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 9 of 48: [Prev][4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [Next]
Index 480 reviews in total 

4 out of 7 people found the following review useful:

Do not see this movie

Author: caghosthunter90 from US
3 March 2012

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

This was a bad movie. The story was bad, nothing was tied together or made any sense what so ever, the action was boring. the movie dose a good job at starting a thought and never finishing it. Why did the ice melt in the middle of Antarctica, How did the three men at the start of the film get out of the crack in the ice? How did the dead alien spread? Etc Etc.

on top of that Mary Elizabeth Winstead had the emotional range of a peace of wood never once did I get the feeling that she was scared during any point of this movie. I've seen a lot of bad movies and a lot of good one This is one movie I wish I had never seen.

Was the above review useful to you?

4 out of 7 people found the following review useful:

don't even bother to go see this

Author: wax69 from United States
2 February 2012

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

it is amazing to me how badly they screwed this film up. it is a prequel which means you cant really go wrong with what happens in the movie unless you are utterly incompetent!! it is amazing how many different things they that were inconsistent with the 1982 "the thing" and i will get to those in a min. but first let me say that the movie itself was so fast pace and that there was no build up with character development and people started getting killed off really fast and there was no suspense quality to the film at all. it was like a bad "b" movie where an alien comes and kills a bunch of people in a scientific research station !

now for those of you who have seen the original 1982 version here is where you will hate this movie so, just like the heading of my review Don't EVEN BOTHER TO SEE THIS MOVIE . first of all the inconsistencies .when you first meet the female main character she is using a flat panel computer with graphics clearly inconsistent with the time period. when they find the space ship in the ice obviously in the 1982 version you know that kurt russels crew watched a video tape that they found clearly showing the norwegians using thermite charges to melt the ice to get to the space craft. well not in the new one! they dug tunnels out under the ice to get to the ship!! then when the alien is in an ice block back at the base it finally comes out but in this one it barley even bothers to imitate anyone it just goes down the hallways and attacks people in its alien form. at least in the 1982 version it did its best to hide and replicate dogs or humans. then , and you will probably agree with this assessment if you actually watch the new one, in the last 10-15 min of the movie its like they were scrambling to tie in thing from the 1982 version. it was truly pathetic. they just show the body of the one guy which kurt russel finds that slit his own throat. then you see a helicopter just show up and find one of the characters that is alive that you never see die and the pilot has no idea whats going on. then all of a sudden during that scene a dog runs out of a window and the last survivor tells the pilot to chase after the dog. but here is the real kicker to how bad this movie is . the main girl character of the film at the end winds up back at the space craft with another male character to chase someone who they know is an alien to kill him and she ends up killing the guy who was helping her kill the alien (and in that scene , did kill the alien with a flame thrower) . so she was by herself in a snow vehicle and she drives off!!! they don't even explain what happens to her. she lives!! terrible movie . wish it had never been made!!

Was the above review useful to you?

4 out of 7 people found the following review useful:


Author: Nick Daskalopoulos from Athens, Greece
24 November 2011

Well... I was waiting for this movie like crazy. I loved 1982's The Thing and I expected so many things. That could have been delivered If I judge from the after the ending credits Thing. Let me be more clear. This film is divided in to two separate films. The Thing before the ending credits and The Thing afterwards. The second was excellent and showed that this could really work but the first part was horrible really. First off while this movie was supposed to be a prequel you couldn't really tell. It copied the original in so many ways (most important in storytelling) that you assume it is a remake and not a prequel. It failed to distant itself from the original and to deliver something new in the table except some poor CGI horror and an abuse of the lens flare effect. What really lets you down though is the complete lack of suspense.

Was the above review useful to you?

5 out of 9 people found the following review useful:

This film was amazing!!!

Author: rebecca-bool from United Kingdom
30 June 2012

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

We saw this film expecting a cheesy remake but were blown away.

This film ties in beautifully as a prequel and makes The Thing 1982 make more sense if anything.

The acting was great and I really believed in the fear and frustration that the characters faced. The 'Thing' was really scary, but I felt it could have been scarier if it was animatronics not CGI like in the original film. But I'm a bit of a geek for things like that.

Basically a Norwegian team of scientists make a discovery - a frozen life-form encased deep in the ice some way from it's spaceship. They take it back to base to run tests and that's when all hell breaks loose.

There's some really gross bits in this film and people die in unusual and painful ways; mangled, half eaten and infected! I particularly like and appreciate that this films ends with the same scenes at the original The Thing starts.

See this movie and buy the DVD! You won't be sorry.

Was the above review useful to you?

