User reviews

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.

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'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.

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")

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.

I don't think people give this movie its due. Of course it's not as good as the 1982 movie but that doesn't mean it's bad. It's a very faithful prequel and sticks to the story excellently. If you watch them both back to back it's almost like one long movie (and it's a great night in) The performances are great. The setting, as in the John Carpenter classic is claustrophobic yet somehow vast and there are some very tense scenes. It is let down by cgi. I would have liked to have seen some of the practical effects that were talked about in the movie's marketing but it's a product of the time. Overall I enjoyed it.

A solid 7/10.

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.

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.

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.

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.

...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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.