The only thing it accomplished for me was making me crave to watch the original. Despite being a prequel it is essentially the exact same story as Carpenter's version. Though finding a ship in the ice was obviously closer to the original 1951 version. Carpenter's movie is practically a love letter to horror practical effects and any fan of that movie is going to be sorely disappointed on principle alone as that aspect was totally whitewashed by CGI. According to the behind-the-scenes featurettes they tried to make the cut with practical effects but decided to mask it all digitally. Not even cute Mary Elizabeth Winstead could save this one.
It's a shame this movie originally had some great real practical effects, but studio execs made them cover it all up with CGI. Look up the original effects they are awesome.
Went in with low expectations without seeing the original, and I enjoyed it, and, surprisingly, I found myself liking this more than other monster movies, such as Alien. The only letdown for me was the bad CGI at some parts, but not bad enough to let the movie down as a whole.
They just HAD to go too 'Hollywood' at the end, didn't they?
Apart from that; being a norwegian, this was a quite fun experience, watching some of our best actors in a Hollywood movie. And the best part; they were awesome! :D
I watched this on Bluray with english subtitles, and I have to say I had a few laughs over all the wrong translations. Some priceless moments there, I must say.
Got better as it went on. CGI was pretty good for the most part. As a whole it was better than I expected it to be, but I wouldn't recommend anyone goes out of their way to see it.
There's a couple of threads over on the IMDb forums debating what happened to Kate at the end of the film. That's what I was wondering when it finished too.
Not quite as good as the original, but still pretty fun. Seems a shame that the most modern CGI technology can't hold a candle to the rubber and latex monstrosities of the John Carpenter version. Still, I loved how it tied into the 1982 version by ending right where the first one starts off... watching both movies together (2011 first, then 1982) is actually a fun, creepy way to pass a cold winter's night.
Was alright, CGI was decent (I don't like gore anyway), acting was decent, but the story felt like the Thing was just randomly copying a multitiude of people, there was so little suspense about who it was. Not necessarily because it was obvious, but because it didn't seem to matter.
I personally didn't like it. It started off interesting, slowly got tense, then became too heavy on the CGI and shrieking, and finally ended in an underwhelming manner.
I was hooked in the beginning, but then it just completely lost my attention.
If you go in with the high hopes that it'll match Carpenter's The Thing then you'll surely be disappointed.
Go in with an open mind and you'll probably enjoy it. A little heavy on the CGI side, but it was a good watch and complemented one of the best horror movies of all time.
Low expectations... hence I was pleasantly surprised. I love the original. Or rather... the original remake, and I thought it captured that world and the atmosphere of that film pretty damn well. The "fillings" sequence was just as tense as the '82 "blood test" and I like the way they tied everything up nicely (and accurately) even though the main plot got stupid very fast in the last fifteen minutes. I enjoyed it.
It wasn't bad by any means. The acting was good, the CGI was good, the set design was good, and it felt pretty tense at moments and the script was well-written.
But the script also lacked in any kind of complexity or depth. Not to mention the introduction of a ridiculous spaceship sequence towards the end that is not even brought up by the original.
Add your comment
Comments 1 - 15 of 30
DisneyStitch
The only thing it accomplished for me was making me crave to watch the original. Despite being a prequel it is essentially the exact same story as Carpenter's version. Though finding a ship in the ice was obviously closer to the original 1951 version. Carpenter's movie is practically a love letter to horror practical effects and any fan of that movie is going to be sorely disappointed on principle alone as that aspect was totally whitewashed by CGI. According to the behind-the-scenes featurettes they tried to make the cut with practical effects but decided to mask it all digitally. Not even cute Mary Elizabeth Winstead could save this one.hurleysvan
It's a shame this movie originally had some great real practical effects, but studio execs made them cover it all up with CGI. Look up the original effects they are awesome.Earring72
Not too bad prequel. Nothing new but very watchableDrakeFromTheNorth
Went in with low expectations without seeing the original, and I enjoyed it, and, surprisingly, I found myself liking this more than other monster movies, such as Alien. The only letdown for me was the bad CGI at some parts, but not bad enough to let the movie down as a whole.SeanMX12
Pretty bad. It decided to remove all of the suspense and tension that the original created and make your standard action/horror film. Pathetic.Jaqo
They just HAD to go too 'Hollywood' at the end, didn't they?Apart from that; being a norwegian, this was a quite fun experience, watching some of our best actors in a Hollywood movie. And the best part; they were awesome! :D
I watched this on Bluray with english subtitles, and I have to say I had a few laughs over all the wrong translations. Some priceless moments there, I must say.
EssexMutant
Got better as it went on. CGI was pretty good for the most part. As a whole it was better than I expected it to be, but I wouldn't recommend anyone goes out of their way to see it.Saku1986
More slasher action then horror. Pitty.Videl
Somebody told me they made a remake of 'The Thing' 1982. It's not a remake, but a prequel. I like!DJPowWow
Not quite as good as the original, but still pretty fun. Seems a shame that the most modern CGI technology can't hold a candle to the rubber and latex monstrosities of the John Carpenter version. Still, I loved how it tied into the 1982 version by ending right where the first one starts off... watching both movies together (2011 first, then 1982) is actually a fun, creepy way to pass a cold winter's night.HEMA
Was alright, CGI was decent (I don't like gore anyway), acting was decent, but the story felt like the Thing was just randomly copying a multitiude of people, there was so little suspense about who it was. Not necessarily because it was obvious, but because it didn't seem to matter.KoolC5
I personally didn't like it. It started off interesting, slowly got tense, then became too heavy on the CGI and shrieking, and finally ended in an underwhelming manner.I was hooked in the beginning, but then it just completely lost my attention.
Oneironaut
If you go in with the high hopes that it'll match Carpenter's The Thing then you'll surely be disappointed.Go in with an open mind and you'll probably enjoy it. A little heavy on the CGI side, but it was a good watch and complemented one of the best horror movies of all time.
dombrewer
Low expectations... hence I was pleasantly surprised. I love the original. Or rather... the original remake, and I thought it captured that world and the atmosphere of that film pretty damn well. The "fillings" sequence was just as tense as the '82 "blood test" and I like the way they tied everything up nicely (and accurately) even though the main plot got stupid very fast in the last fifteen minutes. I enjoyed it.JDubyew
It wasn't bad by any means. The acting was good, the CGI was good, the set design was good, and it felt pretty tense at moments and the script was well-written.But the script also lacked in any kind of complexity or depth. Not to mention the introduction of a ridiculous spaceship sequence towards the end that is not even brought up by the original.
But I had fun with it, so 7/10.
Showing items 1 – 15 of 30