A prequel to John Carpenter's 1982 classic with the same name, this copycat turned out to be better than I thought it would be. It offered nothing too original except a smart Ripley-type character who was decent and likeable. The filmmakers managed to tie the ending of this story into the opening of Carpenter's original, which was an appropriate thing to do since they had branded it as a prequel as part of its marketing strategy. I really don't think I would want to see this movie be a part of some "The Thing" box set, though. It's totally unnecessary and is really nothing but a cash grab based on an earlier masterpiece. Yes, that's right. I called Carpenter's original a "masterpiece".
What surprises about this prequel is that it isn't a bad movie at all, that is until the final act. There's some decent suspense and some real tension generated. The classic blood test scene of the original was almost to the point of being copied, but they pulled back and developed a different way to tell alien from human. It's not as effective, but it does manage to turn up the suspense. And about that last act, it's awful. The characters get involved in a "hiding from the alien" scene that makes absolutely no sense given what we find out about them later. Even the alien behaves like an absolute idiot. I don't know why I'm trying not to spoil this, but perhaps it's because I wouldn't want a forehead slapping moment ruined for me, either.
No comments about a movie containing aliens would be complete without a word or two about the special effects, and in this movie, they weren't very good. Everything is CGI and it totally eliminated any potential scares. They weren't SyFy Channel cheap but were at times very nearly cartoonish. The alien was not scary and even the gore, which there was less of than I anticipated, was not convincing in the least. Seriously, what is it about special effects that allows me to accept how bad they are in '50s science fiction or horror but reject them when current films botch them. This version of "The Thing" didn't impress in that department.
A fun worthy prequel...I would be down to see a 3rd film too... Both films are better than most of the dribble Hollywood flicks at us
Not bad but definitely not as good as John Carpenter's 80ies horror classic of the same name. Its more of a action sci/fi movie with some scary moments than a proper horror flick. The SFX and acting is mostly good and the story's pace quite nice. However I never fully emerged into the flick, it just didn't grip me as Carpenter's did!
I thought it was really good, a deserving prequel to the 1982 john carpenter movie.
CGI WILL NEVER EVER BE AS GOOD AS PRACTICAL EFFECTS AND NEVER WILL BE A SUITIBLE REPLACEMENT.
"CHANGE MY MIND"
Unfairly maligned. I have no trouble recommending this to anyone who hasn't seen either of The Thing movies. This is a prequel, so if you haven't seen either film, watch this first and then the original. The original is better so watching it last makes sense. If you have seen the original, this one fleshes out some of the beginning very nicely. As sequels go, this one is great compared to something like the Matrix sequels.
Ok movie that could have been so much more memorable and have a cult following if they didn't switch awesome animatronics and practical effects for some ok CGI. It really bums me knowing they were heading in a good direction with really believable horror practical effects and puppeteering, and they just wanted to go with the CGI... it doesn't look as good, and the uncanny valley is unavoidable, you don't feel the horror.
Much better than expected. Good action and surprisingly good special effects. Not very realistic in the sense that Kristoper Hivju could have taken that thing down no problem!
Part of my 2022 Sci-Fi Tuesdays
The Thing 2011 has a fault way too many prequels suffer from, and that is that it answers questions that doesn't need answering. I had no need to really see that the Thing, from Carpenter's The Thing, was an alien. I gathered that from what happens in the movie. I didn't need to know what happened on the Norwegian base either, because that was certainly something my mind cooked up for itself while watching the original.
Anyway, The Thing 2011 is not really all that bad, but it's totally redundant. Not only did they use many of the same scenes as in the original, but they also managed to make the effects way worse. Twenty-nine years later and the effects looked horrendous compared to the practical effects in the original. Way to go guys...
This is actually only the second time I have seen the whole of this movie. I haven't touched this since I saw it in the cinema back in 2011, and now you know the reason.
This could have been a good movie, if they had called it something else, and rewritten some parts of the story to set it apart from Carpenters masterpiece. Then maybe some of us would have judged it less harshly. At least I know I would have...
The only reason I'm not giving this a higher rating is because of what happened with the special effects, that I just learned about recently. According to what I've read, the creature effects in this were originally all practical - amazing, phenomenal practical effects; look up Studio ADI on YouTube, they have a number of videos of behind the scenes stuff regarding the animatronic and model creation used in this film. But the studio execs apparently felt that the practical effects were "too 80s" and had them largely overridden by CGI. Apart from the videos on YouTube, the original cut is lost to us. I stand by what I've said in the past, which is that the CGI isn't that bad in this. It's no Lord of the Rings or Star Wars, and it doesn't hold a candle to the animatronics originally used, but it's not that bad.
Apart from that, I feel this movie perfectly captures the tone of the 1982 movie. The music fits, the lighting and set design matches, and the sense of isolation and paranoia is the same. It's really a damn shame about the effects, because it seems like the entire movie - including the effects - was a love letter to the 1982 movie. They worked very hard to match the parts of the Norwegian base that we see in that one, down to the broken glass and scorch marks. The story is good, too; it doesn't try to replicate the beats of the 1982 film, instead giving us a separate viewpoint on what happened.
