IMDb > The Thing (2011/I) > Reviews & Ratings - IMDb
The Thing
Top Links
trailers and videosfull cast and crewtriviaofficial sitesmemorable quotes
main detailscombined detailsfull cast and crewcompany credits
Awards & Reviews
user reviewsexternal reviewsawardsuser ratingsparents guidemessage board
Plot & Quotes
plot summarysynopsisplot keywordsmemorable quotes
Did You Know?
triviagoofssoundtrack listingcrazy creditsalternate versionsmovie connectionsFAQ
Other Info
box office/businessrelease datesfilming locationstechnical specsliterature listingsNewsDesk
taglines trailers and videos posters photo gallery
External Links
showtimesofficial sitesmiscellaneousphotographssound clipsvideo clips

Reviews & Ratings for
The Thing More at IMDbPro »

Write review
Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Page 4 of 49: [Prev][1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [Next]
Index 483 reviews in total 

11 out of 19 people found the following review useful:

What were they thinking

Author: santasa99 from Bosnia and Herzegovina
31 October 2012

I was so trilled when I heard that "they" making a prequel to John "The Master" Carpenter's "Thing". Oh, I couldn't wait !

And then after I seen it, I was ready to turn into film-terrorist and make fusion furnace out of Hollywood.

How can you fail so terribly with such an opportunity, with plain, clean sheet of canvas that is left behind Carpenter, on which you can work a pure prequel magic with an altogether magical idea !?!

I don't even thinking on absence of horror - it's not scary, it's not suspenseful, it's not tense, it's not dark, it's not exciting - I actually want to point out that film is illogical from the get-go, where poorly developed characters are incredible stupid even for teenagers let alone scientists, director and writer are both morons trying to make this prequel look as much identical as possible to the original (this is true !). Some characters are completely unnecessary, like for example young American palaeontologist - really, Norwegians couldn't find any in Norway or Europe - but that bit I can understand and accept since it's an American film primarily made for Americans (maybe that explains a lot ;-)), so we have couple of Americans, OK. But wait, young American female scientist, just few years past her teenage shenanigans becomes a leader, and I mean in every sense of the word, among couple of world-wide famous Norwegian scientists and dozen of deranged Vikings - really !? They all listen to her, science-wise, or "battle tactics"-wise, and so she lead them (well, to death, mostly).

At one point, after she announced that nobody should leave or escape alive or in any other shape or form, and that any of them could be the "Thing", and that leaving the place in small groups is exactly what "spaceman" wants, because then It can kill them much easily if they find themselves alone with him, she suddenly really struggles to save two other Americans who survived impossible, just to lock them both, together in the same room !?!

I can't torture my self any longer ! Just to say - pity ! - prequel with all the possibilities of the great idea of the original is absolutely unwatchable ! Whyyyyy ? Hollywood rot in Hell !

Was the above review useful to you?

11 out of 19 people found the following review useful:

You've Got to be ******* Kidding

Author: lazlopanaflex from United Kingdom
27 November 2011

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Now I could nitpick the movie like many people have done (the dog is a different colour etc) but that isn't a review. This prequel isn't as bad as I may have thought but it really is pointless. If you watched this movie first then watch Carpenters version then the 82 version doesn't make sense! Why would the Thing make the SAME mistakes that got it caught out at the Norwegian camp? The film starts well, but goes downhill quickly-why get an American expert from 10,000 miles away when you may have one in the US camp (Or the never mentioned until convenient Russian camp?) sorry nitpicking-damn! But that is the problem with this film, there is no suspense, no character development (ok even Carpenter didn't do so well there either but at least I knew who everyone was) and the effects! Oh god some of the CGI was out of a syfy monster movie of the week! There is so much wrong with this film that it spoils the things that go well (other effects are pretty cool when done well). The main problem is no attempt is made to make you think "which one is The Thing?" -and it wouldn't have mattered anyway as one beardy Norwegian bloke looks pretty much like another beardy Norwegian bloke-oh there is two women, our lead-Sorry but she's no Ripley (I'll just drop this flamethrower down, my only form of defence or keeping warm, right here). The other woman is totally wasted, like the time I spent watching this movie. I promised this was a review-sorry just couldn't resist those nitpicks. What is really annoying is the films failure now means a sequel is never going to happen- something they should have done rather than this mess!

