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 guide
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 6 of 49: [Prev][1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [Next]
Index 489 reviews in total 

6 out of 10 people found the following review useful:

Worthwhile Back Story

Author: stjohn1253 from United States
27 April 2015

Did this film entertain? Yes. Did it have high production values? Yes. Did the players act convincingly? Yes. Did monsters seem monstrous? Yes. Did it fail at the impossible task of delivering suspense to an audience already aware of the nature of the Thing? Yes...and therein lies the rub.

If the audience abandons expectations of genuine terror, the film succeeds quite well; however, if it harbors the unreasonable anticipation of equal or more fright than Carpenter's version, it simply fails.

Just about every prequel guarantees lesser viewer satisfaction than the original by virtual of the fact that teller has already told the tale. This film provides a workmanlike back story to the outstanding original, and by virtue of that, it merits watching.

Was the above review useful to you?

6 out of 10 people found the following review useful:

Fantastic Movie

Author: problemsolver33616 from United States
9 July 2012

I just watched this at home. Turned my speakers up! And loved it! I was a huge fan of the second movie, I think the first one was filmed in black and white. Loved this movie from the start to the finish. Glad I watched it at home. With all of the yelling I did at the TV I would have been put out of a theater. Most of the time I was on the edge of my seat but other times I was standing or jumping up and down. This version is hands down the best one. I don't know why anyone would complain about this movie. I loved it! The cast and the acting was perfect, and the special effects were the best. Liked it so much I watched it a second time two hours later.

Was the above review useful to you?

6 out of 10 people found the following review useful:


Author: Alyssa Wendling
3 February 2012

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

i saw the original movie when i was six and with my dad. the first one is amazing with the special effects but this one improved upon the first every single detail in this movie is made so that it lines up with the first. of course this one is much scarier due to the fact that most movies that were rated R back then were not that scary. the movie is a little inappropriate but has and amazing plot.they made it so very realistic. in the first part when they were making the blood test i thought they were going to copy the original but the it quickly veered of that track. the acting was amazing and it is one of my favorite movies. If you take young children just know that it has frightening scenes and some explicit language.

the movie basically starts out in Antarctica where they stumble upon an alien and spaceship frozen in the ice. when they carve it out and take it to the lab there in for a surprise.they soon must figure out who is who in a small test it isn't specific but its a start.luckily they have flame throwers

this is my favorite movie and if you don't see this movie you are crazy. even for people who don't really like scifi you will love it

Was the above review useful to you?

6 out of 10 people found the following review useful:

An excellent narrative for a difficult project

Author: kirknesstony from United Kingdom
10 December 2011

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

'The Thing' (2011) was always going to be an exercise in continuity and style. The film could never be its own invention as it had to play close attention to the well-known narrative already present in Carpenter's 'The Thing' (1982). Many film-makers may have baulked at such a venture, due to these restrictions, so full marks to the writers, to the director and to the rest of the production team for pulling off such a demanding task. I, for one, am not at all bothered that the alien is fully displayed in all its glory... and all its gory.. at various points throughout the film, for those who love the 1982 film already KNOW what the creature looks like! So why pretend its appearance is still a mystery? There are also iconic references to the 1982 film that are clearly referenced in this prequel. The burned alien in the snow outside the camp, the axe in the wall, the body with the cut throat and, most importantly, the helicopter chasing the husky with Lars desperately trying to shoot it. Wonderfully linked. Even the Carpenter score is heard at points during the film and at the end. The special effects were also 1982-esque, which was a brave and respectful touch that made this film work so well against Carpenter's version. However, I do have two main gripes. Why did we have to have to have all that nonsense inside the space-ship? For several minutes, it just suddenly became another film and this sequence neither worked, added anything nor fitted in with the previous narrative of the film that had been so so carefully developed. In fact, these few minutes almost ruined the film. Surely, during the editing, someone must have noticed how incongruous this whole sequence was! What made the spaceship sequence even more annoying was the continuity. In Thing82 the entire top of the spaceship had been exposed by the Norwegian research team and was seen to be scorched/damaged by both the entry into the Earth's atmosphere and its crash-landing, whereas in Thing2011 the spaceship remained entirely covered in ice and looked to be in almost showroom condition! Secondly, it would have been a wonderful touch to have had the crew of the Norwegian camp being filmed circling the spaceship when it still lay trapped in the ice, as evident in the black-and-white home movie film, played during the Thing82 version. So, to summarise, if the spaceship sequence had not occurred in Thing2011 and had been, instead, replaced with a simple tractor-chase, culminating in a flame-thrower finale, and if the making of the home-movie video films had been shown, then this would have been a tidier version of a truly commendable film.

