Is it a remake? A prequel? Actually, it's kinda both.

Yes, it takes place before the events of John Carpenters classic 1982 film. Everything in the film leads up to the opening sequence of that classic. Actually, the ending credits scene may very well be the best part of this new movie. Not that the rest of it is bad, but damn the end credit scene got my blood pumping.

The plot is very simple. A team of Norwegian scientists in Antarctica discover a spaceship and an alien frozen in the ice. Surprise, surprise, the alien is not dead and it escapes. Terror ensues.

Now I already explained the prequel part of the film... now here's why "I" think it is also part remake. The films narrative structure is very similar to the 1982 film. Almost identical actually. Seriously, the movie plays out pretty much the exact same way the 1982 film. Watch both films and you will see what I mean.

The positives for this new film are numerous. The cast is great and they all have good chemistry. Most of the effects are phenomenal. And the film is quite scary in parts(although the movie was REALLY loud, so that played a big part in me jumping every five seconds). That's a HUGE compliment. Also, it does a good job of keeping you in the dark of who is human and who is alien.

The only real negatives are a few bad effects(the helicopter sequence and a part at the end that I can't spoil) and the structure of the film. I really wish it was more original and didn't practically mirror Carpenters film.

So yeah... I went into this film with low expectations. The reviews have been pretty bad and I didn't really like the idea of a prequel/remake to begin with. Now that I've seen the film I can say that I'm pleasantly surprised. Despite the negatives, this may be the best horror film I've seen all year. It gets a solid thumbs up from me. Give it a chance people. It might surprise you.

~Zack~

Found this review by Spoony which is kind of funny.

I must have missed this thread.

Thing Prequel wasn't that bad as some made it out to be. I liked some of the early Thing transformations. There was one bit that bugged me - where the dude has the big tentacle whip coming out of them, and Thing Whips 2 people, infects them, and causes everyone living to get out of the way.

That didn't seem to gel right with the Carpenter film (I'm sorry, I don't buy that lame arguement that The Thing was being more cautious at The American camp. That's BS.) If it can attack and freaking COME AFTER folks in human crab vagina mouth glory, then it could do the same at the American Camp, which it did not do.

And then the CG Thing took over and I was more and more disappointed. There were some leaps in logic of the story as well (setup) and, even though I was curious, it was telling a story that didn't need to be told.

Given a rewrite, it would have been a better sequel.

I just finished watching it about twenty minutes ago and feel pretty much the same way.  Carpenter's flick showed the Thing attacks by stealth, and only shows itself when there's no other option.  But in this one, it comes at you rip-roarin' and ready to go.  

Also, there was one cut which I found hilarious, though I'm sure it wasn't intended to be.  In one scene the group are talking about going off in groups because any one of them could be a Thing, and they explain that's what the creature wants -- to get you alone (despite the already mentioned bit about the Thing not being quite so stealthy in this one).  It then cuts directly to a scene with Mary Elizabeth Winstead alone with one of the men in the hangar.

I'm sorry, didn't she just say we shouldn't be going off alone because any of us could be a thing, and it wants to get us alone?

I laughed.  Loudly.

I got the chance to talk to one of the producers of the film in private.
After the chat, let's just say I went into this film with really low expectations.

The wrong headedness that's on display here is pretty epic.
The production chose to emulate the original in myriad superficial ways...

Look at that ax in the wall in the Norwegian station!
It's in the same place when MacCready sees it in the Carpenter film.
Isn't that amazing!?!?!

Ummm, no. Not in the slightest.

The Carpenter production permeated dread and paranoia.
Subterfuge and misdirection were the creature's true weapons
Not a crabgina with poisonous whippy tail of doom.

The mystery is completely drained from the story.
Inherent to prequels, there is no mystery, unless you introduce new elements.

For instance, there was another prequel released this year that did that very thing.
"Rise of the Planet of the Apes". Yes, we already know the basic story.
But what we didn't know is that is all started with a son's desire to save his father.
Putting a human face on that story made all the difference in the world.

No such attempt to differentiate from the source material exists here.
Quite the opposite, this film revels in wallowing in its sameness. Ugh.

And for f*ck's sake, don't crib your climax from The X-Files. Really?
The alien ship with the Venetian blinds activating was such a groaner.
That shot composition is stolen from the first X-Files feature film.
Shot for shot, like the scene where Mulder and Scully discover the bee apiary.
Here, the "slats" chase our hero, like when MacCready goes to detonate the dynamite.
We made it just like you already seen it! Isn't that exiciting?!?!?!

Ummm, no again.

E.D.

This is a bizarre imitation of the 1982 classic, using similar beats verbatim but with much less creativity culminating in me not asking "Who goes there?" but "What was the frickin' point?"

