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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Not BAD but not great. The digital gore is well executed and sickening but in the end this is an above average slasher film that can't compare to the original's unbelievable tension and design. It's fun to watch the joins between the prequel and its father piece though, and the acting isn't bad either. 6/10
Add your comment
Comments 1 - 15 of 30
LifeofFiction
meh.dr_death_proof
ughSeanMX12
Pretty bad. It decided to remove all of the suspense and tension that the original created and make your standard action/horror film. Pathetic.Szilva
CGI sucks, doesn't horrifing at all and the used some scenes like copypaste. :( Really, really dissapointed about this film.Olli
another reason for hating cgiSharkiehugging
Incredibly boring.Shaunage
Awful.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.DrakeFromTheNorth
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.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!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.
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.
Scratch47
Not BAD but not great. The digital gore is well executed and sickening but in the end this is an above average slasher film that can't compare to the original's unbelievable tension and design. It's fun to watch the joins between the prequel and its father piece though, and the acting isn't bad either. 6/10Showing items 1 – 15 of 30