konjad This movie is not only a horrible addition to the original The Thing that contradicts a lot of events in the original (especially the alien life form), but is bland and boring on its own too.First of all, although one of the main characters repeats "science" often like a mantra, this movie is as anti-scientific as it gets. Sure, Carpenter's The Thing took some things rather lightly, but it did never cross the line of believability. The alien life form acted according to laws of physics and its biology was believable for a science fiction film, the only issue with it could perhaps only be how quick it was to infect. But here? Here we have ALIENS JUMPING OUT OF ICE FOR AWESOME SURPRISE, and other action that is as dumb as it sounds. But that's not the worst, oh no, there are even worse things.Characters. This is what makes me so dumbfounded when watching this film. The action takes place on an Antarctica with a group of scientists. Just like in the original. However, unlike the original where characters were clearly mature professionals, here everybody acts like a silly edgy teenager with EMOTIONS just bursting out of them for no apparent reason or their actions are irrational. They can't seem to come to any logical decisions, save for the main character the girl (I guess they didn't know how to make her intelligent, so just made everyone else retarded), which isn't that rational either, and definitely overly emotional. I felt like watching a copy-paste "horror" movie with teenagers in an abandoned house in the woods, not a horror about professional team encountering a virus/monster. I have to say I have never seen a horror movie as stupid as this one. At least many other silly horror movies, which are not aiming high, are not deceiving the viewer about their theme and intent like this one does.I can't recommend it to anyone at all. I can only recommend the Carpenter's version, which is great and you should watch it if you haven't. as for 2011 one, avoid like the plague.

Jeffrey Burton This is a very effective, suspenseful, freaky, scary horror movie. I was really blown away by it and am going to watch it again, tomorrow night. There are some eye-popping scenes in it. The movie makers made a HUGE mistake in calling it 'The Thing' which led everyone to believe it was a remake of John Carpenter's 1982 movie. It's NOT. It's a prequel and it would work very well as a 'The Thing' binge showing the movies in tandem. The plot differs enough from Carpenter's that it could've been called any numbers of 'things' and had it's own identity. I'm sure executives were involved in the naming because they can't seem to get enough of shoving remakes down our throats even though audiences have had to endure more than enough of them. This movie had my attention from start to finish and it's one of the stronger horror outings of the new millennium. The acting is all very good and the film captures the air of total paranoia and mistrust. Mary Kate Winstead did a standout job. The creature effects and blended CGI works more often than it doesn't. The movie is also well directed, doesn't rely on many jump scares and keeps you engaged and wondering what's going on and how it will all play out. I refused to even watch this movie for years because the title led me to believe it was remake and by definition would suck. It doesn't and if you want a good scare, check it out.

sorendanni As remakes of John Carpenter his movies go, this is one of the better.It starts out to be a real great movie and it stays that way form most of the time. Ufortunatley it gets out of puff in the last 15 minutes. I was not really satisfied with the ending (yes it does make a nice refference to the original movie but it just does not make for a satisfying closure of the story imo) that is why I give this one only a 7/10. But for the rest there are actually enough good things that make this worth watching. Looking back at it, I might also notice that it did not offer the sort of tension you get with movies like Stephing Kings movie adoptation of The Mist: people turn agains each other as the tension rises, but it could had been build up a bit better. Still, no big deal for me: what I got was enough?Is it better then the original? No; not even close. But is it better then a lot of other horror remakes I saw? Yes, definetly!

Moviemanic22 'The Thing 2011' is the intended prequel to John Carpenter's 1982 movie of the same name. Despite many chances to see it, I have to admit I had never taken advantage of the opportunity. However It had come to my attention that this movie explains what happened before the arctic team had arrived to the snow station in the 82 version. Many fans of the original have stated that this movie doesn't live up to it's expectations. I may agree, but it doesn't mean to say that it isn't an enjoyable film. I would agree that it pales in comparison to it's predecessor. Though I still enjoyed it. Despite not seeing the original The film goes through the same motions. And there is an excessive use of cgi in the special effects department which was impressive. Very gory and bloody I might state. Not to say I have an issue with that. But it would have been fun to see some special effects that were not cgi. The film has some good pacing and performances were decent. Mary Elizabeth Winstead is quiet convincing. It was unfortunate that the characters were not developed enough so that we could empathise with them before they were killed off. The film doesn't have the same soul or atmosphere as the original. I couldn't feel the impending threat that was looming over them. Plus it wasn't explained at what moment any character was taken over by the alien. In general it is recommended to see if one has not seen the original. However I personally feel that this was only an excuse to update an old film for today's generation, because it had nothing new to offer.