• Fabionei Bakhuizen

    ★★★½ Watched by Fabionei Bakhuizen 26 Jul, 2014

    Received the same name of the other movie,but this is the prequel! It is nice with incredible visual effect, sometimes i miss the animatronic things and those makeups!


  • Bob R.

    ★★★½ Rewatched by Bob R. 12 Jul, 2014

    Of course it's not as good as John Carpenter's 1982 masterpiece. How could it be? It's a movie that tells a prequel-story to a film made nearly 30 years earlier. None of the primary cast or crew have returned. Practical special-effects have been supplanted with CGI. The prequel aspect of the narrative shifts the focus from "What's going to happen?" to "How did that thing we already know about specifically happen?" These are each disadvantages that could by themselves derail…


  • Ivan Obiol

    ★★½ Added by Ivan Obiol

    Muy difícil lo tenia esta precuela para no acabar despedazada por las comparaciones con la película de Carpenter y así a sido. A pesar de tener innumerables guiños a La cosa de Carpenter no acierta a entender lo que hizo esta película una obra de culto y aunque tiene un comienzo interesante no tarda en convertirse en una especie de Alien en el que no se entiende que un monstruo cuyo su afán es pasar desapercibido se muestre aquí como un cazador implacable y ruidoso que acaba con todo lo que se pone a su alcance.


  • Brett the Wiese

    ★★★ Watched by Brett the Wiese 16 Jul, 2014

    Strangely, I did not hate this, but nothing I'd probably watch again. I do laud the 1982 version as an innovative sci-fi scare flick with genius effects and true understanding of paranoia. This one actually works as its own movie, connection to John Carpenter's classic aside. Mary Elizabeth Winstead makes a great lead and Joel Edgerton gets chances to shine as well. The rest of the cast is overshadowed too much to make any sense of loss tragic, which is…


  • Matthew Hodgkin

    ★★★ Watched by Matthew Hodgkin 06 Jul, 2014

    Interesting enough for a polar horror film. All though putting it on expecting the original is only what can be described as very disappointing and a little let down. the "thing" wasn't that great, but held my attention and kept me thinking.


  • Ian Brumby

    ★½ Rewatched by Ian Brumby 07 Jul, 2014

    Other than the obvious "Why bother?" question, the one thing that bugs me most about this remake is - "Why recycle the distress beacon from Sunshine?" I can't think of any logical reason it's there and it seems an extremely obtuse nod to the Boyle film otherwise....


  • Ross Birks

    ★★ Watched by Ross Birks 04 Jul, 2014

    Man, fuck this movie. I respect their approach, to tell a prequel story that leads into Carpenter’s 1982 original but they could have gone down their own patch instead of pathetically trying to follow in it’s footsteps by lifting story beats verbatim. I like Mary Elizabeth Winstead and she makes for a great heroine and Joel Edgerton is always reliable but the material they’re given is just so second-rate. It lacks the elegance of John Carpenter’s filmmaking. There isn’t any…


  • Ian Buckwalter

    ★★ Watched by Ian Buckwalter 11 Oct, 2011

    Read my NPR review.


  • Seth

    ★★★ Watched by Seth 14 Jun, 2014

    A decent but ultimately disappointing "pre-make." I give the film-makers a lot of credit for making a prequel instead of trying to re-make such a masterpiece, but they still ended up copying the same plot progression for most all the movie. Entertaining, but not that great, and too much of a "modern hollywood horror" treatment for the story.


  • ScreeningNotes

    ★★★½ Watched by ScreeningNotes 02 Jul, 2014 2

    Hi, my name is Screening Notes, and I'm... a remake apologist.

    Hi Screening Notes.

    It's been three and a half weeks since my last remake, but last night... last night I watched the remake of The Thing, and I don't mean John Carpenter's 1982 masterpiece, I mean the new 2011 one... and I liked it. I mean, I didn't just think it wasn't bad, I actively enjoyed watching it. The effects are nothing compared to Carpenter's and the ending has…


  • Smapti

    ★★½ Rewatched by Smapti 27 Jun, 2014

    The idea here is clever: riff on the classic original movie but with enough changes to avoid doing a remake. Essentially this movie aims to be a filmic version of the titular creature, a simulacrum that is not the same. Unfortunately neither the director nor screenwriter is up to the task.

    (Also, CGI is not inherently bad, but there's a lot of it here, a bad idea when being held in comparison to Rob Bottin's masterful practical effects work in the original.)


  • PapaRock

    ★★★ Watched by PapaRock 26 Jun, 2014

    - As far as remakes go, this could have been worse
    -CGI <<< Practical effects
    - third act falls apart
    - resorts to cat and mouse instead of psychological horror like the original
    - compared to other horror today: it's not bad
    - still. the CGI is much worse than the original's effect.