The Thing (2011)
| release date | October 14 2011 |
| studio | Universal Pictures/Strike Entertainment |
| director | Matthijs van Heijningen Jr. |
| writer | Ronald D. Moore, Eric Heisserer |
| starring | Mary Elizabeth Winstead, Joel Edgerton, Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje, Dennis Storhøi, Trond Espen Seim, Jørgen Langhelle, Eric Christian Olsen, Stig Henrik Hoff, Jan Gunnar Røise, Kristofer Hivju, Jo Adrian Haavind |
| rating | R |
| tagline | It's Not Human. Yet. |
| site | thethingmovie.net |
| trailer 1 | Trailer #1 |
3 Comments
Honestly, it’s an okay film for what it is, but using so much CGI killed it for me.
Mary Elizabeth Winstead is a solid lead, but that’s about the only reason to watch this.
my full review is up here: http://tinyurl.com/3e5d9ml
Just not what original THING fans are going to want to see.
Hollywood has churned out another bland and soulless remake. Looks like Fright Night has a buddy to claim the title of Worst Movie of the Year.
I’m going to break it right down so my fellow BD’ers don’t waste their time and money watching this garbage. Don’t worry about spoilers because if you’ve seen the JC film then you have seen this REMAKE !
1: Yep, it’s a remake. 10% is prequel, mainly the bookends, but everything in the middle is straight up copied from JC’s film.
Snippets of Morricones score, a dog biting at it’s cage, an American locked outside in the cold only to break in and claim a flamethrower, the team standing outside in the cold pouring fuel on an assimilation,a planned blood test that is sabotaged and of course, a copy of the real blood test scene, except here it is done so poorly and is so full of holes that the screenwriter obviously realized this half way through and then back tracks to try and fix it. You name it, it’s all here.
2: There is zero suspense, paranoia, claustrophobia, nothing. The biggest mistake this film makes is that it blows its load straight up. The director was in such a hurry to get to the Thing escaping it’s icy tomb that within the first 15 minutes we’ve discovered the spaceship, the thing, introduced Mary Winstead, dug up the Thing and have it escaped. Because this happens within a space of 15-20 minutes any chance of build up or suspense goes straight out the window. The film never recovers from this huge misstep.
3: Want engaging, interesting characters ? Well forget about it. There is zilch in the way of developing any of the characters. The Norwegians are all cliched, unshaven, drunken louts who sing bad songs loudly and yell and do lots of finger poiting. The may as well been named Norwegian #1, Norwegian #2 etc. These people are nothing more than fodder for the Thing to assimilate and you wind up not giving a shit about any of them. The exact same thing can be said for the Americans sprinkled throughout. Joel Edgerton is a helicopter pilot, Mary Winstead is a scientist and that is all we know.
4: CGI effects galore. There is only one scene which uses practical effects and that is in the trailer. Every effect of the Thing is CGI. Some of it looks good, some of it looks OK and some of it looks downright rubbish. Think The Rock in The Mummy Returns and you get the idea. Oh man, even the good effects pale in comparison to the work in the JC film. If Rob Bottin were dead he’d be rolling in his grave. Because the Thing is a digital creation I had no connection to it at all. We know it’s pixels so therefore it looks like something out of a video game. Really, the film tries to be gory but it isn’t because of the digital effects on display.
Overall, this film doesn’t bring anything new to the table. As I said, it’s bland, soulless and actually a tad boring, and that’s because the JC film still holds up to this day. It’s impossible to watch this film and not think of the 82 version. That’s all I could think of during this version. This remake is completely unnecessary and only exists for the youth of today who have never even heard of JC’s film and don’t want to watch and “old” film.
If you love JC’s film, and let’s face it many around here do, then do not waste your time and money with this. Wait for DVD or even a shitty torrent. Save your cash and stay at home and watch the real thing. Why settle for a bad imitation. Oh I wish I could give this a 0 skull rating.
I really enjoyed the movie, I would have liked to see more practical special effects then the CGI, but the CGI didnt bother me too much, however overall I liked seeing the fate of the other camp and really did enjoy that aspect of the movie.
Close, but the massive massive amounts of frantic cgi madness made it a massive fail. U don’t follow up an amazing practical effects movie with a cgi mess. This will look sooo dated in 5 years
I’m going for my chick, MEW (Mary Elizabeth Winstead). I saw the OG one last night and tomorrow I’m going the “prequel” the theaters to check it outs. Honesty, I’m gonna smoke a few or more bowls and I gotta have a picture or two of beer before I see it. Maybe, based on the “review” on Bloody Disgusting, that sounds like a excellent idea. Til tomorrow, Foo.
it seems like a lot of people hated this movie even before it’s release date. from the very beginning people stated the CGI was going to suck, it was going to be filled with cheap scares just from the trailers and clips. So already you’ve made up your mind. Given the CGI doesn’t come close to Carpenter’s version with the prac. special effects/props but really??? With the ideas they had for the Thing(prequel) and if they had used prac. fx it would of had looked more fake than the CGI. Not every director is a Steven Spielberg and James Cameron with the great use of CGI. i went to the midnight showing just hoping for a good movie, i knew it wasn’t going to be amazing but i had an open mind when watching it. when you watch this version of course it’s going to feel like a remake, the SETTING IS FUCKING ANTARCTICA! it takes place the same year Carpenter’s Thing does, so all the equipment is going to be the same. because they burned everything it must be the same movie. OMG they have a husky in this one it must be like Carpenter’s version. all i’m saying don’t think of Carpenter’s Thing till the end credits. It has the suspense, even with the cheap scares they build it before hand so it’s just not a loud noise to piss you off and it’s only the ones you see in the trailer. Yes the beginning happens fast but that was a bad thing? oh yes, lets see the science behind digging up a frozen whatever, who cares, lets get to the craziness. even with that they introduced the characters well, along the way you get a good feel what kind of person this character is before all the chaos occurs. the paranoia is there more than Carpenter’s I believe. besides the CGI being iffy(which was a given) and not having Kurt Russel with his huge fucking hat this movie is good for what it is. Just think of it is as it’s own movie till the end credits like i said.
Two things ruined… the… Thing… *ahem* The creature looked like shit. In the original, every time you saw it, there was a difference. Shit was freaky, and you never forgot it. Here? Horrible, horrible CGI owns the day, and hopefully producers will finally see just how shitty the CGI looks here and go back to good old fashioned corn syrup and red dye. And the fact that, even though this was supposed to be a prequel (hell, they even tie the ending into Carpenter’s version), there were so many things the characters did here that the team in the first movie did as well. This is not to say that I hated the movie, I actually like it for what it was, but every time the creature came out, the FX took me completely out of the moment. And, of course, maybe they shouldn’t have tried to sell this carbon copy as a prequel; it works better as a remake. Does it trump Carpenter’s? Oh, hell no. Is it totally unnecessary and a blatant cash grab? Yes. Yes, it is. As remakes go, I’ve seen worse, but you’ll probably forget it as soon as you leave the theater.
it’s not bad as many have said. It is an entertaining movie on its own and there were many jump scenes. Pure popcorn flick.
A part of my soul died as I watched this steaming pile of dung. Any more said about this film would be a waste of words and my time. Just don’t watch it. That’s all.