Was the above review useful to you?

11 out of 19 people found the following review useful:

No "Thing" to see here

Author: MovieProductions from United States
30 October 2011

*1/2 out of (****)

Strike one: Lie to your (limited) fanbase about most of the effects being practical, when, rather, they're mostly computer generated which look abysmal by the way. Strike two: Hype up how graphic and terrifying your film is when there's a few squirts of blood there and some man to creature violence. Yawn. Even "The Mist" was worse in terms of violence. Strike three: When you make a crappy movie.

You can sugarcoat this movie to death justifying how it breaks the mold of Hollywood remakes when it's really just part of the same mouth-watering Hollywood cash scheme. Give me all dislikes, I don't care, you don't hype up a fan with false information going in, not only being disappointed by that, but you tell fans you did such a great job and your film sucks more than "Footloose". FOOTLOSE. How can you screw up THAT badly?

First of all, the acting is just plain rancid. Mary Elizabeth Winstead, which should've been an epic heroine, just looks at the camera and stands there looking pretty. Her little Norwegian posse and/or work crew are so uninspired and you can tell they don't care about this movie or being a part of it. Second of all, the dialogue is just laughably bad. Were they actually serious about that opening joke? Man, was that TERRIBLE.

Now what we've all been waiting for, the creatures. After seeing the first creature, my hopes skyrocketed. They used practical effects, it was very intriguing to look at, very realistic effects. I was impressed. After that, I saw the CGI overload and I was so mad. So you aim to use "practical effects" yet you take the cheap way out making your film look like a college student level? Not only that, but the film was just agitating. It felt so rushed that that annoyed me more than anything. Not only are making a crappy movie, but now you want us to leave? Shame on you. Oh and that ending, sooo uninspired.

What avoided this movie from getting under a 4? The credits sequence where they intersperse the original's scenes. I thought that was an interesting touch. And like I said, the first creature looked pretty rad.

All in all, there was no "thing" to see here. Awful, awful acting, poor dialogue, and some of the worst creature effects make this "prequel" (I call B.S., it's a remake for crying out loud), an uninspired one. Hollywood, grow some balls and either make something new for a change or do remakes how they used to do 'em like Carpenter's "The Thing" and the remake of "The Fly".

Was the above review useful to you?

12 out of 21 people found the following review useful:

A Love It, Hate It, Or just Feel Indifferent About It Type-Of-Movie

Author: Neuenschwander9 from Leipzig
18 October 2011

These days the average retard on the street feels no qualms whatso ever about shelling out hard earned clams for CGI fluff, two hour long toy commercials, or garbage churned out by the likes of Adam Sandlier, kevin Smith or the Kids Down the Hall. Once upon a Time however, in a land called Hollywood, films did't suck so badly, isn't it? The film, first of all, hardly any of it's traditional influence. Even with blocks of ice that was CGI.

Traditional effect was seen in only a matter of time when it was dead on a table. So, thinking that respect genius of the film's first movie for anyone spending their money elsewhere. It's design all the smooth, glistening teeth and net CGI. It looked laughably bad at points. It was the first film. The film that's as far as possible tried to. I've also heard critics complain about the sound. I can not quite agree. Loud, ear piercing screeching and screaming every time the minute is a visual thing, which is approximately every five minutes to enter. I am hard of hearing and I still had to cover my ears. Paranoia and suspense of the film is almost entirely absent from this version. There are many ways for us to follow or care about, starting with the letters.The lead actress was a highlight film. It seemed as though if he was lost in the wrong movie. He is a serious, smart scientist with the balls had to be done, yet he did not have the power to change anything, because the CGI tentacle monster teeth are still one or two characters killed every scene. While this film is the first film, almost to the letter shamelessly rips off the plot, yet manages to make us giggle when everyone is being "tested" the original cause stress, fear, and mystery. Overall, this movie is a shameless attempt to cash in the name of something while throwing everything that made the movie great. And, O Lord, cgi was awesome.

