sign in
register
Watch
Apple TV Google Play Movies Vudu
+4
The Thing
Apple TV Google Play Movies Vudu
+4
JustWatch
Remove ads

The Thing

2011
Sci-fi
Suspense/Thriller
1h 43m
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. (imdb)
Directed by:
Matthijs van Heijningen Jr.
Written by:
John W. Campbell Jr. Eric Heisserer
+1 more
Starring:
Stig Henrik Hoff Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje Ulrich Thomsen Ulrich Thomsen Eric Christian Olsen Eric Christian Olsen Jørgen Langhelle Joel Edgerton Joel Edgerton Mary Elizabeth Winstead Mary Elizabeth Winstead Trond Espen Seim Jan Gunnar Røise Kristofer Hivju Kristofer Hivju Kim Bubbs Kim Bubbs Paul Braunstein
More
Franchise:
The Thing (1982)
Genres:
Sci-fi, Suspense/Thriller, Horror, Mystery
Countries:
Canada, USA
Languages:
English, Danish, Norwegian
imdb More information at IMDb
See title update history
Suggest an edit
Show Less
Your probable score
?

The Thing

2011
Sci-fi
Suspense/Thriller
1h 43m
Your probable score
Ratings & Reviews Cast Collections Similar Stats Trailer
Avg Percentile 35.69% from 1533 total ratings
Ratings & Reviews Cast Collections Similar Stats Trailer