Why so much hate on the thing , is a good movie, of course if you compare it to THE THING of 1982 like every critic is doing then its garbage, THE THING is a classic no remake or prequel will ever top that movie, i dont know why Mr. Disgusting put so much of his review on CGI ,we know you dont like CGI but this is 2011 and every movie is done with CGI, get real man, of course practical effects are much better ,well at least in my opinion its a good movie if you dont compare it to john carpenters masterpiece ,I think this hate began since it was announced a prequel was getting made because fans didnt want anything that could ruin the mythos or story of THE THING (1982) movie, anyways i think it was pretty good without comparing it to the 1982 version.
This wasn’t as scary as the original, mostly because of the choice to use CGI versus practical effects. It’s hard to describe why the practical effects are just creepier, but the best way to say it is in the original the effects were a labor of love and it showed in the details. For this film, it was just another CGI inclusion from some CGI house. The story, however, was strong and tense. It’s a worthy prequel, but the CGI should have been ditched. But like I said, if you’re in it for the story it’s a winner. Great prequel, indeed.
This movie was fuckin great.What the hell is wrong with these “Thing’ purists?! That fuckin creature had some sick designs and was jumping and going crazy all over the fuckin place!How are you supposed to use practical effects for that shit you morons?Real fans should respect this as worthy prequel to carpenters.This shit was a home run with me.
First off, there will NEVER be another John Carpenter’s Thing. Now, with that being said, I have to say that I liked it. The CGI was not distracting and their designs of the thing were innovative and disturbing, but still tied to the classic. It keeps the tone of JC’s and ties its story to it in several places, and it’s fun to pick them out while watching. I felt dread, I jumped; it was a great way to spend a rainy afternoon!
One of the most unnecessary prequels around but mostly seemed like a remake that as a whole brought nothing new or exciting to the classic original. Every actor brought everthing they got to there roles but still came off as hollow and not charismatic making their characters dull and way too serious making you not attached to the movie at least for me as much as I wanted to. The special effects were great but the execution of them was a tad silly and not terrifying and suspenseful like they should of been making some potentially scary scenes laughable but made it watchable and entertaining. The decision of having a female lead made it too much like a copycat of Alien and I like Mary Elizabeth Winstead and she did a decent job and all but she is just not the badass lead that the movie needed making everthing uneventful and not thrilling just serviceable enough to get by. Overall this could of been something great but like the saying don’t fix something that isn’t broken, why would you bother improving something if you’re not going to raise the bar but just stay the same? POINTLESS!
I’m done trusting BD’s judgement on films. They don’t know how to watch a film, enjoy it for what it is, and let it take them on a ride without nitpicking it apart for every tiny little detail that they don’t find satisfactory. This film is actually very bad ass. I just got back from seeing the morning showing and I was impressed. While the original is still top notch, this film was a bloody blast to watch. My only disappointment was their favoring of CGI over practical FX like in the original, although it wasn’t so cartoony that it bothered me. Everyone needs to just chill out about the CGI. I loved how the ending tied this film in with the original as well. All in all, I’d say it’s really not as bad as everyone is making it out to be. It’s actually pretty damn good.
I went and saw this today after work and I have to say, I was not one bit disappointed. Carpenters version is in my top 5 fave movies of all time and this I have to say, it looked and felt like I was watching the Carpenter version all over again, with new actors. The acting was pretty solid, the FX were good, not great, but, I wasn’t sitting there shaking my head is disbelief. And was fun to see some FX shots that ended up in Carpenters version. All in all, this is a solid movie. Considering how let down most horror films have been lately, this definitely stands on it’s own and I applaud it for what it is. A Good Movie! I hope it does well and they move forward with a true sequel to The Thing.
——————————————————————————–
I’m excited to say I’m not disappointed with this movie, but I’m also not incredibly impressed.
First, the cons:
Not nearly as much character development this time around. Also, the CGI, while still fun, was overused. It seemed too “fast”. There were a couple small holes in the movie, and the sound wasn’t as good as it could’ve been. Something that bugged me, were the sound effects when they were looking through the microscope. You can’t hear microorganisms making sounds, wtf?!?!? There was too much soundtrack in the movie as well. But the BIGGEST issue for me, was that it wasn’t really that scary. On a scare level, it was about a 4. I think this was partially due to the fact there was too much soundtrack, and the movie felt more like “Deep Rising” than “The Thing”. Also, some of the deaths seemed a little disappointing, like it could’ve been more. The movie was missing the element of surprise, fear and paranoia.
To sum up the cons: Not scary enough, too much CGI, ending could’ve been better.
The PROS:
Entertaining and well executed. There was enough Norwegian and other elements to tie this movie in well with the 1982 movie. The very ending during the credits were great. The creature effects, even though slightly overused, were fun, exhilarating, and impressive. I loved the use of actors in the film, they all did really well. It was very intense sometimes, and well put together. While some deaths were lamer than anticipated, others were spot on. The creatures were really awesome, and it was a killer movie.
ALl in all, if you get really picky, it’s not as good of a movie as it could’ve and SHOULD’VE been. BUT, even though I’m an avid film of John Carpenters’s version, I can’t rail on this movie, because it’s its own movie. It did well paying tribute to Carpenter’s version, and it did well making a name for it’s own. I was very happy with it.
As a fan of Carpenter’s version, I went into this hoping it would blow me away. I did not. Way too much CGI, basically every scene with the creature is done with CGI. It wasn’t that impressive looking either, it was about as good as the scorpion king in The Mummy Returns, the scene where he comes out with the Rock’s face and attack Brendan Fraser. I wish they would have used less CGI and more practical effects. I loved how the ending credits tied into the 1982 version, that part was cool. I thought their method of testing to see who’s the thing and who’s not was pretty clever. All in all, I’d say wait for DVD.
Now this was not nearly as good as John Carpenters which is a masterpiece by the way but this is a very decent remake. It was basically the same movie but different people and all CGI. I thought it was a pretty good movie and it is worth a watch. If your turned off by CGI don’t see this but the CGI is done very well if you do decide to see this.
Brad Miska is a twat. But that is common knowledge. Instead of heeding his advice and not spending ONE SECOND watching The Thing, how about don’t spend ONE SECOND listening to his biased belly-aching and just decide for yourself. He treats every horror remake as if it raped his mother and left her for dead.
That being said, yeah, there’s nothing particularly special about The Thing. By the way, if they wanted it to be a prequel so badly (which I suppose it kind of was), how about giving it a surname to illuminate that fact. The Thing: First Contact. The Thing: Progenitor. So on and so on. Anyway, it’s nothing special. Is it enjoyable? i thought so. Are there worse ways to spend a Friday night? Hell yes.
Parts of it were poorly paced and a couple performances came off a bit awkward, at times. That’s about all I can say was a little off-putting. When it was good, it was really good. The paranoia is incredibly amusing and over the top, the gore was sufficient and I found the alien design intriguing. (Spoiler: Particularly the larger alien that fuses the two humans’ faces together).
Another aspect of this review that was particularly irritating was the constant griping about the CGI. Miska spoke about it as if it were so widespread throughout the film that you could expect two-three brain hemorrhages bv the time the credits roll. There were less than a dozen CGI shots. Save for about four scenes of extended use of CGI, everything else was quick and minimally distracting.
Brad Miska, since you seem to so liberally hand out advice, let me offer some to you: go work yourself up a nice little salt-water douche, because you are a cunt.
Let’s put it this way if the women was playing in my theater I would of walked out of the thing and gone see that and prob be way fuckin happier.