5 out of 9 people found the following review useful:

Who should NOT watch this movie

Author: pxchange from Argentina
11 December 2011

People who are unable to pay attention for more than 50 seconds and those who think themselves they are the replicated version of Steven Spielberg pretending to be Acadamy Award winners for writing top notch scripts and directing multimillion dollars successful movies. If you are one of those, go ahead, and be like Homer Simpson screaming: "Marge, change the channel".

The rest are up for an VERY well done prequel to Carpenter's classic The Thing, from 1982. Expect a surprising connection to the original movie.

Well done dialogs, very good acting and surprisingly good CG effects assures you 103 minutes of straightforward entertainment in a dynamically paced movie.

Not much else to say without getting into spoilers besides that the director didn't rely on heavy CG, unnecessary killings or abundant cursing to get the show on the road. A must for all the true blooded sci-fi fans out there looking for a good time.

Was the above review useful to you?

5 out of 9 people found the following review useful:

Pointless waste of time.

Author: Scunner from Edinburgh
3 December 2011

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Seriously what was the point? Let's basically remake Carpenter's masterpiece as a tedious, bland, mindless, by the numbers pile of husky droppings? Oh and let's sideline the Norwegians by bringing in a preposterous American heroine who looks like she's just out of high school yet we're supposed to believe she was the foremost expert in her field? Then for good measure let's forgo any of the claustrophobic tension of the original and turn it into a clichéd monster movie replete with rubbish cgi beastie chasing people down corridors.

For Christ's sake Lars was the best character in this mess and he hardly had any lines as he didn't speak English, which incidentally meant it was obvious from the start he'd be the one in the Helicopter shooting at the husky at the end.

To be the fair it wasn't awful, just a pointless wasted opportunity. If you're going to remake 'The Thing' then just have the balls to do it, rather than insulting the audience by making a 'prequel' which is essentially a poor imitation off of the original.

I don't know, perhaps its one redeeming feature is that it may lead some to watch Carpenters infinitely superior version, and for that alone it deserves to scrape a 3 out of 10.

Was the above review useful to you?

5 out of 9 people found the following review useful:

a little too far gone

Author: Adrock from Canada
26 October 2011

I watched the original not that long ago. So I went to the new release, I would have enjoyed it a lot more. But I feel that the Alien scenes went way too far, I think that they used way to much Computer animation and not enough simple ideas. I found that there choice of monsters actually took away from the tension of the movie. A little sad.

I have found that if they were able to make a creature much more subtle the film would have been able to be called a SF horror. movies like alien and the grudge got it right. I enjoyed most of the film, the scenic view were quite amazing, it did appear real, although the snow blowing threw there hair looked like giant pieces of Styrofoam. with made me laugh a bit in the film. This film is like the x file meets alien. My opinion is that it could have been made a whole lot better.

Was the above review useful to you?

6 out of 11 people found the following review useful:

A perfect Prequel

Author: Rabh17 from United States
13 February 2012

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Normally, I don't like Prequels-- (although, honestly, lately SEQuels have tended to be serial letdowns as well!) And I like that this wasn't an attempt to make yet ANOTHER version of the Thing, but just to give the viewer more tantalizing glimpses into what happened at the Norwegian base.

They couldn't really 'Outdo' the Creature FX-wise. And anyone who's seen Thing 1982 intellectually knew that this version of the creature would just be a lead-up. The expectation on my part was of Mood & Chills.

The other challenge was the fact that you already know: EVERYONE DIES. Well this movie and Mary Winstead as Kate swings you past that that poignant inevitability with consummate skill. Kate the biologist is believable and moving. You WANT her to somehow find her way to safety. And even towards the end, you almost think she just MIGHT. But instead of just succumbing to fate as a victim-- she glows, almost painfully, as unwilling heroine.

And overall, where the 1982 'Thing' amazed and scared-- This 'Thing' gave me somber chills. There's something about Antarctica that just beckons for horror- the cold, the desolation, the isolation-- and this film --like the 1982 version-- brought the basic fear home to you: You are Not Safe here.

My favorite chiller moment-- That first night after seeing the spaceship and the thing in the ice, Kate gets up and is looking out the plain wood & puttied glass window into the howling winter night. . .then she looks up. And the horns play that mournful warning dirge under the wind as she, and We, look at that sprinkling of stars out there on the Galactic arm: Cold, Distant, Unknowably Alien.

"I'll never look at them the same," she whispers.

Neither can we. We are Not Safe Here...

I call this a quiet masterpiece. If it's Snowing outside this Winter-- Open the window a crack, let the cold air flow across your legs a little, turn down the lights and pop this one in the player.

Was the above review useful to you?

