to watch, they still don't hold a candle to the amazing practical effects and prosthetics created by Rob Bottin almost thirty years ago. As the runtime wears on, it sadly devolves into another "kick-ass chick brandishing a flame thrower being stalked down dark corridors by a computer-generated creature" movie, and that's not what The Thing was ever about. Where Carpenter's film was subtle, this one is loud and obnoxious, and I'm not trying to say that Carpenter's version was ever a hugely subtle movie.

The film rolls along at a steady pace of hitting every single beat found in the 1982 version. There's not enough here to make it an original entry in a franchise, as it substitutes slightly different ideas for ones better executed by Carpenter. It's a bizarre beast, one that looks new, acts as some kind of prequel but in reality is a thinly veiled remake.

It's ironic that Carpenter's The Thing, a movie about an imitating creature was itself imitated, even down to the studio's refusal to change the title. The film is at its best when emulating Carpenter's style, and the scenes over the credits put a smile on my face. Thankfully, the movie itself is respectful enough of the 1982 classic, and you can tell the filmmakers really tried their hardest to please everyone. It's just a shame that it's a story that never needed to be told.

Horror for a different age.

[steve1-1 · 27 November 2011]

Now now children, some people will have different opinions than you and just because it's different, doesn't make it wrong. Having read the first couple of pages of reviews here and having just seen the film only quarter of an hour ago, I felt compelled to write something about this prequel to the 1982 'The Thing'.

It's fair to say that opinion is divided on the merits of this offering, but it's also fair to say that most opinions that lambast this film are from die-hard Carpenter fans who are woefully disappointed by what they have seen, and fair play to them. No, it's not like the original movie. Go figure. It's nearly thirty years later. If you want to see the same film, go and rent it (and then watch it) twice.

Having seen the original movie maybe three or four times in the past thirty years (I was fourteen when I will have first seen it in 1983) I was quite pleasantly surprised by the end of this prequel. True, it lacks some of the tension of the original and the acting from most, if not all, was below par. I remember the wonder of the special effects taking my breath away in the early eighties. This effort failed to bring me those same kind of delightful terrors. However, this is not due to the realism or effort on the part of the film-makers.

This is purely down to my experience of horror movies throughout the past thirty years. My expectations at 42 are not the same as that 14 year old boy and I am a grisled and wisened old movie cynic these days as opposed to a wide-eyed horror newbie. I think I watched this around the same time as my pirate VHS copies of The Evil Dead and Poltergeist.

In short, this wasn't half bad. It was faithful enough the original film for my liking, though having only seen it a few times, I am far from an authority on the subject matter. Continuity sputtered from time to time and there were slightly too many plot lines left dangling for comfort, but altogether, this was an enjoyable hour and a half. Yes, it's true that you didn't feel for the characters as much as say MacReady (or whatever Russell's name was) in the first film and some of the blame for this should fall squarely on the writers. After all, bad though the acting may have been, they can only read what's on the page in front of them.

Don't be put off by the comments you read here that tell you this is nothing more than an awful pile of monkey doings, because that is judging it too harshly. It's never going to be the classic that Carpenter's film ended up being, but given the last decade of truly terrible remakes we have been forced to sit through, horror-wise, this is almost a breath of fresh air. Remember what decade you're in be thankful that whilst this is not a classic, it is better than much of what we've seen recently.

'51 and '81 are both better

[stevelomas-69401 · 7/10 · 4 January 2020]

Whilst it isn't as good as 'Who Goes There?' or the 1951/1981 versions it can stand up as reasonable SF/horror. My gripes, the odd CGI and the last 10 minutes before the credits.

Entertaining

[hi-01308 · 7/10 · 3 October 2022]

Different enough from the original that it feels pretty unique, and takes a bit of a different spin on a good story.

Glad they cast M E. W as the lead as she's just a great actress, and for me, this and Cloverfield Lane are some of her best performances in my opinion.

Graphics feel a little dated now, but there was only really one instance where it felt a little lower budget.

Only removing a few stars because I think there could have been a little more tension, and I wanted a more solid ending that what was offered.

A worthwhile watch which I wish kept me more on my toes, but delivered in great monster design and enough nods to the original without being a copy.

**SPOILERS** I am shocked...

[chodkoel · 4/10 · 20 October 2011]

...Shocked that this film is currently rated at 6.7. It is becoming increasingly difficult to take ratings seriously on this site. Considering that Dog Soldiers, for example, is rated as 6.8 - it is beyond my ken as to how this mediocre film can end up near a rating of 7.0. Even when taken as a stand alone film and not a remake, it doesn't contain enough elements to add up to an average 6.7 rating.