The movie was boring as shit. I didn’t mind the CGI like Mr. D and others did. I was pissed that it turned out to be a freakin rip off of JC’s but took out all the fun stuff that made JC’s so frightening and cool. The acting was stiff all around. Mary didn’t seem like she wanted to act. The gore was decent. the effects were so so monsters looked like something out of Dead Space that was cool. They were loud. Umm other then that it was boring as shit. I would say if you really want to see it go wait for DVD.
i was a huge fan of the original thing..like the 50′s movie… loved the 1982 thing…and i did in fact like this new one.. i realy enjoyed how they tied it to the jc masterpiece.
yes a lil too much cgi.. but none the less very enjoyable.
my review from horrorbid.com:
I suppose there’s not much point diving thoroughly into the details of the plot; if you caught John Carpenter’s 1982 remake of the same title, you know what you’re in store for. The story kicks off at the Norwegian base camp from which the madness launched in Carpenter’s rendition, and thankfully, scribe Eric Heisserer wastes no time getting down to business; we’re given an up close and personal look at the frozen spacecraft, and within 15 minutes our “surviving” passenger is pulled from the ice. The quick introduction really works quite well, and establishes a pace that runs a bit more frenetic than Carpenter’s take.
Just as you may expect, viewers are treated to some brief character development, however Heisserer only dials in on a handful of significant figures as the troupe meanders the camp. Unfortunately, the spotlight is really only cast upon a very, very select few players, leaving an assortment of the ensemble (there are plenty of great actors in tow, might i add) left to melt (literally) into the background. Kate (Mary Elizabeth Winstead), Braxton Carter (Joel Edgerton) and Dr. Sander Halvorson (Ulrich Thomsen) carry the burden of performance, as all eyes are fixed to these three players. Surprisingly, it’s Kate who (in effect) plays the “MacReady” role, while Carter serves as the masculine back-up. As for the good Doc… well, he’s the reckless figure eager to see that the thawed beast be claimed by he and the crew, regardless of how much hell is unleashed in the process.
I admire director Matthijs van Heijningen Jr. for the attention to detail invested (you’re going to note some things in this picture that are present in carpenters 29 year old telling, but I’ll spare spoilers and details, and leave it to you Thing freaks to catch the nods), and the breakneck speed at which the film unravels, but I must admit, I was a tad disappointed with the lack of suspense the picture boasts. Don’t misinterpret now, there’s some tension that builds amongst the group, but the extreme paranoia John once brought to the screen is sidelined in favor of fast shocks and in-your-face action. It was a risky maneuver, altering the general mood of the film, and honestly I can’t say for sure that it did or didn’t pay off; that’s a conclusion that must be reached individually, and I’m still so torn I can’t express (or grasp for that matter) my full feelings after a single viewing.
While the studio promise of practical effects dominating digital is by no means true, the CGI is actually handled well, for the most part. And, much to my delight, there are indeed some really cool practical effects and gnarly creature prosthetics to soak up. The combination of practical and digital is relatively well balanced, and if there’s a reason not to enjoy the film, I’m not convinced the special effects should be tagged the culprit (though the overall impact of the gore is significantly weaker than Rob Bottin’s work, which still stuns to this day).
The Thing wins in the sense that it’s a fast, fun film with a few memorable performances, some solid cinematography (that still pales in comparison to Dean Cundey’s work) and a shitload of action. It fails in the sense that it really feels more remake than prequel, despite the already established franchise connections at work. Therein lies one of the film’s largest hurdles; how do you tell a tale that is, essentially already known? The sequencing of today’s Thing serves as a virtual carbon copy to that of John Carpenter’s vision… but what the hell else could have been done to shift the story without destroying any concept of continuity?
Matthijs van Heijningen Jr. did a fine job of not botching a fantastic story, but the question still lingers in my mind: just how successful was he in building upon the mythos, and how can one rightfully compare this current film to Carpenter’s iconic 1982 offering, while being fair in judgment? I suppose another viewing may help me to answer that question.
As it stands, I can say that the film is superior to a lot of the remakes to surface lately (Fright Night, Conan, Don’t Be Afraid of the Dark) and I can certainly assure you I’ll catch this once more on the big screen.
At this point I’d have to rate the film…
Grade: B-
i have to say that this movies was quite enjoyable. CGI was top notch, a bit over used and unecessary at some points. the plot developed perfectly to connect this film to the original. a great watch even if you havent seen the original
I thought this movie was a solid piece of work and by no means ruins what John Carpenter did in 1982. Both films stand on their own as fun and exciting fx flics, each utilizing top notch effects for their times. I believe John Carpenter would have used CGI in his movie if he were to make his film now and I am sick and tired of people BITCHING about CGI as the downfall of effects! I love when a movie like this melds practical and CG effects to bring it’s creatures to life. Just get over it for fucksake!!! By no means is this is as great as the original but it is still a great popcorn movie for sure. Go check it out!
Where is the hate coming from? I actually found this to be a great prequel, with good gore and terrific scares, The Thing prequel is is an entertaining way to spend 2 hours. However, the very end of the film will not make much sense unless you’ve seen the remake, so watch John Carpenter’s flick, then see this. And as always, Mary Elizabeth Winstead is perfect in this.
The writing and acting were top notch and I left the theatre satisfied…but the effects were really a point of contention. All the great suspense that had built up over the film’s running time was instantly killed the moment that CGI mess appeared on screen. Maybe if it all wasn’t shown in close-up, brightly lit areas it could’ve appeared less obvious, but as is it really did lessen the experience. I understand that practical effects just aren’t so common anymore, but the digitization here was just too fake-looking/computer animated to be believable and ultimately scary.
Matthijs Van Heijningen jar’s The Thing prequel is a flawed film that also serves as a subsequent piece to John Carpenter’s The Thing from 1982. Heijningen captures the look and feel of Carpenter’s film quite well. From the snowy landscapes of Antarctica, to the camp the characters are stationed at. Some things that don’t work so well in this prequel are character development, the music/score and the special effects on the creature itself. Where Carpenter’s film developed it’s characters thoroughly, this film tends to just want to speed things up to get the creature thawed out of it’s icebox and wrecking havoc on everyone. Carpenter’s version contained very little music, creating silent, tense filled scenes. The score here is overbearing at times and doesn’t help create any tension or suspense, less would have served better in this instance. The biggest concern any fan of the ’82 version undoubtedly had going into this film, has got to be how the creature’s special effects were going to be handled. It’s pretty much hit or miss. There are scenes that look well done with the use of practical effects, and then there are others where the CGI is overused tremendously (The helicopter scene stands out the most). The last act of the film also showcases too much CGI involvement on the alien creature. Why not have just done it all practical with less CG? It would have helped create a stronger looking film. It must be noted that Rob Bottin’s special effects on John Carpenter’s film still holds up strong today almost 30 years later. I can see this 2011 version being very dated sooner rather then later. CGI is not always the answer, when will Hollywood learn? I found the pacing to be a minor issue as well, some of the middle act of the film I found to be a bit on the boring side.