Ratings & Reviews

(1532)
Compact view
clear
Compact view
Show
Sort
paxtonPaxton
Rated 03 May 2012
4
0th
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, then 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.
Rated 03 May 2012
guy_piranhaguy piranha
Rated 10 Jul 2018
55
30th
The thing (2011) is to the thing (1982), what the thing (the thing in the thing (1982)) is to terrestrial organisms: looks identical at first, but when "things get hot", it's just a cheap imitation with strange tentacles coming out of its anus.
Rated 10 Jul 2018
thedenizenTheDenizen
Rated 01 Jan 2017
50
26th
A watchable remake of John Carpenter's 1982 masterpiece that fails to improve on it in any recognizable way. The CGI is often cartoonish and silly, completely lacking the gooey appeal of old school practical effects...and the "checking the teeth for fillings" scene captures but a fraction of the tension and paranoia of the "blood in a petri dish" scene. In fact, the best thing this has going for it is the post-credits sequence that connects it to Carpenter's superior film.
Rated 01 Jan 2017
lintonmyroxylintonmyroxy
Rated 07 Sep 2020
22
18th
FUCK this movie. I spent the peak of my high watching the first 20 minutes thinking it was the original. I've seen the original, but I just assumed I hadn't payed any attention to the intro the first time around
Rated 07 Sep 2020
cinemaasiaCinema_Asia
Rated 04 Dec 2011
60
30th
An interesting prequel for fans of the Thing but largely fails to achieve what the original did. The mystery, paranoia, and horror just doesn't work if you retread the same territory. The setups in this are nearly identical to the first but lack the intense atmosphere and dread. It also lacks iconic character actors like Brimley and Russell. The action heroine thing is a played out Hollywood cliche and is unnatural in this setting. The ending was a cop out but the credits epilogue was good.
Rated 04 Dec 2011
stradivariusStradivarius
Rated 25 Oct 2011
70
39th
It didn't completely throw out the perfect formula of the original, and that's actually an impressive feat for a retread these days. The characters however were hard to tell apart sometimes and MEW doesn't have a fraction of the charisma that Kurt Russel did. The most disappointing part was how much it relied on jump-scares when there was plenty of room to add suspense/suspicion/lingering horror.
Rated 25 Oct 2011
liebeisttobiliebeisttobi
Rated 08 Nov 2011
0
0th
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.
Rated 08 Nov 2011
sirstuckeySirStuckey
Rated 15 Oct 2011
80
78th
Have an open mind. It's paced faster than John Carpenter's version. It gets into the action quicker and loses some of the original's tension and suspense but it's still an admirable prequel. They did a nice job of integrating natural and CGI effects together to keep the integrity of the original creature while adding a little to give the audience something new. It didn't scare me, but I had a very fun time watching it.
Rated 15 Oct 2011
barthalenBarthalen
Rated 06 Dec 2011
46
23rd
Wow, that was unnecessary. A prequel that does everything we've already seen in the Kurt Russell one, has a completely forgettable cast of characters (who make stupid decisions most of the time) and whose creature effects are mostly mediocre CGI, killing the suspense immediately. They also had no idea how to end it. Sure, some of the body horror is kinda neat, but that does not justify sitting through a watered-down version of the amazing 80's classic. Boo!
Rated 06 Dec 2011
kasperlKasperL
Rated 11 Apr 2012
50
29th
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.
Rated 11 Apr 2012
overratedoverrated
Rated 10 Oct 2013
28
19th
I suspect it would be passable if you'd never seen the Carpenter version, but the 2011 film exists in a kind of paradox where it depends on the 1982 film for so much of its context but also fatally suffers in comparison to it.
Rated 10 Oct 2013
kavuKavu
Rated 04 Dec 2011
39
16th
Well designed but not so well animated monsters in a quite weakly written prequel. Poorly named.
Rated 04 Dec 2011
mjvmoviemanMJVmovieMan
Rated 05 Mar 2012
50
20th
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.
Rated 05 Mar 2012
superargoSuperargo
Rated 27 Nov 2011
17
7th
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.
Rated 27 Nov 2011
nothingsgoodNothingsGood
Rated 27 Oct 2011
30
20th
This premake of John Carpenter's horror classic misses the point big time, turning a psychological thriller about paranoia and isolation into your run of the mill monster movie. Heijningen's Thing suffers from the Alien 3 syndrome, as there's a lot of unique and interesting stuff going on in the director's chair. But the source material and idea are so poorly realized and vacant from the original concept that any glimmer of intrigue is torn out and murdered.
Rated 27 Oct 2011
mentaculusMentaculus
Rated 14 Oct 2021
36
11th
A PSA: “This is your brain on CGI. (Cracks egg.) This is your brain on practical effects.”
Rated 14 Oct 2021
ehk2ehk2
Rated 27 Nov 2011
47
62nd
not that bad
Rated 27 Nov 2011
killersmallskillersmalls
Rated 04 Feb 2012
70
34th
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.
Rated 04 Feb 2012
nathandarkoNathanDarko
Rated 04 Dec 2011
77
42nd
Decent horror flick with some good CGI effects. Surprisingly a very well done remake of a very good 80's slasher! That's really rare today.