Anyway, for those who have no experience with John Carpenter's 1982 version of the 1951 original, The Thing From Another World, I can understand how they may be impressed with the movie. The story is great. It's an absolutely fantastic concept. That's why it's somewhat offensive to me that Heijningen and company could be handed a golden goose and, in turn, give it such a thoughtless and sterile treatment.

First, I'm not buying the relationships among the scientists. I mean, these are people that have traveled to Antarctica, are holed up in close quarters, have in their possession the greatest find in the history of the world, and seem to have about as much chemistry as a bunch of 5-year-olds at a Easter photo shoot. I didn't give a good damn about anyone. Actually, the only one that I really connected with at all was the one dude that couldn't speak any English. He seemed to me to be the most genuine actor of the lot. Most of the acting was mediocre at best, as if the actors and actresses had difficulty inserting themselves into the story in such a way as to produce a visceral performance. Part of the problem is that the film moves along too quickly. They could have spent a little less time showing scenery and shots of the monster and invested more into character development.

Which leads into the next problem. I expected to feel more of a sense of claustrophobia but most of the shots were way too expansive. The camera work really ruins the film. I mean, they're in freaking Antarctica, packed like sardines in a tin can, and freaked out of their gourds. I felt more tension watching The Muppet Christmas Carol. And that's why The Thing doesn't work as a slasher flick, like it was portrayed. Giving the movie that type of treatment guts the film of what's most effective: the Man vs. Man element.

Thirdly, there are way too many shots of the monster. It's gratuitous and detracts from the mystery and suspense. In the end, the monster comes off as being clumsy and inefficient.

In my mind, movies rated above, say 5.0, are films that I would consider watching again. Having said that, there is no chance that I would ever watch this film again. I can't give this film much higher than a 4.5, maybe 4.6. To really break it down into simple terms, it lacks the "coolness" factor where I might say to myself, "Boy I'd really like to see this scene again or hear this dialogue." There's nothing I want to revisit in this movie.

The best parts of the movie were the fillings test and the end, when they showed the beginning of the 1982 version.

In conclusion, go ahead and watch the movie, but don't lose the ability to view a film with a critical eye because it's loaded with CGI. As for me, I'll be watching Carpenter's masterpiece again the next chance I get.

Call me optimistic and kind, but I actually liked it.

[lepperling · 9/10 · 15 October 2011]

This movie has been out for like 2 days and all I've read are reviews from those self-proclaimed "loyal fans of the original" (and by original, I don't mean "The Thing From Another World") that feel betrayed or disappointed or whatever. I myself happen to be a student of "old-school" horror and I am DEFINITELY a loyal fan of Carpenter's classic, and I thought that this movie held strong for itself. It's like all those people out there that complain that "The Godfather Part 3" was terrible, when in reality it was a good movie on its own. Compared to the rest of the series it was weak, but, like this movie, was good on its own. Yes, we get it. Its not the original. It doesn't keep the creature out of sight as much. Okay, get over it. Keeping the audience guessing was "in" in the late 70s/early 80s, and I loved that. Thats why it worked in "The Thing", "Alien", etc. But its 2011, and as much as I miss the suspense and guessing games of those times, we're in a new era where films sadly use more CG and flashy scenes than character development (by the way, where was the superb character development in the original? both films are HORROR movies about a group of people we know nothing about as we watch them try to survive. Did we really ever learn anything about Kurt Russell's family? or what Keith David's favorite football team was?) and good old Savini/Baker-esque special effects. But this movie, in my opinion, was made for those "loyal fans" that,while watching the first film, were saying "Wow, I'd love to know what happened at this Norwegian camp before Kurt Russell got here!" And it did just that. It led right up to the events of the first film, while telling a separate, while similar, interesting story. It explained minute details from the first film that we were left wondering about. It recreated the Norwegian camp as viewed in the first film. It did everything in its power to remain true to the first film, while also giving us a reason to pay and see a NEW MOVIE. In our day and age, where it seems like every other horror movie that comes out is a remake of a classic from years ago (due to lack of original ideas?), its nice to see a prequel instead of a remake. Its nice to see a movie that tries to tell an original story, while keeping just enough elements in there to hook loyal fans of the original film. If you're going to the theater to watch Carpenter's "The Thing" (which it seems like all these 'loyal fans of the original' were expecting, though I don't know why...), then don't see it. If you loved Carpenter's film and want to see a fun N-E-W story that perhaps answers some questions you've wanted answered, then see this. Remember, its not Carpenter's film and its not trying to be. Its another movie, just giving a bit of an homage to Carpenter's classic.

