The Thing (2011)

Best movie of this year hands down!

The Worst Film Ever

The film makes a home in your brain and the only cure is to see it again.

While it is a pity that the story wasn't told with more visual finesse, this is trivial compared to our real-world problems. It takes a good movie to put that into perspective.

It didn't take me long to figure out that this was supposed to be a prequel, that's the good part...But I am very disappointed in the presentation. First of all, why make this movie 29 years after the classic John Carpenter excursion into science fiction horror ? Second, why make it at all, if you aren't going to spend some money on it, and at least attempt to make it interesting ???Frankly, this "prequel" is dull, boring, and missing the fears and tensions that made the classic so captivating...the alien monster is almost laughable, with too many static shots, and drawn out scenes that simply don't get the adrenalin levels going. the cgi is very low key, amateurish really...To me, this is a prime example of the motivation in the film industry lately...throw something together, and hope for some money to tart rolling in...

I wouldn't recommend this film either as a stand-alone or prequel. Apart from some scenery at the beginning it is so poor. I watched the 1982 version a couple of days before and read Who Goes There (in one sitting it was so good) on the very day I viewed this so called prequel. I was so disappointed with this film; the makers could have done so much better. It was unbelievably clichéd. The final "terror" scenes and destruction of The Thing were so lame and predictable they were immensely annoying. There wasn't anything new, simply a rehash of moments seen before in a number of much greater films from this genre. The film wasn't even tense at the times when it was supposed to be. I was also going to say how awfully wooden Mary Elizabeth Winstead was in the lead role until I discovered she played the part of Nikki Swango in Fargo (S3), which I thought she played brilliantly. I suggest the next time anyone makes a prequel to The Thing they read the book first and hopefully will be inspired to make it more about people or "people" than silly monsters. Honestly this is a bad B movie.

If you loved the 1982 version, this does make for a good prequel. As others said, not as scary. The thing, as with Alien, are scary as crap if you put them on in like midnight. I will say, I think part of it is the music. Alien..had none, 1982 Thing had little. That sense of silence is crazy. That is one critique. A thing I do not like about movies in general now, is the herky jerky motion cameras . I think it is either to hide CGI flaws, or to make you feel like you are there. I am personally getting sick of movies that do that. Just show us it flat out. I mean, the herky jerky...well, I hated it in Saving private Ryan as well. Not just horror movies. prequels are so very hard to do though. Because, end of the day...you already know what happens. I felt this was done well. Not top notch, but done well. You did get the feel, when I first saw it, if this was a remake, then saw it as a prequel, and then I liked it more. however, in some comments, let us not forget, the 1982 had some star power, in Kurt Russell, Wilford Brimley, and the dud with the big eyebrows. And a few classic moments, like when busy eye brow, after the tests, was "I know this has been very difficult for all of you (as he stares at the flame thrower pointed at him) but I would appreciate it if you would LET ME OUT OF THIS F***ing chair!!!" Paraphrase. Or, where the druggie looked down the hall way and said "you have to be F***ing kidding me as one of the little things was running down the hallway. Another classic movie moment. But, that was iconic in my days. This movie, didn't have one of those moments. I think the star power has a lot to do with it. Chiles, the black guy in the 1982..he has been in so many movies. But he sold the part. key element in movies like this. You forget who they are as actors, and they are the characters. Heck, I almost forgot the 4 of them in the 1982 movie.In all, I would say, it is above average prequel, and a good movie. But, when going against a classic, no, doesn't measure up. Like asking "Return of the Jedi" to stand up to Star Wars, or Empire Strikes Back. It is good on its own, but..tie it into the other(s)...you will probably be let down.

The movie is acceptable and can be rated with a 6-7 until you watch 1982 version!! That version is a very good/excellent movie with better leading characters, more suspense, Ennio Moricone ...etc. and done almost 30 years before. Once you watch the original you find that this movie didn't add anything.I give it a 5 because my first impression was good. But I can easily understand why people who watched the original first might be even giving less punctuation to this movie. If you have already watched 1982 version don't lose your time on this version as you will not enjoy it.