Rated 04 Dec 2011
prophet92Prophet92
Rated 30 Mar 2012
82
67th
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.
Rated 30 Mar 2012
kojilessKojiless
Rated 16 Nov 2012
48
52nd
A competent remake of an 80s classic that tells the exact same story in the exact same manner featuring the exact same setting and exact same characters with the exact same motivations fighting the exact same creature for the exact same reasons, leading to the exact same twists, and ultimately the exact same ending. So in other words, a wholly incompetent remake of an 80s classic.
Rated 16 Nov 2012
trixrabbiTrixRabbi
Rated 15 Oct 2011
60
15th
It's clear that the filmmakers were fans of the 1982 film and tried their best to make a fitting tribute. However, the film's biggest issue is that it rushed the story. The cast was too big, which led to flat, boring characters. My friend whispered to me at one point and said "What happened to the British guy?" and I said "British guy?" The characters are boring cannon fodder and you really don't care about any of them. (Except for Lars. Lars was the man.)
Rated 15 Oct 2011
billyshearsBillyShears
Rated 10 Mar 2012
70
53rd
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)
Rated 10 Mar 2012
frankswildfrankswild
Rated 11 Sep 2012
50
21st
Why do it? It is the the product of a nerd taking what they like and obsessing over filling out all of the canon and 'facts' of everything that 'really happened' and missing what it is that they really like about the whole thing to begin with.
Rated 11 Sep 2012
iconogassediconogassed
Rated 19 Oct 2011
30
12th
behold, the horrors of the digital age
Rated 19 Oct 2011
matthew_parkinsonMatthew Parkinson
Rated 04 Oct 2012
40
31st
The Thing is a boring horror movie that brings nothing new to the 1982 version and is more or less the same movie, just worse. It features nothing memorable, nothing worth talking about, and seems like it was made into a prequel at the last minute just to avoid the recent stigma of remaking horror films. It's not scary, it's not thrilling, and it's not worth your time. You're better off watching the original and forgetting that this one exists.
Rated 04 Oct 2012
indyatmnINDYATMN
Rated 12 Oct 2021
75
41st
Does a good job of mimicking the unforgettable practical creature efx of the original (with CGI) & some of the Who's an Alien suspense, plus it adds a clever new way to figure out who's who & Winstead's pretty. But, it's still not as good as 82. Despite the frantic CGI "scares", the alien repeatedly reveals itself too soon. & I wanted to see how the Norwegians got out of that chasm! The film also doesn't make it clear that Edgerton is an alien. Why? & the spaceship sequence doesn't add anything.
Rated 12 Oct 2021
joojooJooJoo
Rated 24 Oct 2011
3
31st
Basically what I expected.
Rated 24 Oct 2011
sophiesophie
Rated 14 Dec 2011
50
27th
I didn't care about the characters and missed the tense, claustrophobic feel of the original. It goes without saying that I don't feel this was a necessary prequel.
Rated 14 Dec 2011
letskillrobotsletskillrobots
Rated 03 Oct 2015
9
21st
There are some people trying to defend this film and those people are morons.
Rated 03 Oct 2015
hellboy76hellboy76
Rated 13 Feb 2012
62
30th
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.
Rated 13 Feb 2012
cmpaxcmpax
Rated 29 Nov 2011
20
2nd
Useless unimaginative boring crap. They didn't remake it, they made a fucking prequel. See the difference? Who came up with the stupid idea anyway? Some idiot at Universal...
Rated 29 Nov 2011
sieghardtSieghardt
Rated 29 Nov 2011
55
44th
Not nearly as good as the original film but passable enough on its own merits. While the CGI is of a high quality I honestly found it surprisingly uncompelling compared to the models of the original.
Rated 29 Nov 2011
djrossdjross
Rated 28 Feb 2012
35
19th
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.
Rated 28 Feb 2012
nutcrackrnutcrackr
Rated 13 Jan 2012
82
87th
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.
Rated 13 Jan 2012
agentsnipeAgentSnipe
Rated 22 Feb 2012
76
45th
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.
Rated 22 Feb 2012
wayofthegunwayofthegun
Rated 03 Dec 2012
50
11th
The Thing (1982) + CGI - creepy atmosphere = mediocrity.
Rated 03 Dec 2012
goatcabinGoatcabin
Rated 19 Mar 2012
50
14th
Criminally unnecessary, painfully mediocre. Everything about it is FINE. That's it. The franchise deserved so much better.
Rated 19 Mar 2012
dakota99Dakota99
Rated 24 Jul 2018
6
61st
2011's The Thing is one of the more inferior reboots of recent memory. While not entirely bad, The lack of atmosphere and very poor CGI affects stick out like a sore thumb. On top of that, a story arch that feels way too similar and subpar acting at best outside of Winstead and Edgerton, The Thing (2011) doesn't do it's original any justice. It lacks far too many elements to sement itself in horror today, and outside of the "The Thing" franchise die hards, this won't be remembered.
Rated 24 Jul 2018
ytadelYtadel
Rated 19 Oct 2011
1
5th
Has some appealing creature effects and violence, but by and large it's hard to argue with the critics on this one. The characters are one-dimensional lumps of nothing, and the most interesting part of the film - trying to figure out who is the creature in disguise - is glossed over much too quickly.