Prequel Does No Damage

[Sarah423 · 7/10 · 8 April 2023]

The Thing 2011 is a prequel to The Thing 1982, a cult classic that originally wasn't all that well received itself.

There is a distinct darkness to these visions of aliens and how they'd interact with humans once they reach earth. Also a distinct pessimism to how few safety protocols humans making first contact would put in place. (Given recent science, probably deserved)

This particular movie does no harm to the classic, because its purpose is literally to get us to the opening shot of that former film. For this reason, I give the writers and producers respect for not trying to re-do something people hold dear.

This prequel is also a good stand alone--dark, moody with some lifts of humor; jump scares; decent f/x's on the re-release, capable cast.

For me, it's not the kind of film you buy on dvd and re-watch. But it's definitely decent when it comes up on your suggested movies on netflix. Acceptable. Solid.

Completely Missed the Point of Carpenter's film

[nirvana_state_of_mind · 3/10 · 15 October 2011]

First of all, like many others I have to say that I am a huge fan of John Carpenter's The Thing. I was looking forward to the Norwegian prequel as I love Ronald D Moore's version of Battlestar Galactica and thought he would really nail this as well if he wrote the screenplay. I first saw The Thing on VHS at the age of 16 over 20 years after it originally was released in theatres. What I loved about the film was the tension created based on the characters' paranoia of not knowing who to really trust to be a human. It was this quality that I believe made the film as compelling as it was. The monster effects were very impressive for their time, but for me they came secondary to the paranoia aspect of the film.

So if this is to be an actual faithful prequel, any fan of The Thing should accept Kurt Russell's monologue that the alien has tendencies to strike only when it is alone with another person and will try to take the whole group over slowly by hiding amongst them. The problem with this so-called prequel is that the alien does anything but that. We are treated with plenty of gross out monster revealing effects where the alien straight up attacks the humans, sometimes taking out three humans at a time. This action completely undermines the original where the idea was that the Thing was vulnerable when it was out in the open. All this prequel provides is gross images of a monster that attacks humans who then fight back with whatever weapons they have on hand. This aspect got boring really fast, whereas the paranoia aspect of the original played a very minimal role in this film. When a character was revealed to be a Thing, it really had no impact at all as there was not enough character development to really care about it. I realize Carpenter didn't have much more character development, but he still had enough for the audience to be blown away when the creature chose to reveal itself.

Yet the most flawed trait of this film could be pointed out by a young Stephen Spielberg or Ridley Scott 30 years before this film was even made. Much like Spielberg's shark in Jaws or Scott's original Alien, the alien in Carpenter's The Thing was hardly ever shown. The tension that was created from all these films was built off of what was not seen. The audience knows that the monster is a real threat to the characters and we also feel the tension of how the characters treat each other because of this threat. It was this aspect of these films that worked so well, not the violent gross out special effects of monsters attacking humans.

To summarize, I was highly disappointed with this film and would rank it with The X-Files: I Want to Believe as the worst movie I have ever gone to see in theatres. Fans of Carpenter's The Thing will not benefit in the slightest from seeing this film and the so-called tie-ins are so shallow that it is better to preserve the mystery of the Norwegians that the original film created.

Way underrated

[rupert-ian · 8/10 · 3 February 2018]

The hate this movie gets is ridiculous in my opinion.

I've been a fan of the Carpenter's The Thing since I was a little kid. It is one of the best sci-fi/horror movies of all time, in my opinion. The story, characters, setting, effects, sound, music, acting...all great. It stands next to Alien as the best of the sci-fi horror genre.

I think this movie did it justice and gave me something I always wanted ever since seeing the original: a movie of the Norwegian camp's story.

This movie did exactly that. The CGI did bother me, but it seems that they did some tweaks for the Blu-Ray release and it looks much better. The CGI scenes looked too shiny before, very obvious. I just watched the Blu-Ray for the first time and it looks worlds better. The film grain, extra detail, color, and lack of DNR helped a lot. There were only a couple scenes that stood out, whereas before most of the CGI slapped you in the face and stood out like a sore thumb.

It is sad how the studio messed with this movie. If they hadn't stepped in and shined over the practical effects with so much CGI, and if they hadn't added the "boss fight" at the end, this movie would be even better. Especially the end.... The original ending sounded awesome and would have actually explained some of the origins of the creature such as "why was it on that ship" "why did it leave the ship" "was it flying the ship?" etc.

Mary Elizabeth Winstead did a great job in this movie and all the acting was good.

The original is a 10/10 for me. One of the most perfect movies in my book. This movie gets an 8 for the Blu-Ray. Before seeing the Blu-Ray, the special effects bothered me so much I would have rated it as a 7.