The actors all do acceptable jobs in their giving roles. Mary Elizabeth Winstead as Kate Lloyd and Joel Edgerton as Braxton Carter are the leads. Presumably, Kate is to this prequel what Kurt Russell’s R.J. MacReady is to Carpenter’s ’82 version. Even though Edgerton’s character, Carter, is an American pilot much like MacReady was, it’s Kate that ends up taking control and leading the others against the “Thing” with Carter as her masculine back up. Kate is also responsible for coming up with a “test” for everyone to determine who is and who isn’t infected, much like MacReady did in Carpenter’s film. At first glance, I thought Winstead was miscast, but after seeing the film I feel she was a good choice. Dr. Sander, portrayed by Ulrich Thomsen, was pretty generic. Dr. Sander’s talks down to Kate (only one of two women at the camp) and is pretty much just a dick. Caring only about the once in a lifetime discovery and not giving a damn about anything or anyone else. I was anticipating his demise to say the least. The other actors portraying the Norwegians, are all typecast and serve no real purpose except to become potential victims.
The Thing 2011 is flawed, but not as bad as one would come to expect in this day and age of the countless remakes/reboots/prequels hitting cinemas every week. It stays true to Carpenter’s film while giving us a glimpse of what went down before we first laid our eyes on the two Norwegians chasing after the Alaskan Malamute in the opening of The Thing ’82. (I liked the tie-in at the end leading into this particular scene, a nice nod by the film maker) I just couldn’t help but think to myself after the film ended, what was the point? Anyone who has seen the ’82 version knows already that no one will survive, so where is the suspense? Where are the surprises? Also, why not change the title? The Thing: the beginning, The Thing: Origins, something to separate it as it’s own. Titled as is, it screams remake even though it’s being marketed as a prequel. Overall I just feel as though this film doesn’t need to exist, but it does, and it at the least serves as a decent tie-in to the superior John Carpenter version.
Movie studios are flat out stupid. They try to capitalize on classic movies by making new ones. If they actually cared about these movies they’d either leave them alone or actually put some time and effort into making them. Why is it that special effects from 1982 look better than effects done nearly 30 years later?
I dont understand how people can rate the last 2 final destination movies higher than this. this movie wasnt bad. it could have been better without so much cgi but get over it seriously.
it’s ok.
WORST.CGI.EVER. Otherwise, pretty solid.
I Was Not Disappointed With This At All Loved It !!! 10 SKULLS
A bland rehash of the first film, but with different characters and happenings. There are a few good ideas that don’t amount to anything and a chunk of the middle of the film actually produces some tension, but of course this only happens when the creature is off screen. The CG monster, while decent looking, is a drag. I had a general feeling of ‘meh’ the entire time. In the end, this just felt like a pointless expedition.
We have to take reviews for what they are which are personal opinions that’s all. This follow up or prequel could have been alot worse what it was missing was an ensemble cast that we could care about and feel something when they got Thinged. In 82 Bottin’s practical effects were a benchmark the late great Stan Winston even assisted i found the CG effects to be very good but still not as organic and truly frighting as 82′s practical which still holds up . While i was not bored and found this an enjoyable watch i cant say it’s truly memorable alot of the Sweeds, i mean Norwegians were really interchangable and did,not set themselves apart to create their own identities but i credit the filmmakers for going with real Norwegian actors and using subtitles that was ballsy. This is not another Hollywood processed horror film for our consumption i feel it has more integrity than that it’s a worthy follow up to Carpenter’s classic while not at the same level really how could it be? There were just a few plot holes that bothered me and how do the Things get dressed , do they go do laundry before putting their victims clothes on? I think we should all support good Horror if not all we will be left with is Twilight sagas and that’s a world i dont want to live in so go see this get your own opinion !!!
I thought this movie would’ve been a lot worse and wasn’t expecting much from it so I wasn’t disappointed by it. It’s a lesser-known cast but that certainly doesn’t hurt the movie and the girl is a really good screamer. The only complaint I had was the overuse of CGI. Why can’t Hollywood learn from their mistakes and realize that less is more. The movie does not disappoint its a great prequel and leaves me wandering what happened to the girl at the end? Anyway a part 2. wouldn’t hurt as long as they don’t make it into a pixar movie. So with that I say it’s a good one to watch if you’re bored, but like I said, too much of a video game graphics-wise.
THIS MOVIE IS GARBAGE. I thought i was watching the end of DEEP RISING the whole time jesus. What a slap in the face to Carpenters version. Somewhere Rob Bottin is laughing. Why can’t I give this a 1 or zero? Its not worthy of a 2.
I am now CONVINCED this site sucks at movie reviews. John Carpenter is my favorite director of all-time….The Thing might possibly be my favorite horror movie EVER. I was gonna go to the midnight viewing of this movie, til I read your review and it took the wind out of my sails, but then I heard from a skeptical friend who told me he was wrong about this movie and I needed to see it.
He was right. Movie was great. A solid B overall. Some CGI I was like “Eh” but there was definitely parts where my jaw hit the floor and was like “WTF!!” (the face merging scene anyone?) It tied in with the JC remake perfectly. I don’t think ANYONE was expecting it to be anything like that movie, it’s one of the greatest of all-time….but you got to take it for what it is. CGI is gonna be there, sometimes it looks bad and sometimes it looked great. The creature design was also very, very awesome.
Give credit where credit is due and stop being elitist turds. I know my horror movies and it’s clear B-D should just stick to giving up news and movie updates because they do not know a goddamn thing about how to review a movie.
I thought they did a great job. The special effects were amazing, and contrary to what some are saying, they did not over use CGI as there were plenty of amazing practical effects. A great companion piece to Carpenter’s film.
I thought the movie was good. Not really a necessary prequel, but not totally useless. In my opinion the FX were great. It’s not the same movie as the 82 version, and that’s okay by me. I loved the original but this one is it’s own thing. I had a good time watching it and got a few jumps out of it.
I thought it was a good prequel. It worked I thought. It was well paced lots of action and great acting. I didnt think the cgi was too much until the end.(spaceship) Over all it really played well together. Loved the very end too how Carpenters begins.
The Thing has it’s flaws. A great deal of them too. But it also Has it’s share of silver linings as well. What it lacked in the plot, it made up for in creative, disgusting kills. As a comparison to John Carpenter’s masterpiece, it’s nothing. But as a stand alone film, it’s a decent creature feature. It’s being compared too so much to The Thing (1982) but I don’t think it should because it is without a doubt a prequel. The original pays a lot of attention to the characters while this one is a straight up monster movie. Which is a bit of a con towards this movie because the characters are pretty stale at times. Mary Elizabeth Winstead plays her role pretty good but the other characters didn’t do much, so I didn’t much care when they died. And then there’s the CG everyone’s griping about. It looked good for the most part. But there was a few scenes where I just laughed to myself at how awful it was. When I say awful, I mean really awful. The movie was just a mixed feeling for me. If they would’ve polished up a few of the flaws, this could’ve easily been a great throwback.
For a movie that’s CGI heavy and is about a group of people who unlock a monster in Antarctica that can replicate humans, this movie wasn’t TOO bad. For being a prequel to one of the greatest sci-fi horror films of all time, it is pretty crap. Maybe if this movie went by a completely different name and the end credit sequence that “tied together” the two films, it could be judged on different merits. More information here:
http://thewolfmancometh.com/2011/10/17/the-thing-2011/
This was a very cool movie. The pacing was a little off. But the movie was clever, scary and gory as the spfx a mixture of make up and CGI was really awesome.