Was the above review useful to you?

16 out of 29 people found the following review useful:

Flat boring and completely missing the mark of what made The Thing great

Author: Bob Saget from United States
3 December 2011

In this review I will give information that is found in the original movie. This does not ruin anything that happens in the new movie as they are nearly identical except the new version is basically trash not worth watching.

This movie was so bland and generic that that only character whose name I can remember is Lars, because he was the only character who had any personality or is worth remembering. If you watched the original you will notice that this movie is worse in every aspect possible and almost a complete copy of the original, except horribly done. But lets go into detail why this movie is so bad besides the bland boring characters I don't care about at all, and neither will you.

This movie has no pacing at all. Everything happens too fast and there is no suspense. Way too many random things happen that don't make any sense and there is no development of characters with paranoia or fear or anything. People die way to quickly and often. Its more of a monster movie than a mystery. But it is a monster movie you say! No its not. The Thing is about a monster who happens to be able to impersonate and hide and manipulate. Sure it can run around and rip your arms off but thats not what makes it scary. It can be anyone at any time and no one can be trusted. It has all their memory and intellect added to its own. It is intelligent and cunning. It hides and waits to strike. This movie the thing must have ate Rambo cuz it runs around in the open all day. The original thing keeps its options open. Why expose when you can stay hidden? Why take unnecessary risks as an extremely intelligent intergalactic species that has mastered space flight and biology? Why reveal yourself when you can sneak onto a helicopter and escape and achieve the same goals.

The creature itself sucks. When we first find out its alive its way too powerful as you will see immediately (no spoilers). The Thing is supposed to be an alien that has millions of creatures DNA from across the galaxy and the intellect of an intergalactic race. Its not some bacteria. It does the SAME types of creatures and limbs/appendages/etc over and over. Its cuz they cheaped out on CGI so they kept using like the same 4 things over and over rather than the thing being unique and choosing certain DNA for certain sequences. Maybe the creature suffered intense brain damage from the ice so it became as retarded as the movie itself.

What else is there to talk about. No good actors. Bad CGI. No suspense or tension. Copy paste story thats shamelessly steals from the original bringing NOTHING new to the table. I was hoping the main girl to have a conversation with "The Thing" at one point towards the end to reveal some new info, but nope, nothing in this story is new or interesting at all. Imagine this creature that is who knows how old and with how much knowledge. It probably has built up a lot of arrogance and would toy around with the last victim before dominating the planet. It would explain what it is, where it is from, its motives, because the pathetic humans are powerless to stop it. But no it acts like a beast and romps around on stage front and center like an attention whore.

Was the above review useful to you?

18 out of 33 people found the following review useful:

Poor continuity, poor writing = mediocrity

Author: lennonforever from United States
15 October 2011


PLEASE DO NOT READ IF YOU HAVEN'T SEEN YET! Or maybe even John Carpenter's fantastic film.

"The Thing" paid homage to both previous versions, even "Alien/Aliens" which was great.The scenery was great outside, and inside too. Another plus, no romantic garbage.

But,now I'm going to rant !

Plot inconsistencies, anachronisms , poor character development, silly CGI, ruined it for me. There were few creepy moments- when the Thing is cut from the ice, the drilling for tissue, and my favorite scene of the entire film- the two-faced thing on all fours, searching room to room for the helicopter guy.

The most awful horror rule broken- we see the Creature much too early! That really bugged me.

Then ,all of a sudden , the last girl ( or is she?) is taking the entire operation of the camp away from the other researchers? So, she figures out the "diabolical" alien plot, just like that, not speaking to anyone? Academic politics even in Antarctica. Who knew? Plot holes, clichéd writing.

I learned the director always kept a copy of Carpenter's film near-by, to keep it real.He should have referred to it a great deal more.

And the camp personnel- who are they? Should we even care what happens to them? We know very little about them,so we really don't care what happens to them. With the exception of, maybe, two people -Lars and the girl. The rest are clichéd characters.Where was the slow and steady paranoia building to a climax? Yes, there was a little, which was good, but certainly no where near to Carpenter's.