The movies plays it a bit too safe by having a bit too much in common with John Carpenter's "The Thing" and by being a bit too predictable if you know where the film is headed (it's a prequel.) The digital effects are also a bit much, for example the thing can transform in ways less believable than John Carpenter's film and it made me wonder had they went with practical effects would it have seemed a little more believable and cohesive.
Overall I enjoyed the film but it definitely felt like a fan-service, and even though John Carpenter's "The Thing" is my favorite movie this film felt a bit too safe and by the numbers.
The creature is very scary in the sense of that it can copy a human and that anyone could be 'it'. I think they went a little overboard with how this creature looks halfway through the movie. They wanted to make it scary, I get that but it's a bit much. I think it could've been equally as scary with a little less of the dramatics.
Cast, okay. Plot, okay. It's just an okay movie. Not the best and not the worst. It's a nice movie to watch on one of those evenings that your bored and need something to pass the time.
The original set an unbelievably high bar especially since it was released in '82 and didn't have CGI. I liked this film. I don't think it's on par with the original but it's certainly ahead of a majority of the horror/sci-fi that's out there.
After a lot of negativity, I was pleasantly entertained. As others have said, put aside any notion of this living up to the original masterpiece. Taken in isolation as scifi horror, it does the job.
Decent attempt, better than expected but it still doesn't hold up the original unfortunately.
Everyone knows that remaking classic or genre defining films is going to be a let down for many people. The original was amazing because of the use of suspense and claustrophobia as much as FX. I'm a big fan of the original and bearing in mind it's 30 years old the FX are superb and the lack of CGI gives an almost more honest believable feel. That said, if you took this film on its own merits its by no means a turkey. It's a shame many of the scenes from the original are repeated because it didn't really have to be a remake and would have fared much better as a genuine prequel.
While "The Thing" from 2011 is a fairly solid prequel to John Carpenter's 1982 classic, the film still doesn't manage to come close to the qualities of the original. The story is too much of the same without matching the tension of its predecessor. The pace in particular was a little too fast for me; there is no time at all for the viewer to puzzle over who is still human and who is not.
The CGI effects aren't the worst I've ever seen. However, it is worth noting that the practical effects from 1982 have aged better than the computer effects from 2011. At least in places, though, there are at least a few gross-out moments that work.
The cast is fairly decent. Mary Elizabeth Winstead is convincing in the lead role, and I also found Joel Edgerton and Ulrich Thomsen suitable in their parts. Ultimately, however, they are all caught up in trying to recreate the 1982 premise in exactly the same way. There would certainly have been more in it to at least somewhat explore the background of the parasitic alien being, about which we don't really know any more after this movie than before.
At the end of the day, "The Thing" is certainly a movie that has its moments. But you can definitely just stick with the John Carpenter film and skip this prequel.
Thoughts after watching this for either the third or fourth time: As a prequel to John Carpenter's 1982 classic remake of The Thing this was a great story. Acting was good, script was good, dialogue was (mostly) not lame, the soundtrack accompanied the suspense and terror in a great way. The one flaw (and maybe it's just a personal opinion, I don't know) that I saw with this "reboot/prequel" was the creature itself. In the 1982 classic by John Carpenter, the alien life form was much more subdued, subtle... insidious and alien, which is what contributed to the horror. It wasn't brazen or vicious until provoked but acted more as a predator stalking, looking for a victim. Here we have the alien life form that is terrifying yet (IMO) lacking a lot of the "fear factor" of the 1982 version because this one meets its prey head-on, and of course from all appearances, is virtually unstoppable unless said victim happens to carrying around a flame-thrower. Guns, sticks, chairs, closed doors, etc etc are all minor annoyances to this freakish nightmare and it brazenly walks around stalking anything and everything. Again, maybe it's just my opinion, but that took a lot of the fear factor away from it. It seemed much more unearthly and terrifying when it "hid" in plain sight and only revealed itself when provoked. Apart from that glaring difference, I have no complaints about this 2011 remake/prequel. For the most part, it ties in nicely with the classic (which, I should note, is my favorite horror/sci-fi movie, so maybe that's why I appear to be a bit harsh on this one) and the ending is perfect. (Hint: Watch all the way through the credits.) There are some incredibly amazing special effects used here to create the most grotesque, horrific images that can never be burned out of a survivor's memory. Although not (IMO) as good as the 1982 version, this is still a great movie and deserves a watch.