I don’t think anyone is right to say the movie bombed, I found it to be quite an experience, and it deserves more credit than it’s getting. While a prequel (remake) was not necessary, they managed to stay true to Carpenter’s version…it had the same look and feel, and when the creature was first revealed, it left something to the imagination, creating suspense for what would become one crazy ride. It was quick in pace, the director didn’t waste any time, but you could sense tension between the characters similar to that of the original. While you may have known what was coming, most of the human/alien hybrid scenes were pretty freaking scary and had you at the edge of your seat. The CGI was a bit silly in the helicopter, and they could’ve shown less, simply making it crash would’ve done enough–but other than that, the creature’s transformations were outstanding and quite creative! It’s clear that despite using different tools (CGI and not special fx) they really did a good job making the creature their own, unique creation. The face-merging scene was just sickening, Carpenter should be proud to have this as a dedication to his work. They also did well with the plot, it was not the same movie scene-for-scene, but another take on it, they made sure to use its key elements, (the alien test for instance, although i preferred the blood test, it really fit). I’d have to say the creature was very loud in this film, though. In the 82 version, it does screech quite frequently, but this was insanity! And the ending with the spaceship, I’m not sure how I feel about it. Afer, they tied the original in well as they transitioned to the credits. So all-in-all, I think this was a good, modern take on the classic. As a movie standing by itself, it was fantastic–But being a prequel, it is known that it can only come in second place from the start!
This movie classic has been turned into an ordinary horror film with nothing more to offer than other films because of the CGI. The creature looks like Leviathan and it assimilates human DNA etc. It is bloody but it takes away a lot of the shock factor by showing a creature at the end that everybody would recognize and it just goes downhill after that. Wait till the DVD comes out or better yet watch the older version that has a lot more to offer.
Great movie that ends up being more like one of the “Alien” films rather than THE THING. and that’s not terrible at all. Great mix of action and suspense all around. And really syncs up well to Carpenter’s film. dun dun…. dun dun….
I was very excited to see this dispite the negative reviews, but I went into it with a positive outlook. I really like Mary Elizabeth Winstead’s role, she did a great job, but I didnt care about any of the other characters in the movie which is a bad thing. The special effects were good at times, and shitty at times… Which drew me out of the movie because it looked so fake. The CGI was a dumb idea for a film like this. I enjoyed the autopsy scene the most, more or less the middle of the movie was well done, but the last third of the film took an unexpected toll, it didnt feel like the thing, but more like a sci fy film. Overall I thought it was decent and worth watching, but we all know this could of been a whole hell of a lot better. Ill stick to the 80′s version for now!
Right from the start of when this film was still in the works there was such a huge argument over a number of things. A lot of people thought it wasn’t necessary for this prequel to be made and others thought of it as a hidden remake. Well in a way it is but it works. Those people are also spending to much time trying to COMPARE this with Carpenter’s film. And that’s a big no no… Which is way so many remakes and prequels get bad reviews. The number one argument seemed to be on the topic of how the effects in the film are going to be played out. Some people prefer practical effects of the now common CGI but some people need to understand how this all works. Even though practical effects, if done right, can look awesome. But sometimes CGI can look, if not, better! It’s also a lot cheaper to do CGI and there’s more control than with something practical. In many ways it really isn’t practical if it’s difficult.
Now that the film is out it still seems that so many people are still unhappy with the use of the CGI. I personally thought it was used very nicely and also thought it wasn’t over used. Many scenes in the films are practical and to many little things can get mistaken as CGI.
As for this film itself, I thought it was great! It does a great job with a slow build up to the final climax. Or multiple climaxes I should say. The story is faithful in that it does follow the same basics that a horror film needs to have. The suspense is just right and not over the top with to many cleshays of dumb irony or pointless foreshadow. Even thought the feeling of paranoia wasn’t a bold as in Carpenter’s film doesn’t mean this film was suppose to have it. This film wasn’t suppose to be anything but what it is now.
The choice of actors seemed just right and I felt their performances were very good and believable. Also to add to another topic that comes up and that’s that issue over the women. We are only told the number of men that are stationed there in Carpenter’s but it wasn’t documented that they flew in more people to help with their discovery. So it is possible.
The set design was also good and was easily the look of the 80′s. (Also having “Who can it be Now” by “Men at Work” was a nice 80′s touch. It’s also kind of interesting that the original title of the short story is similar, “Who goes there?”)
The main thing I was really interested in was the small details that we see in the Carpenter’s film. Basically the small clues that can truly tie each film together. While many people argue about how many things couldn’t have possibly taken place in this prequel, they need to understand the even in Carpenter’s film not all the facts were ever laid out on the table. But still they did a great job except for once part that seemed to be cut short. I get the feeling that a scene was either completely cut or one was shortened. More like a scene is missing. I’ll have to watch the movie over again and I can’t wait to!
The ending was also put together perfectly. You can almost sync up both films side by side and one flows perfectly into the other. I also love how they edited the final scenes into the ending credits. The credits are also in the same fashion and font the Carpenter used in his and that was a very nice touch.
I thought this was a great and very entertaining film. It was the first time in a long time that I was continuously excited for and during a film. I can’t wait to see it again!
9/10
It was okay. I loved the creature effects and gore scenes. Mary Elizabeth Winstead is pretty much the only reason I wanted to see this because I enjoy her movies and she’s very pretty. Some scenes dragged, and others were suspenseful. In 1982, a paleontologist named Kate Lloyd is asked by a Norwegian scientist named Sander to travel to Antarctica to uncover a crashed extraterrestrial spaceship. They find a creature frozen in the ice, and bring it back to base. It soon thaws and becomes each member of the team and tries to escape. It’s up to Kate to stop…THE THING!!!
I read all the crappy reviews and saw this in the theatre anyway. After all I have been waiting for this movie for years and The Thing 1982 is probably tops on my list of best horror. Got to admit I was pleasantly surprised. The 1982 classic is better in a few ways: (1) It had Kurt Russell who was a total bad ass and is pretty much irreplaceable (2) we never saw this crazy shit before so it was mind blowing in 1982 (3) the monster was mostly in human form – not running around in a morph state (4) the mood was more hopeless and isolated. Other than that – The 2011 Thing shows well and is nothing to sneeze at. It is a great companion to the 82 classic and without Russell and Carpenter – I don’t see how it could be much better. Heisserer obviously took the task seriously of making a prequel to one of the greatest horror movies of all time and did not contradict Carpenterâe(TM)s masterpiece. Forget the bullshit whiney reviews of a few perfectionists (and BD once again) and go see the movie while itâe(TM)s still in theatres.
GO SEE THIS MOVIE! It’s very good overall and way better than I had hoped for, especially given some of the inaccurate reviews. This film does not eclipse Carpenter’s 1982 outing, but who the hell was expecting that. Nonetheless, the tone is nothing short of reverential. It’s cut from the same cloth in most every way, save for a wee bit of CG over enthusiasm — nothing that’s a deal breaker, though. Also, and most importantly for some, there are some great scary moments. Just GO SEE IT already! It’s a great time, and an ideal good ol’ fashioned monster movie for the Halloween season!
Give it a chance, a great sci-fi horror that leads right into John Carpenter’s The Thing. I walked in with one thing on my mind how would this bring the 2 films together. Being that this is a prequel would it stay consistent to John Carpenter’s(JC) The Thing. So again, a fun movie with some great suspense and gore. A great ambient soundtrack similar to JCs soundtrack for The Thing. Really great creature design with a geat cast of actors to compliment the monster.