Rated 19 Oct 2011
gellnergellner
Rated 03 Nov 2011
58
49th
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.
Rated 03 Nov 2011
troothTrooth
Rated 22 Jun 2012
60
31st
It's pretty good, but for entirely different reasons than the Carpenter version. It's a lot less about suspense as it is about monsters and body horror. It echoes the original movie a little, in that there's a scientist who doesn't want to kill the thing. It's kind of interesting how they make most events connect to the Carpenter movie, but I think sometimes they're trying too hard to make sure everything gets explained, and one or two of those explanations are dumb.
Rated 22 Jun 2012
shadeshade
Rated 04 Dec 2011
65
26th
I'm comparing it mostly with the original Carpenter's movie. Although there's some positive sides of the movie I am dissapointed. The americans are surviving, the norwegians are dying like flies, the men are pussies and we got a female action-hero. And the CG was like from Freelancer.
Rated 04 Dec 2011
joseywalesjoseywales
Rated 07 Dec 2012
65
44th
Doesn't touch the original but holds its own well enough to remain watchable. Dull cast though!
Rated 07 Dec 2012
bunkenBunken
Rated 10 Aug 2012
40
25th
Blasphemy!
Rated 10 Aug 2012
thedicemanTheDiceman
Rated 25 Nov 2011
60
62nd
Not b ad at all.
Rated 25 Nov 2011
cagedwisdomcagedwisdom
Rated 02 Nov 2011
50
38th
I saw this film mainly for two reasons: Because I wanted to see all these Norwegian actors in a Hollywood film, and because I wanted an excuse to ogle Mary Elizabeth Winstead for two hours. I got both things, and I feel like I also got more - while it fails to stand out in any real way, it does appear to have a certain retro-horror-genre-flair. In between all the mediocrity I spotted sparks of originality and care, and perhaps more importantly an occasionally genuine B-movie charm.
Rated 02 Nov 2011
vandelay1Vandelay1
Rated 10 Dec 2011
70
76th
Good movie
Rated 10 Dec 2011
moribunnyMoribunny
Rated 21 Apr 2012
5
2nd
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.
Rated 21 Apr 2012
mistersplicemistersplice
Rated 20 Jan 2012
50
28th
5- worth experiencing, alright :: Would have been much, much better if they hadn't copied the first movie almost exactly.
Rated 20 Jan 2012
eastondEastonD
Rated 20 Oct 2011
25
22nd
Daddy broke my vagina
Rated 20 Oct 2011
adoubleadouble
Rated 03 Nov 2012
70
44th
Actually not as bad as I was expecting. It's not a patch on Carpenter's film, but the scares are generally well done and the CGI creature effects are very cool. Plus, while he's no Kurt Russell, I always enjoy Joel Edgerton.
Rated 03 Nov 2012
spleenspleen
Rated 13 Dec 2011
78
61st
I'm a little confused: are we sure this wasn't just a remake of Carpenter's Thing with CGI? Sure seemed like it.
Rated 13 Dec 2011
abunchofcatsABUNCHOFCATS
Rated 17 Nov 2013
60
15th
Completely unnecessary and doesn't do anything better than the first.
Rated 17 Nov 2013
utskUtSk
Rated 31 Oct 2023
64
32nd
In and of itself it's not bad at all. But for some reason they tried to make both a prequel and a remake at the same time, and failed at both. As a prequel, it's too similar to the original to work (some scene being essentially copied) and as a remake it does not improve on anything (it's more of a deterioration as far as visuals go). In the end I see no reason I would ever re-watch this instead of the original.
Rated 31 Oct 2023
getmoneygetmoney
Rated 25 Nov 2012
77
41st
A fun prequel. Some of the details they bothered to get right a really interesting. Obviously, in no way matches up to the paranoia of the original. Also the camerawork, obviously digital does not look very nice at all. Compare to the brilliant darkness of the film in Carpenter's version
Rated 25 Nov 2012
lunheurlunheur
Rated 15 Oct 2012
65
39th
Hadn't watched the 80's or 50's The Things when I watched it (so my opinion was pure), but this pleased me. One of the smartest protagonists in a horror movie I've ever seen.
Rated 15 Oct 2012
closefriendCloseFriend
Rated 01 May 2012
69
49th
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.
Rated 01 May 2012
jodamicojodamico
Rated 19 Oct 2011
74
39th
The last twenty or so really drop the ball, but there's a lot of smart and tense scenes along the way. The way it metes out explanations of the sights in the camp when Kurt Russell visited it, and the way it uses our knowledge of the ending as misdirection are really admirable.
Rated 19 Oct 2011
frankblack58FrankBlack58
Rated 21 Feb 2017
56
20th
Not bad
Rated 21 Feb 2017
mspraguemsprague
Rated 30 May 2022
60
31st
I liked this although I thought I was watching the earlier version and kept wondering where Kurt Russell was with his urban sombrero.
Rated 30 May 2022
chroniclerChronicler
Rated 30 Nov 2014
45
12th
A pale imitation of John Carpenter's The Thing,even going so far as following the same basic outline but done worse here.One of the things that made Carpenter's The Thing great that this version fails at is 'The Thing' itself; it's shown far too much and looks awful. too many characters & and not enough time to know them. This film's version of the theme from the 1982 film was a hollow imitation The only stuff from the film I liked was at the very end. Not worth checking out.
Rated 30 Nov 2014
groovysoulsGroovy_Souls
Rated 29 Mar 2015
