The Thing (2011)

 (8,159)
6.21 h 43 min2011X-RayR
HD. A team of scientists uncover a shape-shifting monster in remote Antarctica in this prequel to John Carpenter's 'The Thing.'
Directors
Matthijs van Heijningen
Starring
Mary Elizabeth WinsteadJoel EdgertonAdewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje
Genres
Science FictionSuspenseHorrorAdventureAction
Subtitles
English [CC]Español
Audio languages
EnglishEnglish [Audio Description]
Rentals include 30 days to start watching this video and 48 hours to finish once started.
Add to Watchlist
Add to
Watchlist
By ordering or viewing, you agree to our Terms. Sold by Amazon.com Services LLC.
Write review

More details

Supporting actors
Ulrich ThomsenEric Christian OlsenTrond Espen Seim
Producers
Marc AbrahamEric Newman
Studio
Universal Pictures
Rating
R (Restricted)
Content advisory
Violencefoul language
Purchase rights
Stream instantly Details
Format
Prime Video (streaming online video)
Devices
Available to watch on supported devices

Reviews

4.5 out of 5 stars

8159 global ratings

  1. 71% of reviews have 5 stars
  2. 17% of reviews have 4 stars
  3. 8% of reviews have 3 stars
  4. 2% of reviews have 2 stars
  5. 2% of reviews have 1 stars
Sorted by:

Top reviews from the United States

J. S. HarbourReviewed in the United States on March 31, 2017
5.0 out of 5 stars
Excellent prequel with much replay value and a great companion to JC's original
Verified purchase
Having just bought and watched [[ASIN:B01GSW5VD4 The Thing [Collector's Edition] [Blu-ray]]] (an extraordinary release), I decided to revisit the prequel and found I had not reviewed it. I enjoyed this film by Matthijs van Heijningen. There is a mix of puppetry and CGI, and you can tell but still, kudos for the effort. I genuinely enjoy the portrayal of the Norwegian camp which was such a gory scene in Carpenter's film. I enjoy watching these two back-to-back. Heijningen did a good job of capturing Carpenter's original claustrophobic feel as the team mistrusts each other.

Generally, I only buy films I intend to watch 2+ times, which is how I judge a film, more or less: the repeat value. There are some films I enjoyed but never want to see again (such as Arrival), which might be well done but I have no desire to buy the BD. That ultimately affects my opinion of a film, and that is why I have such mixed feelings about films by M. Night Shyamalan and tend not to buy them. He's a brilliant writer/director who knows how to create a tense scene. But, when the tension is released, it can't be recreated a 2nd time. That's just my personal opinion and how I rate movies. I might give a film like Arrival 5 stars, but never want to see it again nor own a copy.

This prequel to Carpenter's The Thing was well done. I understand the opinions of others and disagree. The CGI was not "atrocious" as one reviewer poorly observed. It was actually very well done, and done in conjunction with some real physical effects. You can tell a couple of times but those are the exceptions. And, one might argue that today, it would not be possible to recreate Carpenter's film with such effects because those techniques are a lost art. Well, it's highly subjective at any rate. Being a fan, I may be more forgiving, but in my opinion, being a hardcore fan of the JC film, I found that this one similarly scared me, and repeat viewings continue to scare me. That's a successful horror film in my opinion.

