6.2/10
99,347
489 user 347 critic

The Thing (2011)

Trailer
2:31 | Trailer

Watch Now

From $2.99 (SD) on Amazon Video

ON DISC
At an Antarctica research site, the discovery of an alien craft leads to a confrontation between graduate student Kate Lloyd and scientist Dr. Sander Halvorson.

Director:

(as Matthijs van Heijningen)

Writers:

, (short story "Who Goes There?")
Reviews
Popularity
1,949 ( 528)
5 nominations. See more awards »

Videos

Photos

Edit

Cast

Cast overview, first billed only:
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
Peder
...
Jonas
...
Henrik
Carsten Bjørnlund ...
Karl
...
Colin (as Jonathan Lloyd Walker)
Edit

Storyline

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 garykmcd

Plot Summary | Plot Synopsis

Taglines:

In a place where there is nothing, they found something. See more »


Motion Picture Rating (MPAA)

Rated R for strong creature violence and gore, disturbing images, and language | See all certifications »

Parents Guide:

 »
Edit

Details

Country:

|

Language:

| |

Release Date:

14 October 2011 (USA)  »

Also Known As:

The Thing: The Beginning  »

Filming Locations:

 »

Box Office

Budget:

$38,000,000 (estimated)

Opening Weekend:

$8,493,665 (USA) (14 October 2011)

Gross:

$16,907,450 (USA) (11 November 2011)
 »

Company Credits

Show detailed on  »

Technical Specs

Runtime:

Sound Mix:

| |

Color:

Aspect Ratio:

2.35 : 1
See  »
Edit

Did You Know?

Trivia

The producers convinced Universal Studios to allow them to create a prequel to John Carpenter's The Thing (1982) instead of a remake, as they felt Carpenter's film was already perfect, so making a remake would be like "painting a mustache on the Mona Lisa". However, the prequel still has the title of the original film, because they couldn't think of a subtitle (for example, "The Thing: Begins") that sounded good. See more »

Goofs

Jameson's skiing cap changes position on his head in many shots. Most noticeably when he enters the room where the thing is initially kept. See more »

Quotes

[first lines]
Peder: [In Norwegian] 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 »

Crazy Credits

The Universal logo of the 1990s is used instead of the current (2011) logo. See more »

Connections

Referenced in Being Erica: Sins of the Father (2011) See more »

Soundtracks

The Thing (End Credits)
Written by Ennio Morricone
See more »

Frequently Asked Questions

See more (Spoiler Alert!) »

User Reviews

 
Okay, here's the thing about 'The Thing'...
13 December 2011 | by (Ireland) – See all my reviews

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.


70 of 108 people found this review helpful.  Was this review helpful to you?

Contribute to This Page

Create a character page for:
?