40
19th
No bang for the buck. This remake isn't a total slander to the name of the original, but it doesn't add anything good. The spaceship plot is horrible as well as a lot of the side actors. Winstead and Edgarton are okay here, but not enough to carry a whole movie, that relies too heavily on jump scares to compete with the originals creepy tone throughout. Takes a great concept and original movie and boils it down to its bones.
Rated 29 Mar 2015
nick_hamdenNick Hamden
Rated 05 Jun 2013
60
47th
http://gorgview.com/the-thing
Rated 05 Jun 2013
zanginZangin
Rated 06 Jun 2017
70
61st
This film was almost certainly doomed to critical dissatisfaction as soon as it was announced. Honestly though, I think that this film got everything right that the Carpenter film did (with a few less memorable scenes perhaps) and even improves slightly with better acting and more fleshed out characters. (I may be biased though because I saw this version before the 1982 film).
Rated 06 Jun 2017
julesfmbjulesfmb
Rated 05 Apr 2023
34
1st
VFX is actually quite nice. That is the least of the movie's problems.
Rated 05 Apr 2023
spuddingspudding
Rated 28 Nov 2011
71
46th
It was missing the suspense of the first movie, although it was trying to copy it. After the scene where the black dude died (surprise) it all went straight to standart horror movie.
Rated 28 Nov 2011
leokhornleokhorn
Rated 25 Apr 2020
80
76th
This movie is getting a lot of flak from anyone who has seen the original. OK. That tends to happen. And, having just seen the '82 one that this is a prequel to, I can see how it retreads a lot of the same ideas. But I went in without any preconception, thinking it was the one and only movie by Carpenter. And I enjoyed it very much. The pacing is modern, the visuals are great and retain the very original body horror, and it's good at tricking you about who's actually infected.
Rated 25 Apr 2020
muutanetmuutanet
Rated 30 Nov 2011
38
29th
The beginning and majority of the film was pretty dull and CGI sucked, but they managed to build some decent action and some gore effects in the end of the movie. The script was a weakest link here.
Rated 30 Nov 2011
evan_watersEvan Waters
Rated 18 Sep 2015
82
22nd
Obviously not a patch on the Carpenter or Hawks/Nyby films, this suffers a little from having to retread the past and not having very many real surprises. Still it's an enjoyable thriller on its own merits and Mary Elizabeth Winstead works well in the Ellen Ripley role.
Rated 18 Sep 2015
carbo_kenCarbo-Ken
Rated 28 May 2012
55
12th
As the alien imitates humans, this prequel imitates the original. In both cases something is very, very wrong.
Rated 28 May 2012
menialretconMenialRetcon
Rated 16 Nov 2021
69
31st
Some ok moments, also some almost Mummy Returns level bad cg human faces on monsters. If the ship was functional why did the thing leave it and get frozen? What does it do when it's not gibbering at people- watch the pretty voxel cylinder thing?
Rated 16 Nov 2021
ryan_luedersRyan Lueders
Rated 25 Jun 2012
80
57th
A nice remake but I'm not sure why they even remade this movie since the first one was really good. One nice thing I guess is that Mary Elizabeth Winstead is in this from Scott Pilgrim. She did a great job as the main character. I miss her purple hair though. The CGI was pretty cool, especially with the really gross human/alien hybrid towards the end. Not super scary though, just interesting. This felt like a mash-up of Resident Evil 2 and Dead Space video games.
Rated 25 Jun 2012
patanupatanu
Rated 12 Jun 2014
77
53rd
This isn't john carpenter, but its still a neat looking movie.
Rated 12 Jun 2014
wicheWiche
Rated 19 Aug 2013
65
47th
The Thing looked better, visually, but wasn't nearly as creepy as it was in the '82 version. I believe that is because this entire film sort of lacks the mysterious atmosphere we had throughout the entire first film. I found it interesting however how they came to explain the Norwegian massacre in the first film. Well explained, but not of the same level as the 82 version.
Rated 19 Aug 2013
enigmabrandenigmabrand
Rated 16 Oct 2011
85
79th
Could never possibly live up to The Thing (1982). Still a decent depiction of what happened to the Norwegian crew.
Rated 16 Oct 2011
bookhouseboybookhouseboy
Rated 16 Jun 2015
45
57th
#14#, exp3, rw3, popcorn, story, Mary.EW/7B4
Rated 16 Jun 2015
luna6ixLuna6ix
Rated 15 Nov 2011
83
83rd
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.
Rated 15 Nov 2011
astrakhanastrakhan
Rated 09 Apr 2012
75
37th
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.
Rated 09 Apr 2012
derekstarDerekstar
Rated 03 Jun 2012
30
12th
A few things. First of all, I'm not a gore fan, so I wasn't impressed or thrilled by the gore. It was all CGI, so I had no emotional connection to it. I remember sitting there after seeing someone's CGI face rip in half thinking "I don't give a shit." Secondly, the suspense bored me. Thirdly, it was written poorly. Modern Hollywood demands an action sequence every 20 minutes. Guess what? There was an action sequence every 20 minutes. On top of that the basic beats were the same the original.
Rated 03 Jun 2012
evanmartinevanmartin
Rated 22 Jan 2013
90
90th