I give this 5 stars because I loved it. I'm a fan of THIS material and a horror fan AND a sci-fi fan as well. I'm subjective. This may not be a 5-star movie compared to, say, The Fellowship of the Ring. Just as a comparison. But films should not be compared directly to each other, nor across genres. How does this compared to the JC film? It's like a kid brother or a son. Son of The Thing. Watch them back-to-back, starting here, and enjoy all of the recreated scenes, and ask yourself, does this film contribute positively? The answer is absolutely yes, it does. Together, it's 3.5 hours of fright and I won't take off stars for CGI or little-known actors or poor character development. I'll just sit back and enjoy it and pick up the popcorn every time I spill it.
115 people found this helpful
JamesReviewed in the United States on May 4, 2020
1.0 out of 5 stars
It's the exact same show
Verified purchase
Someone told me this movie took off from where the Kurt show left off. After watching it I can say - not hardly. It's the exact same movie. Dog getting the alien thing, using fingers as legs on a hand, proving who wasn't themselves, ship at the end... there was no original content - NONE. The ONLY thing this movie did was swap a male lead with a female. I think it's nuts to spend all that money just to do that.
44 people found this helpful
RiannReviewed in the United States on June 13, 2019
2.0 out of 5 stars
Not really accurate
Verified purchase
If you want to make a prequel it would help if you watched the sequel .The acting and special effects were not bad-on the whole it was dragged and boring.
If you ever watched the one with Kurt Russel what happened to the Helicopter that was taking Potshots at the Dog?
I did read " Who Goes There?"
and I was amazed how closely the 80's version with Kurt Russel followed the script.
I guess it came out before it's time.
But could we please pay a little more attention?
35 people found this helpful
Matthew MilesReviewed in the United States on May 9, 2020
5.0 out of 5 stars
Wow. I have not been that scared in a while
Verified purchase
I cant really say that I would watch this movie again or buy it because it freaked me out. But that was the goal. Get scared. By that being said, everybody is scared of different things. I can watch "saw" and "it" at midnight by myself in a shack in the middle of the woods and not jump once. But I was watching "The thing" during the day at my sofa and jumped many times, specially when my phone vibrated on the table next to me. My husband cannot watch "it" or "saw", but when i showed to him the part where "the thing" shows up he gave me a "really?" look. So the actors and acting was great. The plot was predictable but you cant judge that because is a remake, but the character were really likable. Like I was genuinely worried about one character and extremely upset about the death of another at the end. So it was well done in my opinion. It delivered and it was worth my time and money. Well done!
21 people found this helpful
StephReviewed in the United States on June 24, 2021
1.0 out of 5 stars
Complete Trash
Verified purchase
The idea of the movie isn't a bad one: Show the final days of the Norwegian station in Antarctica days before the lead-up to John Carpenter's 1982 THE THING. Its execution, on the other hand, leaves much to be desired. JC's film did a phenomenal job of making the audience think and wonder. The antagonist was shown to be a cunning creature. And it delved into the paranoia such a situation would engender in everyone involved. Instead of continuing those trends, we get something that doesn't feel like it has any connection to the movie. There is no feeling that this movie was set in 1982 (technology/dress completely wrong); none of the individuals at the station feel like scientists or tech specialists (the "research assistant" looks like he wants to cry every second of his screen time); The Thing itself seems to focus entirely too much on replicating human anatomy even when it is supposed to very clearly be its monstrous self, NOT TO MENTION the terrible CGI in place of practical effects, plus the fact that a careful, cunning hunter completely throws discretion out the window and attacks everything that moves when there is no benefit to it whatsoever; and there is never any sense that there is no way out. That was one of the most terrifying things about JC's 1982 film; the men at Outpost 31 could not get away; they knew this; and, most importantly, the *audience* felt that.

Everything that made John Carpenter's THE THING a legitimate horror film is absent from this atrocious attempt except the title.
18 people found this helpful
THX1138Reviewed in the United States on January 7, 2017
5.0 out of 5 stars
A "Must-See" for all Sci-Fi Horror film Fan...
Verified purchase
But especially for Fans of John Carpenter's Classic version of "The Thing" (1982) ... Please Note, this is NOT a remake NOR is it a sequel! This is a PREQUEL; an original story and lovingly crafted film that painstakingly details the history and sequence of events that graphically explain just what happened at the Norwegian's Camp in Antarctica and reveals why the Norwegians are using a Helicopter to chase after and are trying to kill the "dog" (the Husky) that runs into the American's Scientific Outpost at the very beginning of John Carpenter's film.

For what it's worth, I saw the Carpenter's film several when it first came out in theaters back in 1982... and I consider myself to be far more than just your average Sci-Fi & Horror film fan (or critic) as I actually have worked in live action film production in Los Angeles for well over 30 years... And as Carpenter's film is among my favorite in this genre, I was pretty skeptical when I first heard that this was being made.

