If you don't like this, we can't be friends.

I cannot think of one single thing that I would change about this film. The acting is incomparable, the directing deft, and the writing poignantly brilliant.

Although I seem to have had higher expectations than I thought, the movie is super entertaining.

what a terribly boring film. I'm sorry but this is absolutely not deserving of best picture and will be forgotten quickly. Entertaining and engaging cinema? No. Nothing performances with flat faces and mistaking silence for subtlety.

At an Antarctica research site, the discovery of an alien craft leads to a confrontation between graduate student Kate Lloyd and scientist Dr. Sander Halvorson. The Thing (2011) is nowhere near as good as Carpenter's The Thing of course but for a prequel and judging it on it's own it's quite fun and pretty interesting as a whole plus the acting was good but unfortunately the film relied more on CGI and the ending result did not look that scary but mostly cheap but still not a bad movie it's just that the cgi was really not all that good. (6/10)

The thing that made 'The Thing' such a good watch, was the tension that steadily ramped up from start to finish. It had 'characters' and a story to it. Here, we basically get fast-forwarded to the CGI fest, that connects the dots of a flimsy plot. The CGI is technically OK, but the people being killed by it don't mean anything to the viewer, as character development was pretty much zero. The Norwegians were comic book Vikings, the Americans...well, American and the British chap was straight from a potty mouthed version of Mary Poppins. I half expected the cockney sparrow to bleat out "Half a bladdy sixpence!" on seeing the digitised doppleganger. The two leads that emerged out of the carnage (Mary Elizabeth Winstead and Joel Edgerton) did a good job, but they weren't given a lot to work with. I was a little dismayed to see they had to throw in the old 'all run away, but the screaming girl falls over' routine, that has by now become a parody of a parody. Personally, I'm a big believer in letting classic movies well alone, and this did nothing to change that view. You know what they say 'If it ain't broke.........'.

I've not seen all of Carpenter's version (at the time of this review) and I haven't considered watching the 1951 original. But, I've seen enough footage and know the basic premise of the cult classic to know that this prequel/sequel/remake is a slave to a far superior iteration. On a Norwegian Antarctic research facility, a group of colleagues comes across a giant spaceship hidden beneath the ice and an alien life form frozen solid. Humans being humans, curiosity gets the better of them as they start to analyse the alien but with disastrous and deadly consequences. So, I use the term "slave" because I do believe this prequel attempts to replicate various plot points and gruesome scenes that its predecessor is infamous for. Problem is, Carpenter's version is utterly innovative when it comes to the utilisation of practical effects that when this version tries to use it, it pales into insignificance. The whole film feels subpar and leaves a bitter aftertaste when the credits roll. This incarnation relies far too heavily on CGI to create the scares and to enhance "The Thing's" monstrous persona. Granted, the creature designs are horrifically innovative where body parts split and crawl along the floor looking to inject weird bodily fluids through your mouth (gives me the heebie jeebies) or when it ferociously lies on top of you and melts with your face...! It's entertaining to watch, but the over reliance of CGI negates any real terror. Especially when it's predecessor mastered practical effects which are far superior in terms of horror. It's hard to not compare. Mary Elizabeth Winstead holds her own with Joel Edgerton who carry the film well, the Norwegian supporting cast were just expendable and had no personality. The third act I really did not like. The whole spaceship situation was just time wasted which could've been spent on something more effective. The film succeeds when you do not know who to trust in a remote dark facility. In the end, just wasted potential.

If you loved the 1982 version, this does make for a good prequel. As others said, not as scary. The thing, as with Alien, are scary as crap if you put them on in like midnight. I will say, I think part of it is the music. Alien..had none, 1982 Thing had little. That sense of silence is crazy. That is one critique. A thing I do not like about movies in general now, is the herky jerky motion cameras . I think it is either to hide CGI flaws, or to make you feel like you are there. I am personally getting sick of movies that do that. Just show us it flat out. I mean, the herky jerky...well, I hated it in Saving private Ryan as well. Not just horror movies. prequels are so very hard to do though. Because, end of the day...you already know what happens. I felt this was done well. Not top notch, but done well. You did get the feel, when I first saw it, if this was a remake, then saw it as a prequel, and then I liked it more. however, in some comments, let us not forget, the 1982 had some star power, in Kurt Russell, Wilford Brimley, and the dud with the big eyebrows. And a few classic moments, like when busy eye brow, after the tests, was "I know this has been very difficult for all of you (as he stares at the flame thrower pointed at him) but I would appreciate it if you would LET ME OUT OF THIS F***ing chair!!!" Paraphrase. Or, where the druggie looked down the hall way and said "you have to be F***ing kidding me as one of the little things was running down the hallway. Another classic movie moment. But, that was iconic in my days. This movie, didn't have one of those moments. I think the star power has a lot to do with it. Chiles, the black guy in the 1982..he has been in so many movies. But he sold the part. key element in movies like this. You forget who they are as actors, and they are the characters. Heck, I almost forgot the 4 of them in the 1982 movie.In all, I would say, it is above average prequel, and a good movie. But, when going against a classic, no, doesn't measure up. Like asking "Return of the Jedi" to stand up to Star Wars, or Empire Strikes Back. It is good on its own, but..tie it into the other(s)...you will probably be let down.