A solid addition to this franchise that I love so much. This movie shows reverence for the 82 version without simply treading the same water. Nightmarish creature effects really help knock this one out of the park. If you love the 82 version, you owe it to yourself to check this one out. Go in blind, and I promise you'll come out with a dumb grin on your face.
Rated 22 Jan 2013
kramyessevKramYessev
Rated 12 Dec 2011
8
1st
Everyone's entitled to their own opinion of course but the way I see it, if you like this premake, you aren't a fan of Carpenter's film. Fuck this movie and fuck you.
Rated 12 Dec 2011
gritGrit
Rated 03 Jun 2012
52
50th
After being fearful of the potential results of a revival, it's somewhat pleasant to see this prequel doesn't totally obliterate the merits of the excellent Carpenter production. Pacing is significantly faster and resulting tension reduced, possibly attempting to disguise some lacking chemistry between the cast. Creatures themselves are well designed, but it's ironic that the convincingly organic plastic coated animatronics of the original contrast so with the plasticy CGI creations seen here.
Rated 03 Jun 2012
evilmangoesEvilMangoes
Rated 18 Aug 2018
61
28th
C+
Rated 18 Aug 2018
zayankZayanK
Rated 06 Feb 2012
47
19th
Well yeah we all knew this was gonna happen.
Rated 06 Feb 2012
cruelclowncruelclown
Rated 26 Nov 2011
65
44th
Too many plot holes to be a worthy successor to the 1982 film.
Rated 26 Nov 2011
tentatherapytentaTherapy
Rated 06 May 2020
25
9th
This movie made me jump once. It was early on, when one of the guys says 'boo' at the other one, before the monster shows up. That's right: its only effective jumpscare is an unintentional one. I watched this at midnight and that night I slept like a baby. It's just not scary. The final monster has a middle-aged man's face embedded in it, for God's sake. It's just stupid. This movie is trying so hard to be Alien.
Rated 06 May 2020
burkayadaligburkayadalig
Rated 26 Nov 2011
69
37th
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...
Rated 26 Nov 2011
ladymcdeathladymcdeath
Rated 12 Nov 2013
20
10th
What a bland, bland film. Kind of sucks from a fan of the original to see how useless this film was to make. I'm going to pretend this film wasn't made and let my imagination run to what actually happened in the camp.
Rated 12 Nov 2013
yawkcorbyawkcorb
Rated 14 Mar 2012
70
19th
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.
Rated 14 Mar 2012
martrynmartryn
Rated 10 Sep 2015
61
29th
The problem with prequel films is that we already know where the film is going. We know where the film will eventually lead us. And this film does that. We know where The Thing begins, and so we can map out the course of this film. And that largely kills this entire movie. The great thing about the original movie was the suspense, and not knowing, and the horror really creeps up on you. In this case, we know entirely where the horror is supposed to come, and it leaves no room for surprises
Rated 10 Sep 2015
croweycrowey
Rated 15 Nov 2021
29
14th
Why would they remake it? Just guaranteed box office returns due to an existing fanbase? They had a roadmap, a blueprint drawn up in the OG. So it's baffling how they managed to make this so bad. How do you take an airtight story & fill it with holes? Okay, so you wanted to make some quick cash "modernizing" the OG⁠—fine⁠—just needed to recast it & update some language⁠—ok, add mediocre CGI that's tremendously inferior to John Carpenter's version cos you can. But that wasn't enough
Rated 15 Nov 2021
doctor7doctor7
Rated 15 May 2012
77
66th
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.
Rated 15 May 2012
zombiebuffetZombieBuffet
Rated 04 Mar 2012
60
50th
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.
Rated 04 Mar 2012
synthonosynthono
Rated 19 Sep 2015
80
46th
It wasn't necessary but I'd argue it wasn't bad.
Rated 19 Sep 2015
fenixdownfenixdown
Rated 07 Oct 2012
70
36th
Well made but unfulfilling.
Rated 07 Oct 2012
glm01glm01
Rated 29 Oct 2013
52
12th
52.000
Rated 29 Oct 2013
thegreyfoxthegreyfox
Rated 07 Nov 2012
66
43rd
I was unaware this was supposed to be a prequel until the ending, and thought it was simply a re-imagining. Up until the last third, I thought it was pretty good, and quite tense (eg: the teeth exam) but then it got repetitive (with the Flame thrower) and predictable. Despite a large cast being used as monster cannon fodder, it had no REAL sense of danger - buildings just burned quietly, and it all seemed to lack panic, fear, dread and well, any other emotion! A decent premise, poorly executed
Rated 07 Nov 2012
theescapistTheEscapist
Rated 02 Dec 2013
62
27th
Lacks the brooding intense atmosphere of the original. Which was probably the main reason I enjoyed the original. This film is a lot like the original in story, setting, characters, etc., but not executed quite as well. I did like the cool, smart, strong female protagonist (but then again Kurt Russell was well suited for the original) Other than that the original is superior in nearly every way.
Rated 02 Dec 2013
moraesfelipemoraesfelipe
Rated 04 Jun 2012
44
19th
Guess it has its moments of CGI thrills, a couple of nice remarks that draw connections with the original and some good news -- Winstead is cute, I wish I was the Thing so she could burn me, and we finally get to see the ship --, but this prequel is generally blunted, boring collection of fake scares.
Rated 04 Jun 2012