And don't get me started about the dog!! We first see the dog, who appears to be some kind of large border collie. Maybe it's a northern breed of which I am not aware.But it WASN'T a damn husky!!!!! Where on Earth did the husky come from? AND I DIDN'T EVEN SEE IN THE CREDITS - THE EVER PRESENT 'NO ANIMALS WERE HARMED IN THE MAKING OF THIS FILM'!!! WHAT GIVES?

The guy's earring?? Give me a break. Straight guys in 1982 weren't wearing earrings! And why would he touch the wrong lobe?

And what about the flat-screened computer in the girl's lab? Didn't know they had those in 1982 (sarcasm)

The doctor/alien thing in the spaceship reminded me of Buffy and Dr Who episodes. Silly.

So what happened to the girl at the end? Was she out of gas, or the cliffhanger, is she a Thing? This film screams sequel, sequel. Was Lars infected? Did he absorb the 'final girl'? Too many unanswered questions.

My recommendation - if you're a fan of science fiction horror you'll probably like it. If you're a 'creature feature' fanatic you'll probably like it. But if you are a very big fan of John Carpenter's 1982 film, or Howard Hawks' version ,the latter happens to be my favorite movie of ALL TIME,ANY GENRE, simply avoid. Completists will probably need to see this film. Everyone else, eh.

Was the above review useful to you?

20 out of 37 people found the following review useful:

absolute crap! watch the original one with Kurt Russell

Author: janetkroemer from columbus, ohio
16 October 2011

wow, that was the slowest movie I have ever seen! Absolute garbage! the only good thing that I can say is that the special effects... (when there were some, are somewhat decent. The acting was very basic and not impressive. The main actress was very (ho-hum-plastic and obviously didn't take acting lessons). I watch all the scary movies that come out, and WAS optimistic and wanted to believe that it would get better, didn't. Don't waste a penny on this one, you will be very disappointed. When the credits rolled at the end, you could hear a pin drop and the look of peoples faces equaled mine, like - I should have washed my car instead of wasting $ on this! ugh.

Was the above review useful to you?

24 out of 45 people found the following review useful:

The Thing (2011) as awful as expected

Author: zen12084-231-9383 from United Kingdom
6 December 2011

I had low expectations for this film but I still was disappointed. I don't know if the film was aimed at morons or the director never watched the original. A dumbed-down Hollywood CGI-fest was inevitable but I thought they'd at least get the basics right.

The film is supposed to be set straight before the 1982 film. The sets, costumes, clothes, style... everything feels modern and definitely not from the 80s. Even the computers look too modern. The plot isn't consistent at all. The camp is supposed to be full of Norwegians who don't speak English but instead we get lots of yanks, one of which is a laughable attempt to re-create the Mcreedy character which makes no sense at all.

It almost feels like the helicopter and dog-thing at the end was bolted-on just to link up the second film. In reality this film is completely inconsistent and doesn't make any sense. In the 1982 film the Norwegians use thermite charges to expose the spacecraft underneath the ice. There is no mention of thermite in this film. In addition, the man who killed himself with a razor blade is missing and the inside of the Norwegian camp doesn't look the same. It's also too large. There shouldn't be any vehicles parked outside the spacecraft site either.

Overall a complete mess of mindless CGI full of plot holes and deus ex-machinas. I wouldn't be surprised if the script writers hadn't seen the original film.

Was the above review useful to you?

28 out of 53 people found the following review useful:

Really awful !

Author: Diego2001 from Canada
16 October 2011

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

This movie is really bad. I know that there has to be a suspension of disbelief, particularly for monster pictures in which a monster frozen for one hundred thousand years comes back to life. The original had it and so did the Kurt Russell remake but this one does not. A scientific research station in the Antarctic where the scientists are packing more guns than Rick Perry plus there are plenty of flame throwers around for everyone who wants to roast a monster. It is also getting tiresome that all space alien monsters, since "Independence Day" are slimy crab like creatures that are killing machines without ever bothering to communicate to us mere earthlings. Time for a new style alien!! Then the acting is dreadful and was there anyone actually directing this absolute rubbish?????

