Although not the masterpiece of Carpenters classic, it is a worthy prequel.

While it is missing all the subtlety of the original it is not entirely without merit. It has some decent effects and good performances. They simply suffer from lack of interesting characters that you actually would care about.

the effects aren't quite as good, the acting's not quite as good, the screenplay's not quite as good, the music's not quite as good... but overall, this could've been way worse. the creature scenes are well done and the director is able to wring at least some suspense out of everything. they should've just made it a straight remake though, the prequel elements are handled atrociously and really i don't know why sci-fi nerds were clamoring for years to find out what happened to those norwegians.

Well yeah we all knew this was gonna happen.

A remake that tries to be a prequel at the very last minute. Horrid special effects for most of the movie that basically just rips off Carpenter's movie.

Follows Carpenter's template (except for the predictable addition of computer animation) but each of the elements is inferior to the original (cast, characters, dialogue, narrative, music, atmosphere). Even seems to include a scene with a man-in-a-suit, which Carpenter was so insistent about avoiding. The 1982 movie made what happened to the Norwegians seem frighteningly apocalyptic, and thus what we are given here is less an unnecessary appendage than a wasted opportunity. Needed more insanity.

Totally unnecessary. So extremely similar to the storyline & characters of the original and yet not as cool. John Carpenter's The Thing was tense, scary, and reflected the paranoia of the waning Cold War. This prequel, like the alien of the title, uses the DNA of its predecessor to make a copy, but in actuality it's just a generic horror film.

It doesn't get nearly the mileage out of its atmosphere of paranoia that its "sequel" does. The CGI doesn't live up to Rob Botin's practical effects work either. It is, however, still an entertaining story with some interesting ideas the original/sequel didn't explore.

Its like they attempted to perfectly imitate the original without understanding anything that made it a classic. The rising sense of paranoia and the themes of isolation are gone, but its nice to see everything with a present day Hollywood shine, some of the monster effects are nice and scenes like those that take place in the crashed alien spaceship are a nice treat for fans of the original.

5- worth experiencing, alright :: Would have been much, much better if they hadn't copied the first movie almost exactly.

Good movie, keeps the pace and has solid visual effects. I only take issue with many of the characters dying within minutes of each other. Could have maintained suspense for longer. Winstead does a good job.

So, they made a prequel to one of my beloved films and it surpassed my expectations by a mile! Story is very similar to the original movie, special effects sucks, but the flow is good and I am a fan of anamorphic cinematography. The scene that really made me happy is the one where character gazes at the stars and says "We'll never look at them the same again.". These little bits of sci-fi love puts this film above usual monster/slasher fare.

The joke at the beginning of the film was not funny at all. Blatant lies by the characters aside, it's actually a decent watch.

quote of the day: "don't fuck with the originals"

The latest "Thing" is a wholly unnecessary remake/reboot/prequel---whatever it is. The filmmakers haven't made an awful movie here, but in comparison to Carpenter's brilliant 1982 classic, there's nothing new or visionary to warrant another stab. This is a cash grab that delivers mediocre results with zero suspense, lacking imagination, middling performances, and nothing new to deliver. The monster is reduced to flimsy special effects that aren't as innovative as they were 30 years ago.

The majority of the changes from Carpenter's classic proved detrimental to the film. The use of CGI in conjunction with a slightly wider aspect ratio allowed for some nice establishing shots, but conversely, the film lacked Carpenter's gritty direction and its predecessor's claustrophobic, urgent feel. The characters stood out MUCH less. Also, while I like Beltrami's work, he can't compete with the Carpenter/Morricone score. I still liked the film inasmuch as it consistently kept me interested.

I don't mean forty. This movie wasn't disappointing, it was horribly, horribly reassuring. In Carpenter's remake we get one of the greatest moments in cinema history when they test blood samples. In this one, they think of that, then scrap it and just check for fillings; dental fillings. If that doesn't tell you everything you need to know, than imagine someone drunkenly recalling Carpenter's Thing with the absolute worst parts of the X-Files thrown in. It's completely aped, as in apes wrote it.

A worthy prequal. I hadn't expected it to adress everything I'd been wondering about from the first one. Still, it wasn't perfect.

It's not that the Carpenter version was at all believable, but it had a certain unassuming cool about it, not to mention Kurt Russell, and I really liked it. This one is frustratingly horrid and dull. Every shot and every line of text is lifted from the Hollywood textbook. The science is just childishly unscientific, the characters are nobodies, the jump-scares are seen a mile away, even the effects are somehow worse than the 1982 ones. A total waste of celluloid.

Thankfully it flopped at the box office.

Some really cool monster designs - it's really too bad; the amount of computer graphics used obscures most of the practical effects!

I went in expecting this to be mediocre at best and honestly found it surprisingly good. I should say that I'm not a Carpenter fan by any means but I think The Thing is one of the best horror films ever made. While this prequel doesn't come close to that level of greatness it does manage to recapture the paranoia of the original along with the gruesome and grotesque body horror of the alien life form.