Was the above review useful to you?

6 out of 10 people found the following review useful:

Thing is...

Author: Tony Bush from United Kingdom
4 December 2011

*** This review may contain spoilers *** could have been worse. And really, if it was going to cut the mustard up against Carpenter's masterpiece of tension, paranoia, suspense, macho characterisation and ground-breaking special effects, it was going to have to be something a bit special. Which, unfortunately, it isn't.

The premise is perfectly respectable, the set up already having been provided by The Thing, which in retrospect is now the sequel to this, The Thing the prequel. The Norwegian crew from the first film find a spacecraft buried deep in the ice along with the frozen remains of an equally entombed "visitor." They get a pretty female American scientist to travel to their outpost to lend a hand with the examination of the find. The shape-shifting alien reanimates and sets about decimating seven shades of shinola out of the crew. If you've seen the first movie, you'll know most of this already – apart from the inclusion of the Yank chick. You will also know where this is headed, which sort of negates any consideration of who will survive and how. Although, the fate of Kate, our Stateside scientist girl, is ambiguously framed in the end.

Comparisons with Carpenter's visionary genre piece are inevitable and unavoidable. Bill Lancaster's screenplay for that film rendered some great characters and characterisation; and delivered emotional engagement and punch. The dialogue was snappy, funny, cynical and sharp. The conflicting personalities at play worked to heighten the paranoia and suspense. It almost goes without saying, for those who have seen it, that the performances of Kurt Russell and company were mostly pitch perfect and believable. The sense of menace and isolation generated was part of the essential core of the narrative. The inhospitable landscape almost a character itself, used to establish a superb atmosphere and unnerving resonance.

The new effort populates the story with flat and largely emotionless cardboard ciphers, representing a checklist of non-entities just waiting to get bumped off – much like the cast of a traditional low-budget slasher flick. It's amusing to see who gets it and how, but you don't really invest much emotional currency in the process. The CGI effects, which replace the grisly organic puppetry of the original, are technologically more advanced yet surprisingly less effective or convincing and are quite shoddy in places. Where the original dropped jaws, this drops credibility. And let's not look too deeply into the patent absurdity of trying to establish who is infected and who is not by checking to see if they have any fillings in their teeth. Not everyone has fillings. Or teeth for that matter.

It's pretty much a by-the-numbers effort that feels almost as if it were put together by programming a computer rather than any meaningful creative human process of film-production. The atmosphere of the deadly, frozen environment and the crushing sense of isolation it should evoke are missing. You are never lifted out of the idea that this is a film and the cast and crew have luxury trailers to retire to once the shot is over and a cordon bleu chuck wagon is waiting off camera. It is not an immersive experience. It ends up feeling like a Sy-Fy channel original with a budget.

On the plus side, the cinematography is crisp and clear – if unimaginative – and the use of the same fonts for the titles as used in the original is a nice touch. Also, if viewed as a prologue before watching the original I can see how it would represent a more satisfying experience. I wouldn't recommend it as a standalone film, but if it works to generate interest in seeking out and experiencing one of the greatest science-fiction movie thrillers of the modern age, then it will have at least performed a worthwhile service.

Maybe we could use Carpenter's oft-suggested sequel about now.

Was the above review useful to you?

8 out of 14 people found the following review useful:

Very Accurate Prequel !

Author: Krellamp from United Kingdom
10 December 2011

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

I thought this was an amazingly well thought out prequel. The makers really did their homework in studying the original 82 version. I'm so glad they did not make a remake because the 82 version was absolutely excellent even with the special effects technology of that era.

You may think it's logical to see this movie first and then the 82 version but I think it will be better to see the 82 version first from a technological point of view.

The end was really great when you see the girl sitting in the vehicle and then the credits start coming up and then you start to see snippets interleaved with credits of the events leading up to the beginning of the 82 movie.

I highly recommend this movie especially if you have seen the 82 version. In fact, do yourself a favour and rent the 82 version before watching this. It will have a greater impact although it's not necessary to have seen the 82 version in order to understand this one.

Was the above review useful to you?

8 out of 14 people found the following review useful:

Very enjoyable movie. Anyone who saw the original and the remake is gonna love this.

Author: konrad-40-205915 from Antwerp, Belgium
6 December 2011

When I first saw the announcement I thought it was gonna be yet another remake, but was pleasantly surprised. I'd even go so far as to say I was genuinely caught up in it, and at one moment in the movie was actually scared. And I've seen my share of good horror movies ;-)

Without giving anything away this movie really goes back to the roots, digging into things I thought were lacking in the original, but then again I imagine the increase in VFX possibilities undoubtedly have something to do with that. The creature designs were amazing. Not only did the makers respect the original movie, they also connected to the second and used the best of both. In my opinion a very good move.