Gorgeous monster movie; another great version

[sam-321-129561 · 7/10 · 18 May 2012]

I'm surprised there haven't been more than three versions of this one, The Thing From Another World is up there with Dracula and Frankenstein in terms of quality. John Carpenter's 1982 version, however, was so pitch-perfect, and so close to pre-CG special effects perfection, that it seemed like you just couldn't top it! A new take on a classic tale for a new audience is always welcome in my book, though, provided they capture what made the previous version(s) special.

A living 'Thing' from another world, recently excavated in Antartica, assumes human form and lurks amongst others, then splits, contorts and bursts open its human bodies in whatever way necessary to survive. Paranoia spreads, the cast never knowing who among them has been assimilated by this 'Thing'. The Thing acts as a remake for the newcomers, but also as a prequel for people familiar with John Carpenter's version, complete with homages to shots found in that film (even down to the placement of a bloody axe) and a mid-credits sequence leading right into it.

The re-remake has been met with some anger on the internet due to its use of CG, after Carpenter's film wowed people so much with its real-life animatronic effects. The bizarre truth is that the majority of this version's effects shots are actually practical, with a bit of CG to smooth out the edges and to achieve a few of the things practical effects could not, Jurassic Park style. The fact that people have had trouble realising this is testament to just how far both types of effect have come. The 'transformations' here however are less visceral than they were in the 80s version, the bodies change shape and sprout tentacles and teeth without the gushing blood and pus from the 'original' and it gives the entire affair a 'cleaner' feel, where the monster is more of a marvel than a horror. I was also pleased to see that where CG is used here it really is used to its potential, creating some awesomely grotesque and agile creatures which move freely of any rigging or puppetry (and nobody's going to convince me that CG tentacles are any less believable than jerky green-screened stop motion).

In fact, the most notable difference in this version is the pacing. Carpenter's film bided its time, steadily working on the paranoia, only pulling out the glorious effects in a few key scenes, whilst this 'Thing' wastes no time showing off what it can do. For me, the 'original' was too slow in many ways and in contrast I find this one a little too fast, and it almost feels over too soon. The all-male cast of the 'original' weren't the most compelling set of characters, many of them crude stereotypes shoehorned in to further fuel the rage with their testosterone, whilst this version brings in a more diverse group of people - Norwegians, Americans, Englishmen, young and old - and it benefits from it. Whilst you could argue that the heroine character is crammed in and given too much character strength to contrast with Carpenter's sausage-fest, but she's still strong and when wielding a flamethrower and calling the shots at times she almost has an Ellen Ripley vibe to her. It's also nice to learn a bit more about the 'Thing'; as great as the mystery of it all was in the 'original', it's refreshing to get a further look into the kind of world this being may have come from and the kind of technology that brought it here.

Overall, a great monster movie and another great retelling of a classic, but probably better for newcomers than for people with fond memories of the previous version(s). Less tension and more 'BOO!', less revulsion and more awe, this is the 'accessible' version of The Thing.

Doesn't line up with original

[bokonon82 · 5/10 · 31 October 2018]

It's odd how a bigger budget and "better" effects with an ok story, do not add up to a movie equally as good as the original. I find it strange how the monsters in the original are more scary AND seem more real. The CGI is quite mediocre to the point where physical puppets made of foam and syrup (whatever they used) are way more terrifying.

I am not a long time fan of the original. In fact, I just watched both for the first time in the last few weeks. Aside from the poorly executed effects, the store really doesn't make much sense in the prequel.

Here's why:

In the original, they come to the realization that each cell of the "Thing" is sort of an individual being that also acts as an entire sentient being in combination. The individual components of the being will try to escape when threatened OR they will expose themselves when they have another living thing cornered in a way where they may mimic them without being discovered. Thus, you have the dog going after the other dogs to mimic them or the hidden instances where humans are copied if caught alone.

Then, you have the moments where the "Thing" is threatened and hit their own "fight or flight" mode to escape. These include the mouth opening on the stomach when shocked by paddles to correct a heart rhythm, the head trying to escape the body when it was burning, AND the blood reacting to intense heat during the "test" which caused the "Thing" to react and fight back. The point is that the "Thing" does not expose itself unless it is under direct threat.

In the prequel, the "Thing" just randomly exposes itself. I feel like the writers/director didn't really watch the original or some producer came in and screwed it all up.

The Thing

[0U · 13 February 2020]

This film deserves the criticism it gets and while flawed and nowhere near the classic Carpenter film, it did finally tell the tale of how the Thing was discovered. Also the limitations of the Thing not being able to replicate metal was a clever touch in my opinion.