Was the above review useful to you?

2 out of 2 people found the following review useful:

John Carpenter purists, this is pretty damn good... mostly!

Author: Dan Ashley (DanLives1980) from United Kingdom
27 May 2014

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

It's taken me three years to summon the will to watch this "preboot" of John Carpenter's literal sci-fi chiller, refusing the claims that "it isn't that bad." Lo and behold, I was clearly being a bit pretentious by not giving it a try as it's one of the most effective horrors of recent times, even if it isn't completely original! My fears were few, but it mattered to me that there's a huge difference between prosthetic effects and CGI, especially in movies that aren't considered high budget blockbusters, and it mattered to me that the difference in filmmaking styles were going to have a noticeable effect on the credibility of the classic.

So to the purists that knocked it, and those that haven't tried it at all, I have to say that despite some big risks, this prequel/reboot/preboot mostly works well for me, and I'm hard to please. However I will explain what worked and what bugged me.

It takes place at the Norwegian base featured in the early scenes of the John Carpenter original. Scientists Kate (Winstead) and Adam (Olsen) join Dr Sander Halvorson on an expedition to Antarctica where the UFO has been discovered under the ice. While introducing us to a cast of rather salty characters, events quickly go from foreboding, to creepy, to crazy when the Thing is released from the ice shortly after preliminary scientific tests.

It wastes no time in wreaking havoc, but what I found interesting and very enjoyable, in a freakishly horrible way, was how the creative team put characters and audience within jaw-snapping proximity of the monster(s) so suddenly, and bloody hell, the creature effects in this movie are actually top notch. Every monstrous encounter does Rob Bottin proud.

In Carpenter's version, what you didn't see bore the very effective power of suggestion. Also what you did see scared your pants off. This version stays faithful where it matters, but goes to greater lengths to freak you out while finding a new angle to keep it as original and effective as it can be.

There's still that paranoid suspense when we see how characters act around each other, but sometimes you just know who to trust. It's more a head-on collision of freakish horrors as helpless victims succumb to their own wild terror in the presence of the Thing. There is a lot of acting talent put to great use on your goosebumps and you really feel for some people despite not really knowing them. Joel Edgerton and Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje are safe bets as actors you can count on, but the Norwegian team do a terrific job all round.

Onto the flaws of the movie, there are some dead ends I didn't appreciate as barely noticeable as they may seem. Dr Halvorson was a great character for messing with peoples' minds. I really did see him being the equivalent of Wilford Brimley's Dr Blair, but with more conviction. I felt that the culmination of events for certain characters such as his was a bit of a copout. He and others deserved better/worse.

Also there are scenes throughout the film where the Thing could easily have struck and finished off the survivors with little effort. It didn't, and that corrupted its agenda. There are characters here that are simply forgotten and then just show up later with no explanation. There are also characters I didn't believe were infected, because there was no way they could have been.

The Thing (2011) also goes so far as to incorporate something new into its story, being like Prometheus and coming across as more modern or futuristic than its daddy. In the original, they did tests with blood and heat. In this one, they have different sorts of tests, which doesn't quite work out. Personally, neither am I a fan of fully functioning 10,000 year old spaceships that look more advanced than their pilots. When you bring in new-age technology, you're screwing with the mythology, not building on it. Finally, I wasn't a fan of the pre-credits finale. It simply didn't convey well.

Maybe I just haven't processed it all yet, but that ending just seemed like one last cheap thrill to put the cherry on top or something that failed to be more than meets the eye. It deserved a darker ending than the John Carpenter version and fell slightly short for me but then the mid-credits scenes tied up the film nicely to the events kickstarting the original Carpenter version and that was a great treat from the filmmakers.

In all, though, this greatly exceeded my expectations and I'm glad I gave it a watch. Dare I say that the soundtrack was ten times more suspenseful and chilling than Ennio Morricone's version?

Was the above review useful to you?

Page 4 of 49: [Prev][1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [Next]

Add another review

Related Links

Plot summary Plot synopsis Ratings
Awards External reviews Parents Guide
Official site Plot keywords Main details
Your user reviews Your vote history