If I had one complaint it would basically be that certain scenes of CG didnt look all that great, but regardless it wasnt a deal breaker at all. Theres enough abnormal human body deconstruction that I was enjoying it. My wife even seen it with me and she didnt know any back story and she thought it was really good. So beleive me folks go see it give it a chance and support it. Its not often that a remake or in this case a prequel turns out good.
great movie loved it was much better than i expected..go see it mannnnnnnnnnn
What a clusterfuck piece of steaming shit! I hope the director gets erectile dysfunction and dies a slow painful death via a spork digging out his guts through his ass. Seriously… I’ve had a better horror experience at the local nursing home’s Halloween parties. This is complete utter garbage, and if you actually give this a high rating you must either have been drunk during the viewing, missing a few chromosomes, or you are 13 years old. Hell, maybe all 3. If you have any idea of what a good movie is, then don’t bother with this reeking turd. It’s sad when Uwe Bole movies are somehow more enjoyable than this disaster. If you had the displeasure of seeing this, may Cthulhu have mercy on your soul.
Really good movie. It was a good storyline for the prequel and I actually jumped about 3 times which is suprising. I just thing at some parts the graphics could have been better. Overall, very good movie.
It’s an embarrassment to American genre films!!!!! Do not see this movie if you have any respect for the original and John Carpenter movies. Damnit America stop it with the sequels/prequels and the over the top CGI effects.
I have quit expecting good creature features some years ago. The “thing” was ruined by piss poor CGI, as everyone has been saying. I don’t need to go into that. Let’s talk about the characters. The original had characters that evoked real emotion, and damned if I didn’t have all their faces memorized after my first viewing. They were interesting, lovable, humorous, interesting, and completely memorable. This version was populated with Robo-Actors that I simply did not give two shits about. The only faces that I remember are Winstead, Agbaje, and Olsen- simply because I’ve seen them before. The others could have been played by those motorized cardboard cutouts you used to see at the video rental stores, and it wouldn’t have made much of a difference. I found myself unable to remember who was who throughout half of of the movie, and frankly, not really giving a damn anyway.
PS, the face/body merging/splitting effect was played out years ago.
This movie is a fine prequel for the original. Although I would have liked to know a little more about the ending, I thought it was a great movie with just as much tension as the original. The special effects are ok, but they were a bit cartoony. I liked what they did with the design though. Some of the kills were pretty sweet. Definitely check this out but dont expect it to be better than the first.
Finally watched The Thing prequel. I thought it was really good. The special effects were top notch, way better than the original. They spent alot of time on keeping with the events of the original as far as the camp goes. anyone saying that the CGI is bad is just being a whiny fanboy.
I love this film. There is a lot of tension , like in the 1982 film. The special effects were awesome, gruesome transformations. Recommended for all horror fan.
Finally buckled and saw THE THING prequel. Giving a 6, rounded up from a 5.5. Here’s my thoughts for whatever its worth. When you remake such a high-esteem film, its going to go through the ringer before during and after as a result. Thats expected. The Thing 1982 being a personal favorite of mine – I gathered a lot of prejudice opinion on this before seeing it. I finally watched it at a discount theater. It wasnt bad. 5.5 outa 10. Fair attempt at remake/prequel – scenery was dead on and felt right – the attempts to reflect on the score were poor and mismanaged (atmosphere and music was a non factor this time around) – the actors were OK thought a lot of the Norwegians failed to come out of a monotone character background – the CGI was odd, cheapened it at times, but did offer up a couple of spectacular transformations for the eye to see – things that practical effects couldnt have pulled off – and this director has no connection to fear factors, as there was little or no tension, despair, or power in this screenplay. It tuched upon the 82 version well, just didnt stand up to it in magic/quality. Overall, worth watching, decent scifi flick, and brings back a lot of memories – and damn, if it wasn’t cool to at least see the opening Universal Pictures credits stamped onto a new THING film. Just didn’t live up to the expectations of the devotee. Carpenter may not have been a perfect filmmaker, but he knew how to choose a stellar team – and I think that was the major difference between the two. On its own – cool ending – and not bad if you get past any prejudice. Just not great, at all.
Yes could have done much more, but its just weighed down by the gigantic expectations of the Carpenter classic. Just forget about the 1982 movie, when you go to watch this one. Remember thats a horror masterpiece. You can’t compare a Vinci with a Punk ass spray job graffiti. If you can do that, then this movie is a great watch, otherwise an extreme disappointment. My bro hasn’t watched The Thing. He simply loved it. I even liked the CGI. It was cool and the transformations were well thought out. Could have done much more with the suspense and the build up – Otherwise a decent watch. Brad’s review is brilliant, but I wudn’t cut the new one down so hard. Nice Decent watch- we have had worse remakes!! Enjoyed and MARY ELIZABETH WINSTEAD WAS SO CUTE.
I love the John Carpenter version, but this version is a prequel, not a remake, lets get that clear! The film itself isn’t perfect, the second half obviously being the strongest. Mary Elizabeth Winstead is our leading lady, and if you’ve seen her previous work, you know she’s a pretty good actress, and she’s a likeable hero in this film. What lets the film down is it’s CGI, it isn’t terrible, but it does look bad in certain scenes and a bit silly, which is a shame. Overall the film will keep you entertained even with it’s flaws.
Given a hack review by this site (probably because of a lack of payola)… this film isn’t amazing but is very watchable and a worthy prequel to the Carpenter remake. The effects aren’t half as bad as they are made out to be, some are actually rather amazing.
The Thing (2011) is not good. It wants to be a prequel but offers nothing new to the table and rehashes Carpenter’s classic like fan fiction. It’s bland takes no chances and there is no paranoia nor mystery because anything can happen “just because”! The CGI monsters are terrible! There are plot holes galore with a personal favorite *spoiler* Lars who conveniently vanishes from the movie (being attacked by something that is never explained) only to appear in the end because someone has to play the part of the Norwegian chasing the dog with the helicopter! Oh, and since we are in spoiler territory, I love how the alien is immortal and just when it gets a little worm *bam!* awake and attacking. Also the spaceship may have crashed by it’s in full working mode and of course someone can be assimilated in seconds now…awesome… PASS!
A moderately entertaining film with some wonderfully grotesque “thing” moments. I actually thought the CGI was effective and well used. It still can’t hold a candle to Carpenter’s classic though.
Guess what? Yep, I hated, hated, hated this movie. It’s a stupid and pointless movie that disrespects the intelligence, originality and awesomeness of the original, and insults John Carpenter, fans of John Carpenter and fans of the original equally.
Is there anything good about it?
Yes. Not much but some. The first 20-30 minutes are quite ok, due to a few mildly chilling tracking shots, a touch of atmosphere and 2-3 jump scares (I like jump scares). Oh, and I enjoyed the folk songs that the Norwegians sing.
What about the rest?
Well, the rest is terrible… abso-fucking-lutely terrible. It’s obvious that director van Heiningen and writer Eric Heisserer (the guy who already raped “Elm Street”) didn’t get the original and have no idea of what makes a horror movie good, interesting and thrilling. Everything after the first 20-30 minutes is boring, unsuspenseful, extremely predictable and about as meh as “Whiteout”.
The characters are all uninteresting cardboard cut-outs without any charisma and the cast is largely mediocre and dull, especially the incredibly vapid performance of Mary Elizabeth Winstead who constantly looks as if she’s about to fall asleep.
The CGI is so god-awful, it’s hard to believe. The ice landscsapes look like they were made for a SyFy-movie and most of the creature effects could have been straight from an Asylum flick. What’s with the promised practical effects, you lying pricks?