I don't know what disgusts me more, CGI (in general) or sequels (yeah yeah, I'm aware that Carpenter's version was also a sequel and that this, highly similar though it is, is a prequel). I was digging watching Edgerton, Winstead and Thomsen tensing up but the film is undone by the choice to prioritize over-the-top visual effects over what was beginning to build to decent suspense. I'm not too happy that this exists, but it could have turned out a good deal worse.

Criminally unnecessary, painfully mediocre. Everything about it is FINE. That's it. The franchise deserved so much better.

RW. I still think it's pretty good, The ending part with Kate though is retarded and I don't care movie about the inside of the Thing ship. The post-credit sequence is the best movie btw. A lot of the effects are pretty bad (Looking at you CGI guy who everytime the thing impales someone paints some blood splatter on their clothes that looks like it's floating)

I really didn't like Eric Christian Olsen or Mary Elizabeth Winstead in this movie. I've seen them in other movies and liked them just fine, but something here just didn't quite work right. It is an unneeded prequel that misses the point of the original, which is usually a sign of producers trying to cash in. While it's not bad, it fails to live up to the quality and awesomeness of its' source material.

I hate remakes..

Moderately entertaining action/thriller which has some cool looking monsters but fails to add much to John Carpenter's version, apart from having a female lead, which does adds a slight extra dimension. Other than that it's just a rehash of the same type of stuff happening almost exactly the same way, which begs the question: what's the point? A remake for purely commercial ends, to milk a little more cash from newer audiences.

This was a great Horror/Sci-Fi that really reminded me of Alien vs. Predator with it's setting but it's a new & creative concept altogether. I haven't seen the original but from what I hear it stayed true to it. Mary Elizabeth Winstead plays a strong female lead in Kate and I really liked her character, most of the others are rather forgettable however. CGI is amazing, especially in some scenes, and it really picks up towards the end and keeps you guessing, so overall a great film!!

A solid enough prequel, but lacking in the sharp focus, claustrophobia, ambiguity, and mystery that made the original Carpenter film so thrilling. It's a film that is content to answer questions left in the original, which is satisfying for fans, but undermines a lot of the horror, as it leaves little doubt about what will happen and who has been assimilated. Winstead is a highlight, and on the whole the film will likely amuse fans of the Carpenter film who don't expect it to match the original.

well, mary elizabeth winstead's always awesome, but...the movie's just not.

Pretty similar to the 1982 version, which I enjoyed. I'm giving this a pass for one reason. If you've not seen the 1982 version, and you only watch this version (or watch this version first) then it stands up as a decent sci fi thriller.

Not b ad at all.

another movie you will never regret not having seen ... the first five minutes are ok but then you realize that the characters are all stupid and the whole plot is predictable.

Overall Enjoyment: 30/40, Plot/Themes: 10/20, Cinematography/Direction: 15/20, Acting/Writing: 10/20 This remake/prequel was not as good as the original, but is worth seeing. More of an action-horror then it's predecessor it has some amazing CG and tons of neat homages to the original which make it an enjoyable experience.

an unneeded, but not unwelcome sequel to one of the greatest horror/sci-fi movies of all time. it may have some unbelievably large shoes to fill, but it does it well. we end up with an undeniably entertaining movie, however the majesty and effectiveness of the 80's version are missing. i'd say you'd be better off watching this one rather than the original 50's version.

Takes the prize for the year's most inept remake (or prequel, or whatever it's supposed to be). Hokey. Uninspired acting all around. Surprisingly cheap-looking special effects. Laughable attempts at tension/jolts. Awfully yucky, though, if you're into that sort of thing.

Decent CGI and a quicker pace keep your attention through this passable remake.

I appreciate that they were going for an Alien vs. Aliens type thing, I really do. But it goes so completely against the spirit of the original: character motivations are dropped at a moment's notice only to show up as lame attempts at twists (Chekhov's grenade was an especially bad example), and it opts to show you literally everything. There's a lot of dumb horror movie logic too: thank God a grad student in biology can fix a flamethrower in a helluva jam.

an unnecessary remake of the great original... have some fine visual effects and its a decent alien movie for those who hasnt seen the original.. Im curious how they found out 10 men looking exactly the same so you never understand which character is which...

not that bad

Too many plot holes to be a worthy successor to the 1982 film.

Unnecessary. Does everything the John Carpenter version did, but doesn't do it well. Resorts to cheap gags like someone tripping over a can in the dark and a flamethrower misfiring (really? again?). The pacing is dreadful and is reminiscent of a generic action film. The writing goes from bad to worse and the plot leaves a lot to be desired. The effects are (for the most part) quite well done, and it's nice to see the alien treated so well while keeping close to what Carpenter envisioned.

Could never possibly live up to The Thing (1982). Still a decent depiction of what happened to the Norwegian crew.