I really enjoyed it. A great late evening movie. It's probably not for everyone, but when I come across a blue-ray in the store I'm gonna buy it.

Was the above review useful to you?

9 out of 16 people found the following review useful:

Best Sci-Fi "Remake" Ever!

Author: bd_gordon from United States
30 December 2011

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

So many sequels and prequels fall flat and fail to reach the originality of its predecessor - never mind reach its impact and longevity (i.e. the silly Star Wars I-III, Matrix 2-4, and Tim Burton's Batman series...) but the 2011 version of John Campbell Jr.'s 1938 short story, "Who Goes There?" aka "The Thing" is equally as original and entertaining as the 1982 John Carpenter version. I wondered how the prequel would tie in the continuity of certain scenes, such as the two faced duplicate in progress; the suicidal radio operator; the transition from the Norwegian science station to the American one... I was very happy with this prequel, though probably more intended to demonstrate its metal as a remake. It's not a perfect story and there are a couple noticeable errors (i.e. 2011 circa headphones in an early '80's setting) but this in no way detracts from the eye and ear candy that assails the senses with this well-produced film, which stands tall in its own right. Mary Winstead is not in enough movies; she has the lead role, but she plays it without coming across as the lead - the sign of a good actor with staying power. I hope to see her in more films, but for now, she is very interesting to watch in this fast-paced story. There are enough twists and turns to throw off the viewer from the perils of predictability, and both the visual and audio quality of the effects will not fail to please. If you like sic-fi and horror, and aren't embarrassed to enjoy even the B&W oldies-but goodies (such as Howard Hawks' 1951 first version of "The Thing From Another World") then you will thoroughly enjoy this remake. I only hope the Blu Ray version comes packaged with a cleaned up print of Hawks' original film...

Was the above review useful to you?

10 out of 18 people found the following review useful:

Was it worth the effort? NO!

Author: atreus_4971 from United Kingdom
17 October 2012

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

OK, so first things first, was this a prequel or a direct Xerox? Because honestly I couldn't tell. I'm really not going to go into details, such as why flame throwers would be on a research base in the first place, because there were plot holes in the original, so I'll just stick to the wishy-washy, drained out, colourless imitation that was this movie. The acting on the whole was not too bad. Standard American fare, lots of explosions and screaming, they seem to like all that. Mostly however it was utterly predictable and really nothing special at all.

The plot: see John Carpenter 1982, it's exactly the same with the exception of a quick tour around an alien spacecraft. What this was supposed to add to the film I have no idea as it was entirely pointless. As many other reviewers have mentioned, this film lacked all and any tension or suspense. In the original sequences that had me leaping behind the sofa had me giggling and shaking my head in this version. I often felt that I had to concentrate just to maintain my interest rather than be gripped by the story.

The characters: were there any? 'Poorly developed' is the understatement of the century. I finished watching this movie an hour ago and I honestly cannot remember one name or personality trait...hang on....oh yes, one had a filling, I think. I was bored with the 'alien' within twenty minutes and by the end of the film I was just yawning. By trying to make the 'alien' more scary with CGI they just ended up making it laughable. To this day I still have trouble watching the original, but this was almost a comedy in parts.

Overall I'm glad I saw this on the TV because if I had stumped for a cinema ticket I would have been really annoyed. As it is I only wasted two hours when I had nothing else to do anyway. But seriously, if you want a good scare then watch the original, don't bother with this so-called prequel.

I think Hollywood is losing the plot to be honest. I haven't seen a decent movie come out of there for a long time. I could cite Prometheus as a case in point but if I even think about that pile of crap I'll start seizing again. The modern American 'blockbusters' all seem so tired and clichéd. Maybe a little fresh blood and a few new ideas: and please Hollywood: NO MORE ZOMBIES!

Was the above review useful to you?

10 out of 18 people found the following review useful:

GREAT prequel

Author: Rob Broekhof from Netherlands
24 December 2011

What I truly liked about this prequel is actually what I liked about the sequel of this prequel. Here I am 29 years later in finding out explicitly what I felt in 1982. The idea … that it's not at all clear who you're dealing with when a situation changes drastically. The idea … that absolutely no one can get a grasp on such a situation … regardless of any form of rationalism, in essence, everyone acts totally irrational.

Is there a lesson here?

Anyway, I loved the fact that the 2011 version ended the way the 1982 version began. That felt so right! This version also did not replicate any of the ideas of the version of 1982. Even though the group made similar mistakes ... as anyone would ... as such ... this prequel makes the sequel even more credible!

Was the above review useful to you?

Page 6 of 49: [Prev][1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [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