The Thing - Movie Reviews - Rotten Tomatoes

The Thing Reviews

Page 1 of 209
½ January 14, 2017
A really good remake.
½ January 14, 2017
The original was a classic but sadly this is a massive misfire, the special effects do serve the film but unfortunately the film isn't haunting like the sequel, which it should called now. I found the tone a little off but I liked the little twists on the same scenes of the original. I just wanted so much more than this film could deliver but time and perspective have improved my verdict on this film.
December 30, 2016
An attempt to cash in on the classic horror movie is hindered by a generic storyline, bland characters, and horrible computer generated effects.
December 2, 2016
It's not terrible, but while it is mostly faithful to Carpenter"s 80s horror masterpiece, the writing is campy, the acting is a mixed bag, and practical effects were replaced with CGI that really takes away from the experience. [C+]
½ November 27, 2016
Sadly it's a very poor entry, not the kind of prequel or whatever "the thing" movie fans had been waiting for. But for the lack of a better one fans of Carpenter's movie will find some pleasure in watching this one.
November 20, 2016
The Thing is a prequel to the 1980's original 'The Thing' and stars Mary Elizabeth-Winstead and Joel Edgerton. I really liked how this film went into great detail about how everything that was seen in the original film during the Norwegian camp got to be there. There was even an excuse for them speaking English through the movie when it was supposed to be a foreign outpost. The acting was solid, and there were plenty of tense moments and gruesome scenes. My biggest problems with this was that the film really wasn't that scary and the lack of practical special effects that made the original so special. The cgi in this wasn't bad, but it really would've been better seeing this film with the creative effects the original had.
October 30, 2016
One of the better prequels out there in my opinion. I don't understand the harsh criticism of this movie. It explained so much and really did a food job recreating scenes from the first film.
½ October 26, 2016
Though the CGI is sometimes a little cheesy, I still think it's an intense, satisfying prequel/homage to John Carpenter's version.
½ October 21, 2016
First half was passable entertainment. The second fell apart with very little tension, few scares, and awful CGI.
September 19, 2016
It has some freaky looking THINGS, but unfortunately doesn't do anything else interesting enough that isn't ripped from it's namesake original. And the Things are CGI, as opposed to the stop motion special effects that supplied the horrors of the original. So if you're absolutely devoted to the original, this is an okay waste of time.
½ August 26, 2016
Just had my 2nd viewing of this film, and my opinion is pretty much the same. Mary Elizabeth Winstead is a lot better than I remember her being (still not Kurt Russell), but the CGI and character designs are worse than I remembered, simply god-awful and in no way do they deserve to bear the Thing name on them. The film does dutifully try to fill in the gaps of what we saw of the Norweigan camp in the original, unfortunately all these parts feel forced and un-organic.Another thing that bothered me is that The Thing in this film seems to have no plan and is really just winging it for most of the film.....very un-Thing like if you ask me. By far the best part of the film is the first 35 minutes and the credits scene. By no means does this film make me angry, but it shouldn't have been made and does not deserve to bear the Thing name. I don't know why Universal green-lit this crap.Yup, this is still a piece of shit and still a lame imitation of the original classic. I brought my flame thrower along again and it looks like I'll have to torch this fucker a 2nd time. Good riddance!
August 14, 2016
This movie deserves better! Love it
August 10, 2016
This is a pretty compitent and entertaining horror remake, but unfornatly, it's smaller than the Carpenter masterpiece, and it doesn't have the same disturbing effects on you that Carpenter's version was good at delivering. And, the CGI special effects aren't as realistic or gritty, but the spaceship effects are pretty remarkable and overall, it's an entertaining movie. And for y'all who though that this film was an actual remake, it's also a prequel, finishing where the first movie starts. Check it out if you liked the 1982 film.
August 8, 2016
it a cool movie but it has some video game CGI but it was say it cooler than the old one but not as good
July 27, 2016
This Movie Turned 4 Years Old Last Year In 2015.
July 25, 2016
Hailing the original as the one of the greatest horror/suspense movies of all time is a necessity, and to shun this as a neglectful disaster is shameful. This deserves a much higher rating for its modern take on necromorphs, deeper character development than the original, and maintained sense of isolation. Satisfying new audiences with visuals and depth in story arch created a new wave of fans, and most whom complained were stuck on "THE ORIGINAL."
I loved them equally and watched them several times each, gaining something new with each viewing. To have such low ratings is a misleading disservice to the public, and you should really get your paws on this jewel set.
½ July 25, 2016
The movie itself was a little slow, but the female lead was a great, strong, intelligent and determined character.
July 17, 2016
The fuck is wrong with you'z?
June 23, 2016
I could care less about comparing the 82 and 2011 movies. I saw both on opening days. I went to see a sci fi movie and I thought both were fantastic. If you want to say the 2011 is just another 82 well it's not. The 2011 finds the ship, the creature in the ice, it gets out and they have to deal with it. But the 2011version has the monster on the hunt and you can see the monster is more constructed for the hunt to consume. The 82 version the monster consumes and transforms into it's victims in more seclusion where no one sees the transformation. This sets up an atmosphere of suspense with each persons loss of trust and rising suspicion with everyone around him.. Science fiction is generally a story that is as plausible as one can make it to reality. And both movies do that. Carpenter said he went a little crazy on the movie referring to some of the gross visuals created by the thing. But, you have to remember it is
"The Thing". It's not suppose to look nice..The 2011 has more foreign actors where the 82 has great and familiar American actors, which does make a difference. I sometimes watch the 2011 version first and then watch the 82 version. When I do this I can't say I find either version that much better than the other. . the monster is the same, they are confined in an Antarctic Scientific Research station and the problems they face with this alien are the same. , She realizes like McCready that if this thing gets out into the world, that it could be the end of humanity on earth. Either movie deals with one of the most horrible creatures in science fiction: An entity that basically dissolves you and replaces what was you with alien cells replaced in your past physical construct. The 2011 "The Thing" is a very good science fiction movie, that needs to be judged by it's own merit and not on any other movie. This is a prequel to the 82 Thing and there was some efforts made that tied into that movie which work very well.
If you really like science fiction and you have never seen this movie I think it's worth your time to give it a look.
June 19, 2016
Not a bad film watched this recently back to back with John Carpenters The thing and enjoyed them both.
Page 1 of 209