6 out of 11 people found the following review useful:

You can't top Carpenter's Masterpiece

Author: silmaril12 from United States
8 November 2011

Although this one takes place a few days prior to the Carpenter remake and we get all this tied together at the end, was this prequel actually necessary? No, that was the mystery behind the first Norwegian groups disastrous meeting with the creature from out there. That's what the original Bill Lancaster screenplay did and if we'd been intended to see what'd happened to them we'd have seen it only in snippets. It's much better to use our imaginations as to what happened when the American's arrive at the Norwegian camp. "They're not Swedish Mac, they're Norwegian" kept ringing in my head throughout the film which is abundant with messy computer effects though what Rob Bottin was able to create back in '82 you felt like you were watching a documentary. Two women abound in this story and we long for an all male cast which is what it needed for the strong sense of paranoia. It's loud and icky but come on so was Carpenter's though his was masterfully executed. Hollywood needs to stop shoveling our remakes and prequels and start adapting novels more often. This "Thing" gets a C-

Was the above review useful to you?

6 out of 11 people found the following review useful:


Author: markdroulston from New Zealand
2 November 2011

It's a reasonably safe bet to say that very rarely will a remake of a film meet the standard set by an original, as of course if the source material was bad in the first place, a remake would likely not even be considered. The number of times a remake is better than the original can probably be counted on one hand. Steven Soderbergh's Ocean's Eleven and David Cronenberg's The Fly spring to mind as a couple of those rare examples. And, of course, John Carpenter's 1982 masterpiece The Thing, which goes beyond being a superior remake to being considered one of the finest sci-fi/horror films ever made. As for prequels, it's hard to come up with a single example that improved on its predecessor. In modern Hollywood, there are prequels, there are remakes, and then there is Matthijs van Heijningen Jr.'s 2011 version of The Thing.

Ostensibly a prequel of a remake, The Thing finds itself uncomfortably torn between the two. The story concerns the initial discovery of an alien artifact buried deep under the ice of Antarctica, and the events that follow lead directly to the opening scene of Carpenter's 1982 film. So, it's a prequel, right? Well, not quite. The way the events unfold is almost a beat-for-beat copy of the earlier film, and a number of well- known scenes from Carpenter's version are recreated. So maybe it's a remake?I don't know, and it seems like van Heijningen doesn't know either. There's only one sure way to clarify what this movie is: terrible. Van Heijningen's The Thing is derivative, pointless, four- quadrant filmmaking at its absolute worst. It tries so hard to recreate the atmosphere of paranoia and claustrophobia of Carpenter's film, but fails to engage on any level.

The problems go well beyond what any comparison with the 1982 version could reveal, but by trying so hard to mimic the far, far superior film, van Heijningen holds his film up to be judged against it, and it's not pretty. The first issue lies with the characters. To lead the story, Carpenter gave us RJ Macready, played by Kurt Russell at the peak of his badass days. Van Heijningen gives us Kate Lloyd (Mary Elizabeth Winstead) and Sam Carter (Joel Edgerton), unnecessarily dividing the Macready role to make way for a female lead, obviously in the hopes of expanding the potential audience by drawing women to the cinema. Winstead does the best she can, but it's difficult to buy her as an expert paleontologist, particularly when there doesn't seem to be any real reason for her character to be there. She is even told that she isn't there to think, just to make sure they can get the thing out of the ice. Why a scientific facility doing research on things drilled out of the ice needs to bring in an 'expert' from America to help them drill a thing out of the ice is never made clear, but I guess they needed to get the American stars in there. A female lead in a sci-fi/horror film has worked before, but it's not the case here. As for Edgerton, he seems to be there simply because he looks tough and has a beard (like Macready!). As for the other characters, they really aren't given much of a chance to establish themselves, so it's hard to care as they are picked off one by one. Carpenter subtly developed his supporting characters to make audiences feel for them, but van Heijningen simply throws them all out there and tries to focus on an unconvincing lead.

Perhaps the two most enduring elements of Carpenter's The Thing were the terrifying special effects and the excellent ambiguous ending. The new version fails here as well, with atrocious CGI which lacks a tenth of the impact of the 30 year-old practical effects, and a woeful third act that obliterates what little atmosphere the film had developed. The men of Carpenter's version were not heroes, they were simply working-class guys faced with a situation they were ill-prepared for and ill-equipped to deal with. Van Heijningen insists on giving audiences an awful 'hero moment', before ruining the one slightly interesting plot point by having a character spell everything out for the audience. It's insulting that Hollywood filmmakers nowadays don't trust their audiences enough to pick up on nuanced visual cues, we must have everything very deliberately spelled out for us. And the less said about the ham-fisted credit sequence, the better.

2011′s The Thing is among the most redundant and dreadful prequel/remakes since Gus van Sant remade Psycho. It is a film to be avoided, particularly if you have any attachment to Carpenter's 1982 version. Thankfully the legacy of the previous film cannot really be scarred too badly, as it's unlikely anyone will remember van Heijningen's The Thing by this time next year.

Was the above review useful to you?

Page 9 of 48: [Prev][4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [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