Forumrxes Yo, there's no way for me to review this film without saying, take your *insert ethnicity + "ass" here* to see this film,like now. You have to see it in order to know what you're really messing with.

Humbersi The first must-see film of the year.

Jonah Abbott There's no way I can possibly love it entirely but I just think its ridiculously bad, but enjoyable at the same time.

Portia Hilton Blistering performances.

Steve Gad 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.........'.

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!

grimes-scott660 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.

shawn-dulmage-58-413341 For those who are not aware, check out The Thing from Another World from 1951. This is the first movie adaptation that I am aware of. Both of the later movies in my opinion are good movies. Who Goes There? is a science fiction novella by John W. Campbell, Jr., written under the pen name Don A. Stuart. It was first published in the August 1938. The novella has been adapted four times as a motion picture: the first in 1951 as The Thing from Another World; the second in 1972 as Horror Express; the third in 1982 as The Thing directed by John Carpenter;[1] and most recently as a prequel to the Carpenter version, also titled The Thing, released in 2011.