A prequel to the 1982 John Carpenter film, The Thing is an exciting suspense thriller that’s full of mystery and terror. When a Norwegian research station in the Antarctic excavates an alien body from beneath the ice, it comes to life and begins killing off the researchers. At its core the film’s a creature feature that relies on CGI effects, yet it tries to stay true to Carpenter vision; recreating similar movements and creature designs. However, the CGI creature isn’t as frightening and horrific as Carpenter’s was. Sadly, another issue with the film is Mary Elizabeth Winstead (who’s no Kurt Russell). Even though she gives a solid performance, Winstead doesn’t have the commanding presence needed to believe that her character could take charge of this situation and lead a hunt for the creature. And as a prequel, the ending is pretty much a forgone conclusion. The Thing isn’t as strong a film as the John Carpenter version, but it’s a serviceable prequel that’s full of action and suspense.
Not a bad attempt at a prequel. Would have preferred more practical effects. Still doesn’t compare to John Carpenters.
"We isolate it and then we kill it."
I can see why people were upset about this movie, but I actually enjoyed it. Would I rather practical effects over CGI? Absolutely. In fact, thats the only thing that took me out of the movie a few times, but overall I think this is a serviceable prequel.
Edit: Apparently the writer said they were going to do practical effects and no CGI, and then the studio came in and said add CGI and more alien scenes. Bummer.
COULD HAVE BEEN A 10/10 LIKE THE 82 THING, BUT SADLY COMES IN AT A 9/10
THE DODGY CGI AND WAY OVER USE OF IT AND NOT ENOUGH MESS AND PROPS BRINGS THE SCORE DOWN ALSO WHAT THE HELLA DID THE THING SWALLOW BEFORE CRASHING, A GIANT BUG, INSECT, BEETLE ARE SUMAT
NO...JUST...NO IT'S LIKE THEY JUST RAN OUT OF IDEA'S, TOTAL LACK OF IMAGINATION,
SO WE WILL JUST MAKE IT MORE BUG THAN OWT.
NOW THAT'S JUST LAZY WRITING. MORE SLOP AND TENTACLES PLEASE. APART FROM THAT THEY TIED IT IN NICELY, SHOWED US HOW THING'S GOT THE WAY THEY DID BEFORE OUR KURT
TURNS UP. AND THEY DID AN EXCELLENT JOB OF NOT PISSING ALL OVER THE ORIGINAL, LIKE SO MANY DO. PLUS IT FOOLED ME TILL THE VERY END, IT WAS A PREQUEL, NOT A REMAKE ARE SEQUEL, THEY ACHIEVED THAT WITH THE MARKETING ASWEL, MISGUIDING US THAT WAY.
CLEVER VERY CLEVER, RATHER AWESOME ACTUALLY, SO KUDOS FOR THEM FOR THAT. THERE'S MORE RIGHT THAN WRONG WITH IT,
AND FOR THAT IT JUST MISSED OUT
ON A PERFECT SCORE.
LOVED HOW BOTH MOVIE'S HAD THERE OWN UNIQUE WAY OF DETECTING WHO'S HUMAN AND WHO'S NOT.
A prequel that could have been a good addition to the first film (and maybe even to the original story) but it's just not.
I hoped to learn more about the alien but the 90 percent of film is just a watered-down version of the original.
enjoyable one but little off & lacked alot of things
For the first 30, this wasn't the worst. Then the CGI and terrible decisions kicked off and it was allllll downhill from there. Soooo many missed opportunities here.
Did we need a prequel to The Thing? No, and it is impossible to live up to the original. They used too much CGI. I really wish it would of been more practical effects.
after seeing the 1982, you appreciate more the 2011, because you know what has happened with Norwegians, but not as good, the bond with the another is out of the blue, although this has to be the end to link
A good monster movie and another good retelling of a classic, but probably better for newcomers than for people with fond memories of the previous version(s). Less tension and more 'BOO!', less revulsion and more awe, this is the 'accessible' version of The Thing.
Coming into this I knew that this was a prequel, however I've never seen the original, so I'm watching them back to back. Considering I'm watching this movie 5 years after it came out I thought it was better than most sci fi esque horror films. The cgi effects has aged well, and the acting was ok. There were a couple of plot holes that I noticed, such as what happen to the Kate Lloyd character at the end. Maybe that will be answer in the sequel/original version. This was an enjoyable film, am I going to watch it over and over again? Probably not, but should the producers finally decided to come out with a sequel, I think I'll check it out again to get a sense of the entire story.
Just perfect right now (freezing time in europe) ;)
It's a 1:1 copy/remake of the original (1982), but without Kurt Russell and the CGI were better back then.
Quite horrifying, enjoyed it very much.
There are 2 main issues with this Movie; One it´s a prequel to one of the best horror movie of all times, Two excessive CGI that made the monster in "The Thing" from 1982 more real... Has a Movie it´s good, not even close to the "original" but still good. Obviously, people will always want more from movies related to masterpieces...
This movie doesnt deserve to be named the thing. Just a bunch of FX without a real story and no sense. It just plain sucks.
Shout by WambieBlockedParent2018-10-17T14:48:14Z
Apparently by reading the comments here and on the 1982 version, not many know the original movie was actually The Thing from Another World 1951. All being based on the 1938 book Who Goes There?.