Apropos creature – are they fucking kidding us? They turned the intelligent ‘Thing’ into an idiotic monster that chases people through corridors and kills them, just like in some 90s crap like “Syngenor” or “Metamorphosis: The Alien Factor” – something that Carpenter’s ‘Thing’ would have NEVER done.
Worst of all: The tie-ins. Oh fucking christ, the tie-ins are horrendously bad. The laughable face-melt (I iz a alien and I loves facerubbing), the axe (no, leave it there! they need to find it in that other movie!) and the helicoper chase (c’mere doggie)… yuck, all these tie-ins suck so much. They all feel rushed, stupid and completely incongruous.
Final verdict: Turn back time, retitle it to “The Thing Part 2: The Beginning” or something like that, and then dump it onto the DVD market. Ugh.
http://www.horrormoviediary.net
finally saw this on VOD- I saw Carpenter’s film in the theater when it first came out and had no idea what it was about- needless to say i left with my jaw on the floor and have seen it at 30 times since-
I had fun with this Prequel and it was Tense at times – the only thing that pissed me off were the little worm type Things. Overall a Pretty Good Bug Hunt
A slap in the face to the original, too much cgi destroyed this film, not much character development either, predictable, high potential destroyed from misuse of special effects
At best this is average. Some of the practical effects (from the little u could see) were quite good but most were pretty CGI awful, all plastic looking. Ive seen better CGI in films with half the budget of this. By having scenes almost identical to Carpenters version the film shot itself in the foot because it forced u to compare. They may have tried to be paying homage to Carpenters but it backfired. There is little character development so we don’t care when everyone gets picked off. Very little suspense or scares. Also i love how the guy, as one person has already said just magically survives at the end even though we seen him getting smashed by the thing. Is this guy secretly a terminator or something. Also the sound effects were really annoying, having the thing lumbering around and ear piercingly screeching all the time. It seems to me that people just WANT to like the movie just because its a ‘prequel’ to a movie they love and ignore all its failings. I have seen the youtube video of the practical effects and i hate to se all the guys great work get transformed ala the thing into a pile of sht.
So there were parts of this that I really appreciated and some that pissed me off. I personally loved all the tie-ins to the original, ESPECIALLY THE END CREDITS. That whole sequence made up for a lot of this films faults. I loved that. HOWEVER, almost all of the effects were kind of a let down. The effects of the original were so gruesome for there time and somehow still seem more gruesome and stomach churning than any of the effects in this one. The aliens and all of the attacks were kind of a let down. But at the end of the film, all I was left wanting was to watch the original. The original was a classic; a nearly perfect film. And STILL makes me jump, makes my skin crawl, and creeps me out to this day.
This film is alright; definitely watchable. I was actually impressed by how much I ended up enjoying it. But I feel that other fans of the original won’t appreciate it. Not that I could entirely blame them. I could understand not liking this film. But I did get a kick out of it. And the acting was decent too, so that helped.
6ish out of 10; not bad, not great.
i feel like die hard fans would love this only bc watch the original where they go to the morwegian base i mean burnt walls ax in the wall two headed monster slit thraot guy thats what put it over the top for me
“The Thing” opens with the discovery of a flying saucer that has – since it has gone unnoticed and undiscovered until now – been buried under deep depths of Antarctic ice. It is found when some Norwegian researches are making way across the icy landscape by snowcat; only to fall right into the darkness of what lies beneath. The film has been marketed as a prequel to John Carpenter’s 1982 film of the same name, which in itself was based on an earlier movie titled “The Thing from Outer Space”, which was based on John W. Campbell’s “Who Goes There?”
I’ve seen all previous adaptations of the story, and was expecting something new and different from this prequel, which feels more like a remake and re-telling of the other film adaptations of Campbell’s novel rather than its own unique movie. It’s the kind of movie where there’s a slippery, slimy monster; and a good number of manly men and women who take it upon themselves to end its slimy reign once and for all. Once the movie is done, the Carpenter film is about to start and one wonders whether there will be yet another installment in this long-running horror franchise, you know, to complete the story, as if it needs such treatment.
Anyways, in this version of “The Thing”, paleontologist Kate Lloyd (Mary Elizabeth Winstead) is recruited by extraterrestrial researcher Dr. Sander Halvorson and his assistant, Adam Finch (Eric Christian Olson) to assist them in their further investigation of the flying saucer from the opening frames, as well as an alien life form that they’ve also dug up in the process of discovery. Encased in a frozen block of ice, the creature is brought back to home base, where the scientists observe it for a while. And suddenly…escape!
The creature – we’ll just call it The Thing for now – is fast, furious, and intelligent. It can hide discreetly enough in the shadows, until somebody is stupid enough to seek it out (and there are plenty of duds in this Antarctic base). It also boasts an impressive number of mouths and body parts; originally looking something like a large crab, and eventually absorbing the body parts of its human victims to gain arms, legs, and even heads. While it’s a dangerous and silent killer; it would appear that the being from outer space can be killed with fire. And where will the heroes of the story get this fire? From the flamethrowers that they’ve got stashed away nearby at all times, of course.
So yeah, you’re basically watching the John Carpenter movie all over again, just with less, you know, intrigue or entertainment value. Whilst Carpenter was a talented filmmaker – perfectly capable of handling the premise with skill, wit, and an eye for nerve-wrecking suspense – the director of this re-hash, Matthijis Van Heijningen, succumbs to the Hollywood definition of tension and gives just a bit too much away early on. His attempts at build-up are truly, marvelously pathetic.
So with all the real, human horror of the original lost; the prequel still has plenty of time to melt until it’s liquid, and in those moments, it does absolutely nothing. It makes an attempt to make up for the lack of scares and individual characterization with gore and some nice creature FX. Actually, while I’m on that note; I’d just like to say that the creature was the only character in the entire movie that I liked. Even when you’ve got characters – boring characters – played by the likes of talents such as Joel Edgerton and Ulrich Thomsen, I was rooting for the slimy monster to consume their bodies and their brains alike. Perhaps then, they would be just a little more interesting.
At that, the film is reduced to a fancy special effects showcase. There’s literally nothing else to it than that. It’s boring and easily forgettable; the kind of movie where there was work put into it visually, but otherwise, laziness is absolutely apparent. Performances are bland, direction is uninspired. In my honest opinion, the movie sounded really interesting when it was in the pre-production stages. Winstead’s character reminded me somewhat of an attempt to re-create the whole Ripley (from “Alien”) character feel; and there are indeed a few nasty, good ideas that went into the conception and re-designing of the creature that is at the center of the story. But all this talk of “The Thing” is making me want to go back and watch “The Thing” – the far superior Carpenter version – and perhaps even the film that inspired it, which I’ve already mentioned. Then I’ll look back on this movie and ask, “Why?”
It’s a pretty decent movie on its own except the CGI does bring you out of the film. I really liked the tie-ins to the JC version. It seems more like a reboot than a prequel but whatever, I still consider both movies as standalones. I would watch this movie again without a problem. CGI is obviously the biggest flaw, my other gripe is I couldn’t keep track of the people there, so there were a couple of “Who was that guy?” scenes. The set designs were excellent. The acting was pretty good even though there were a few cliches and illogical moves made by characters that had me yelling at the screen. I just really really wish the practical effects were used instead of CGI. I believe I read somewhere that the theme from the JC version wasn’t cleared to be used… I saw the Blu-ray of the movie and the theme was prevalent during the credits sequence.