Collections

(24)
Compact view
Show
Sort
djross
Moderated by djross
Last updated on with The Strange One
kubricksucks
Moderated by kubricksucks
Last updated on with Dune: Part Two
td888
Moderated by td888
Last updated on with MaXXXine
fanfic
Moderated by fanfic
Last updated on with The Last Witch Hunter
djross
Moderated by djross
Last updated on with Beyond the Light Barrier
iceblox
Moderated by iceblox
Last updated on with Finding Michael
mattburgess
Moderated by mattburgess
Last updated on with Cyclops
djross
Moderated by djross
Last updated on with Kindergarten Cop 2
fanfic
Moderated by fanfic
Last updated on with Babylon A.D.
djross
Moderated by djross
Last updated on with The Young Arsonists
djross
Moderated by djross
Last updated on with Frozen Planet II
davidb
Moderated by DavidB
Last updated on with Evil Dead
djross
Moderated by djross
Last updated on with Saw X
reza899
Moderated by reza899
Last updated on with X-Men: Days of Future Past
polanski28
Moderated by polanski28
Last updated on with Resurrect Dead: The Mystery of the Toynbee Tiles
mattburgess
Moderated by mattburgess
Last updated on with Hand of Death
jakobostgren
Moderated by Jakobostgren
Last updated on with There Will Be Blood
beedub
Moderated by BeeDub
Last updated on with Das Boot
sirstuckey
Moderated by SirStuckey
Last updated on with Nope
escarta
Moderated by escarta
Last updated on with Rob Roy
beedub
Moderated by BeeDub
Last updated on with National Treasure: Edge of History
sproost
Moderated by sproost
Last updated on with The Lighthouse
delollio
Moderated by delollio
Last updated on with Talk to Me
davidysteph
Moderated by davidysteph
Last updated on with Through the Wormhole
Showing 1 - 24 of 24 results

Similar Titles

Loading ...

Statistics

Loading ...

Trailer

Loading ...