Paleontologist Kate Lloyd is invited by Dr. Sandor Halvorson to join his team who have found something extraordinary. Deep below the Arctic ice, they have found an alien spacecraft that has been there for perhaps 100,000 years. Not far from where the craft landed, they find the remains of the occupant. It's cut out of the ice and taken back to their camp but as the ice melts, the creature reanimates and not only begins to attack them but manages to infect them, with team members devolving into the alien creature. Written by
The filmmakers used Kurt Russell's height as a guesstimate to how big the sets would have to be to faithfully recreate the Norwegian camp as no blueprints existed from the John Carpenter movie. See more »
Near the beginning when flying to the Antarctic base, Dr. Kate Lloyd (Mary Elizabeth Winstead) is shown flying in a helicopter without hearing protection or headphones (one of the characters motions her to put them on so they can converse). Flying in a cargo helicopter is painfully loud (120db or higher) and there is no way that anybody could fly in one for hours without protecting their hearing. In fact, it's mandatory on the majority of flights See more »
Okay, I've got another one. A good one. A man and woman are making love one night when their young boy walks in.
See more »
SPOILER: There are a few short scenes during the first part of the end credits, which tie the ending of this film to the beginning of the 1982 film. See more »
Whoever made this movie didn't understand what was great about John Carpenter's 1982 version. The Thing was terrifying because there was TENSION. There is no tension in this "prequel." The creature does not attempt to "hide inside an imitation," it tries to kill everyone in it's proximity without ever being threatened or exposed. This movie contradicts or screws up everything we knew of this timeframe (what took place at the Norwegian camp) from the original movie. Yes, some bodies and objects end up in the same place we saw them in 1982, but other MAJOR events are completely altered. There is nothing worse than making a movie under the title or license of an established classic, and butchering it into a paint by number of Hollywood clichés.
124 of 219 people found this review helpful.
Was this review helpful to you?