This prequel to the 1982 John Carpenter classic finally succeeds to return to it’s serious roots like the original 1982 John Carpenter classic. This prequel to the 1982 John Carpenter classic had everything explained in the 1982 John Carpenter classic everything from the start until the end has been explained in this movie the things that Macready finds in the Norwegian camp are all here and there are lots of careful and important explanations in this movie on what happened to the Norwegian camp and how the alien was discovered and how it evolved it’s all in the movie and the way the entire situation has been explained is really careful and important to understand on how and what happened in this camp which makes this movie look good. Mainly this movie is the same to the 1982 John Carpenter classic because the film still uses the same kind of themes and tones that the original used and every theme used in the movie is like your watching the same movie and when I was watching this movie it was like I was watching the 1982 John Carpenter classic because the film uses the same themes and tones and it instantly raised the tension and suspense only that the film is done in a different kind of style with the same technique as the 1982 John Carpenter classic so far and it instantly makes the movie even better. What I also like about this film is that the movie uses lots of mixed effects. All the effects in this movie are mixed with animatronics, practical and special effects plus with a mixture of CGI effects. I don’t understand why people didn’t like the effects were used in this movie and for me the effects here were really well used and almost half of the creatures are practical and special effects mixed with a couple of CGI effects and I think that the creatures look great and the CGI effects used in the monsters aren’t distracting at all and for me the creatures look like practical and special effects with some little use of CGI and the only CGI scene used in the film is the one where Kate Lloyd finds this giant blue thing in the space ship that blue thing looks CG to me even the scene when the last monster that almost killed Kate where the person’s face changes into a monster looks CG to me so for me not all CGI effects were used in this movie and there are only two CGI scenes used in this film while the other scenes used practical and special effects even animatronics as well. What I also like about the creatures in the film is that they are almost identical to the 1982 John Carpenter classic almost all of the creatures in the film are almost identical to the 1982 classic and it really makes the film look good so far. What I also like about this movie is that the film has the same claustrophobic feel as the original John Carpenter classic and the movie also has a claustrophobic atmosphere that makes the audience feel scared that they are not alone in the dark like the John Carpenter classic and it really fits well in the movie along with the tension and suspense so far and the scene where Kate enters the space ship is really claustrophobic because the atmosphere in the spaceship is really claustrophobic and it fits well to the movie so far. I also enjoyed the soundtrack of the film and the soundtrack is almost the same to the 1982 John Carpenter classic and composer Marco Beltrami did a good job with the music in the film just like what Ennio Morricone did with the 1982 John carpenter classic so far. Director Matthijs Van Heijningen Jr. did a good job with his directing on his first feature film and he’s like John Carpenter when he directed this movie and he really followed John Carpenter’s footsteps when he made this movie because the ay he directed the film is almost the same to John Carpenter’s directing in the 1982 classic and screenwriter Eric Heisserer(Final Destination 5 and A Nightmare On Elm Street remake)did a good job with his writing on the film and he really pan the screenplay out of the box and he really came up with lots of good ideas when he wrote the film with the help of writer Ronald D. Moore and they really did a good job so far with their work in the movie. This is one of 2011′s best Horror films since Paranormal Activity 3 so far. Overall this movie gets a 10/10
Hostel Part III
Out of all the Horror films of 2011 that I’ve seen this movie goes on the list of Horror films that I’ve watched and enjoyed in 2011.
1) Paranormal Activity 3
2) Contagion
3) The Thing
4) Final Destination 5
5) Fright Night(remake)
6) Bereavement
7) Wrong Turn 4 Bloody Beginnings
9) Apollo 18
thank you, the attention to detail killed it for me thats what puts it over the top to greatness. haha thank you
I’m not surprised so many ding-bats hated this. These are same buffoons that hate every remake, prequel, sequel and re-imagining. If you can’t love this movie for what it is then there is no pleasing you.
I liked this movie much more than expected. The lead female role (Mary) was a big part of it. She made her role believable and NOT a pussy whinny female lead, which drives me crazy. The sp-fx were cool at the start then they just got more and more cgi. I’m a fan of old school Savini fx’s and this movie would have been even better with more real fx’s. It was still a fun ride
The Thing (1982) is one of my absolute favorite horror movies. This prequel turned out to be pointless, as even though its purpose was to show us what happened to the Norweigan base, I found myself bored and not caring. Bad acting, especially from the female lead. They left what happened to her ambiguous in such a way that felt unfinished when they could have just made her character get killed (unless she was the thing, which would’ve both made sense and not made sense since she killed Carter, which would have been unnecessary if he too was the thing). Just confusing. The CGI…>_>…I’ll leave it at that. The 1982 The Thing is a classic; this film is easily forgotten.
I forgot to say that the original movie made me jump and yell out, even on the second viewing, which I NEVER do with movies, whether seeing it for the first time or subsequent viewings. I wanted to rush to the end with this “prequel”, which I agree was more like a remake with a few prequelesque things tied in. Agree with Bloody-Disgusting on this one. I don’t know what movie other people saw. LOL
Agreed.
Prequel/sequel/reimagining, you get the idea. The deaths are lame, the story poses more questions than answers, and the ending is one of the most unsatisfying. This is just a really average movie. Check out Carpenter’s.
Insanely good movie; good storyline, good thrills, good acting, and a generally good prequel. I highly enjoyed this movie.
First of all: I think, that it’s impossible to imitate the style of (horror) movies from the 80′s. I mean… things have changed. We have “better” cameras today, better sound… so, i guess, as long as a director does not use the 80′s equipment, modern movies will never feel like the old ones. That said, i think, the Thing (2011) is a good movie. Not excelent, and of course not as legendary as the 82 version but still good. It does not explain, why the alien sometimes looks like a real human and sometimes like a big pile of shit. But the original movie doesn’t either. So you can’t blame the director of the 2011 version for that. And yes, the CGI could have been better. But they are not as bad as many claim. So… i think The Thing (2011) could have been a lot worse. The movie did not destroy the concept like T3 and 4 did with the Terminator Franchise.
Not horrible but not great either. It kept my attention all the way through and at least entertained me, but a far cry from the original which is a masterpiece. Wouldn’t go out of my way to watch it again, but would give it a second viewing if there was nothing else on.
Comment
im sorry but any die hard fan of the original loved this movie. agreed carpenters was clearly better and agreed the cgi wasnt as cool as the original but come on. the acting was great and it was done with the utmost respect for making the original fall right in line all the way down to the ax in the god damn wall. obviously not as fantastic or memorable as the 82 one but this movie was made by a true fan of the original, and someone who cared, and as for saying a prequel is a slick way for saying remake obviously didnt pay attention to the original in contrast to this flick. ax in the wall, two headed monster, smashed ice tomb burnt walls and the guy who slit his throat. the maker of this flick paid attention. great movie paid great homage to the greatest horror flick of all time. only downside in the 82 version the found footage reveals they used thermite to dig out the space ship where as in this one it kind of started up and went on its own. Other then that its a good movie with a solid base to help put along the original all the way up to the dog chase with the helicopter. cgi was a let down though. haha
Everything was well done except the CGI was to inconsistent and the tension that the 82 version had wasn’t there!The CGI would either look wicked or SYFY channels worst!I didn’t like the dental filling reveal over the blood and hot wire test!Acting was good.Ending was kind of weak.Worth a watch but don’t expect anything you haven’t seen before.Barely a 2 1/2 out of 5 skulls!