Critic Review - Chicago Sun-Times

Because this material has been done before, and better, especially in the original The Thing and Alien, there's no need to see this version.

October 23, 2004 Full Review Source: Chicago Sun-Times | Comments (52)
Chicago Sun-Times
Top Critic IconTop Critic



Andrew McDonald

You gotta be f***ing kidding me.

Jun 6 - 10:52 PM


steve metz

Sums up my feelings!

Jun 29 - 08:58 PM

Some guy you dont know

Bruce Campbell

Trekker114... you suck.

Sep 26 - 02:33 PM

The Corny Reviewer

Sergio Claver

Oct 18 - 11:08 AM


jeffrey sithi-Amnuai

It's based on a freaking book made way before Alien!

Oct 28 - 03:03 PM


Jack Flash

Sorry....gotta disagree here. The very somber "and then there was one" ending is classy and saves the flick from being that "geek show".

Nov 6 - 12:39 AM


Lukasz Swiniarski

Unless you were born after 1982 and even this Carpenter Thing is hard to get.

Nov 6 - 07:03 AM


First Last

Unbelievable. From this is clear that Carpenter's not Ebert cup of tea, but this is embarrassing for Ebert nowadays, for sure.

Dec 20 - 05:23 AM


Brandon Inarda

You fail to see John Carpenters style of The Thing. It is way different then the original.What you do wrong, is base this movie on other one's.

Jan 2 - 12:12 AM


Matthew Schwer

What makes the film isn't the creature effects, but the interactions of the researchers and how each man on that outpost undergoes a deterioration of character that goes along with overwhelming paranoia.

'Who Goes There?' was written long before Alien, and the original Thing is one of the several films that influenced Alien. If anything Alien is a mutt of influences which all have Who Goes There? as an origin. The Thing is very purebred in comparison and not dependent on Alien in the least bit. The Thing's fidelity is much greater to the original story than the original.

Apr 2 - 02:54 PM


Corey Maddox

Shut up, your making yourself look bad. You to Trekker114

Jun 18 - 10:15 AM

Mike H

Mike Hickey

Suspense is one of the greatest things about The Thing, and because of this factor The Thing is at least my second favorite John Carpenter film. The special effects and the suspense alone make this worht seeing. More so than Alien.

Jul 9 - 02:03 PM


Felipe Garcia Ramos

sure sure, Garfield is better than this one right

Nov 22 - 12:02 AM


Frisby 2007

OK, first of all, all the rotten critiques you've given, are for great movies like this one. And another thing, you can't critique a great movie even if it smashed right in front of your face. Learn how to critique great movies.

Mar 7 - 02:16 PM


Callum McColgan

We're all entitled to our own opinions of films. Just because you may like it, doesn't mean everyone else is. I just accept that this is obviously not Ebert's sorta film.

Nov 24 - 02:03 AM

Brian Anderegg

Brian Anderegg

Though that's funny, because he watches the same movies that "aren't his cup of tea" And the reviews them with the same presupposition... A REAL critic should go into a movie unbiased... According to the logic of this review NO remake should be watched STRICTLY because it has been made once already...

Jul 24 - 04:54 AM

Vincent Rolandelli

Vincent Rolandelli

Ebert your wrong on this one!

May 5 - 02:26 PM

Patrick C.

Patrick Cunningham

I usually agree with Ebert but... WTF Roger?

Jun 19 - 01:25 PM

Jimi G.

James Gingerich

First off to say that the original is better is to vomit on every other good review you have done, Roger. That original was a campy and silly film with faulty acting and directing, while this is among Carpenter's best. And Alien is a movie with a differant aim and atmosphere, so to say that an entry like this is wrong is to say slasher flicks should have stopped after Diabolique. This movie is apparently under-rated, though everyone I've ever met personally has really enjoyed this film.

Jun 27 - 09:35 PM

Bruce K.

Bruce Kilkowski

Ebert must've been seriously confused when he wrote this. Invasion of the Body Snatchers was based on Jack Finney's novel The Body Snatchers, not Who Goes There. Alien was an original screenplay by Dan O'Bannon, which although it may have been influenced by the 1951 version of The Thing, it certainly isn't an adaptation of the original short story. Ebert also fails to realize that Carpentar's version is more faithful to the short story than the original film. That version had completely different characters, as well as being set in the Arctic, not the Antarctic. And the '51 film scrapped the story's frightening shape shifter for a bald vegetable man, another instance in which Carpenter was more faithful to the source material.

Dec 10 - 11:15 AM

greg b.

greg baltzer

Wow, I'm an Ebert fan(usually) but I got to disagree on this one too. Personally the ending is my second favorite horror movie ending - the first being Invasion of the Body Snatchers w/Donald Sutherland.
I saw the original and it was not scary or suspenseful, and I don't really remember much else about it except the let down. And I triumph older movies. I still think the original King Kong is better then any version since. And The original Frankenstein's are masterpieces.

Apr 6 - 05:32 PM


daron stiker

Why is this guys so popular? he's a small minded, uneducated twat

Aug 9 - 05:16 AM


Darrell Corbel

I don't understand Ebert's views. The thing is one of the most horrific movies that sent grotesque in a whole new direction from the typical slasher films that permeated the early 80s.

The Thing scared me so bad as a kid. It still stands the test of time for freakshow gruesomeness! Watching a dog split open and grow tentacles while other slimy dogs are being produced from it's slimy filth, a head stretching off a three feet neck and sprouting spider legs, a stomach opening up and biting off someone's hands? How unbelievably horrifying!

Dec 5 - 05:03 PM

Find us on:                     
Help | About | Jobs | Critics Submission | Press | API | Licensing | Mobile