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.
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.
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.
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.
a complete abuse of the original. boring, horrible action, bad story, crappy cgi...incredibly fucked up remake - waste of time. watch the original, much better (even without cheap cgi!)
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.
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.
If you didn't enjoy this, you probably compare it to Carpenter's version. The movie was in itself pretty enjoyable and funny. To be norwegian and watching this was pretty interesting aswell. It was funny to watch the beginning of a Hollywood movie consisting of only Norwegian. I would reccomend to watch this movie, but see it as a homage to Carpenter's movie, and don't compare it. Just my opinion here ofcourse :)
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.
Add your comment
Comments 1 - 15 of 30
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.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.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.
Earring72
Not too bad prequel. Nothing new but very watchableOneironaut
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.
I am Miami
a complete abuse of the original. boring, horrible action, bad story, crappy cgi...incredibly fucked up remake - waste of time. watch the original, much better (even without cheap cgi!)Fenring
Not bad, btw. With correct ending.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.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.sennaho
If you didn't enjoy this, you probably compare it to Carpenter's version. The movie was in itself pretty enjoyable and funny. To be norwegian and watching this was pretty interesting aswell. It was funny to watch the beginning of a Hollywood movie consisting of only Norwegian. I would reccomend to watch this movie, but see it as a homage to Carpenter's movie, and don't compare it. Just my opinion here ofcourse :)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!Showing items 1 – 15 of 30