But upon leaning that Alec Gillis and Tom Woodruff Jr (ADI) were involved with the Make-Up and Mechanical FX, my skepticism evaporated. If you're not familiar with ADI, they are the guys responsible for the Oscar-winning Effects in Jim Cameron's T-2; Aliens; and a bunch of other awesome FX-laden films. Needless to say, you won't be disappointed!

This is nothing short of an incredible homage and companion piece to Carpenter's film. Taut, suspenseful and even nerve-wracking at times, it fills in all the gaps and mysteries that are only alluded to in the 1982 film. Excellent Direction, casting, acting, art direction, editing, lighting, music and absolutely outrageous Special Effects... this is a fun and fantastic journey into the icy unknown. Here's my suggestion... Get this and (if you don't already have a copy) buy a copy of John Carpenter's film... and then watch them as a "back to back" Double Feature to see what an incredible job they did in making this film compliment and "merge" so seamlessly together with Carpenter's classic.
64 people found this helpful
Rick GutleberReviewed in the United States on October 20, 2021
2.0 out of 5 stars
Meh. If you've seen Carpenter's version, don't bother with this one.
Verified purchase
I don't get it. If you're going to remake one of the most iconic SF/horror movies of all time, but bring absolutely nothing new to the table, why bother?

This wasn't a bad movie, per se, but it certainly wasn't great. It was very predictable, and is inferior to Carpenter's version in every way, and I even prefer the 1950s original in some ways. Despite climaxing in a man in a lame rubber suit, the 1950s version was actually very well done, and had a much better level of intrigue and paranoia than this version.

There's just no there there. Yeah, some of the effects were pretty good. I understand there was some issue over practical vs. digital effects, but a fair bit of what went on here did look practical, and most of the shots were decent, although it's a bad idea to make your first special effects show the worst one of the movie by far (i.e. the alien bursting out of the ice, which looked like a 90s video game).

But there wasn't anything new compared to what Carpenter had done, and I found myself much more interested in critiquing the effect than actually being invested in the story. It's a prequel. We know what happens. They all die. The characterizations were all bland, and since most of the cast were tough-looking Norwegian guys, it was hard to tell a lot of the characters apart. Plus, with the generic predictable plot, I didn't find myself caring all that much about who was who.

I felt the scenes on the spaceship were pointless as well, other than "Look, we can do CGI." Maybe I had a jaded attitude going since I'd heard this movie wasn't all that, but I really wanted it to be good. In the end, however, it just couldn't make me care.
9 people found this helpful
RhayzzaReviewed in the United States on July 25, 2020
4.0 out of 5 stars
Patience, Grasshopper...Must Watch thru Credits...
Verified purchase
Just a head's up that the movie still runs for a little bit as the end credits begin. I was getting annoyed, but patience is a virtue.

The dogs, tho. In the 1982 movie, the dog is initially an Alaskan Malamute. In this movie, the dog with Lars (I think it's Lars) seems to be a Caucasion Ovcharka of some variety (Italian type, I believe). Mingled with husky if there's blue eyes involved. While the dog runs away at the end, it is the Ovcharka, then turns into the Malamute. Just a little fun doggie breed trivia. Also an inconsistency but who cares, right?

In the Trivia section, I noted some things: Someone complained that the Thing is magically able to replicate clothing but not other non-organic material. I'm thinking the creature mutates into something tiny (dog flea, perhaps...?) and can travel incognito until opportunity strikes. Just another thought to add.

All that out of the way, oh my goodness...I had seen this years ago and forgot just how creepy this movie was!! I was yelling, NO NO and shouting other things at the giant screen. Such a great movie, truly. I made up my mind, I am going to purchase this and the 1982 The Thing and scare the bejesus out of my grandchildren who are old enough to handle this. If we have a particularly freezing/raining/ugly Halloween, I think this would make a fantastic double feature.

Cheers, Gang.
9 people found this helpful
See all reviews