This will read like a negative review but I did enjoy it for the most part. As a companion piece to JC's, it's inferior in every way but it kind of reminds me of the route Superman Returns took. I appreciate its respect, the homages, attempt at vibe and atmosphere. It's all there but it just feels like wrong choices were made. When it should have taken its own identity it chickened out and resorted to the tried and trusted routine, making itself a pale imitation of JC's.
When I first watched The Thing (1982) I was horrified, amazed, absolutely swept away. It's one of my favorite films of all time. The potential with such a thing as The Thing goes no bounds. This Thing (2011) is just too afraid of itself to do anything new or interesting.

Some of these homages seem misplaced, inappropiate, or made up on the spot. I wouldn't question studio interference playing a part in having to include certain "classic moments" but these scenes that played out so well in JC's version feel weak in comparison. It was always going to be tough to duplicate some of those moments even after thirty years, let alone better them, but if you can't pull it off, why do it? Since these homages take up a fair bit of screen time, it just made a majority of the film predictable.

I wasn't impressed with the reason for Halvorsen inviting the lead character from America to a mostly Scandinavian Antarctic base. It doesn't even gel with Halvorsen's character, of which the only surprise was that he never revealed himself to have been working for some shifty government agency. Most of the characters are a complete opposite of the '82 film. They are instantly forgettable, and by the numbers. Suspense and paranoia, not knowing who to trust are staples of the classic and its attempted here but it just never works like it should. Frustrating.

Most of the shocks are jump scares. Silence. Loud noise. Repeat. The SFX were hit and miss. Soundtrack from the '82 is sorely missed, the 2011 version hints at it at times but ultimately delivers typical standard horror movie fare.

It all just seems a bit forced. It's a weird one. I'll definitely check it out again, but I'm in no rush.

Remakes/Prequels - You stick too close to the source, you run the risk of being labeled uncreative and dire. You try and do something different (Halloween for example) you run the risk of taking things too far away.

First viewing, I'd give it a generous 6/10.

* Just watched that Spoony review vid from above and have to say it does paint an accurate picture. In defence of the Thing going all splatter happy first thing when it wakes up, I put it down to it being more juvenile in this one. It has no idea where it is or what it's up against. It slowly learns how to be coniving, convincing and deceptive. When we see it in JC's version, it's obviously learnt from it's experience.
The spaceship scenes near the end -  all unneeded. Pretty bad in all honesty. The assumption the Thing invaded the spaceship and caused the crash in the first place is more legit. What little is spent in the ship seems to say it is his, which makes the Thing look like the ultimate dumbass.

Quoted from Electric Dreamer Subterfuge and misdirection were the creature's true weapons Not a crabgina with poisonous whippy tail of doom.

Okay, now I *have* to see this damned Thing!  (Pun intended) (At least, for free on Let Me Watch This.)  And I'm a huge fan of the Carpenter version...  

Finally saw this.  I was bummed I missed it at the theater last year.  I was bummed at the bad word of mouth it received.  Now I'm just bummed, period.

Obviously, this was not good.  I'm a little surprised how bad it actually was.

Trailers looked good, I remember.  They had a nice $38 Million budget with no real star power, meaning, in theory, that this budget was spent on sets and FX.  It sure didn't show, IMO.

Right from the get go, I was unimpressed.  The 3 Scandos fall into a big hole in their Cat, and what happens?  Did I miss something?  Because everyone looked alike, it was impossible to tell if these 3 survived, and/or were in the rest of the movie.

Why show Winstead's character in America, being courted to come join the "team"?  WTF?  For reals?  Why were there Americans there at all?  Where'd they all come from and what were they doing there?

The attempted tension and terror was sorely lacking here.  Probably because none of the characters were remotely memorable or even likable.  About 25 minutes were spent working up to the Thing busting out of the ice, but as far as I'm concerned, it was time wasted.  Once the Thing was among the humans, everything just seemed to go way too fast with very little effect.

As for the Thing itself, damn..far from impressed.  CG effects were apparent and unimpressive. The constant crab-like state of the Thing was a poor choice, IMO.  Once, sure..go for it...it was creepy looking, but since we know this Thing can literally be anything, why not show some talent and budget and give us some cool different "Things"?

Shocking how closely it tried to emulate Carpenter's far superior effort.  So many other directions to go that could have supplied much needed tension.  They literally started out attempting the exact same blood test from the original, and than k God they changed it up with the cavity thing, which was OK, but should have been so much better.

The finale?  For reals?  The space ship?  C'mon now.  You know, I literally just watched this and within a few minutes, I'm already unclear as to who did what, when, and why.  Just so weak.

Finally, why was this thing filmed so poorly...so dark?  Poor lighting?  Conscious effort to conceal shoddy FX work?  Even the fire and snow was fake most of the time...and obviously fake.

Argh...another totally missed opportunity and another big negative hit for Universal.

Just got round to watching this, wasn't expecting a great deal and didn't find a great deal.

I did enjoy it overall, but it's a very poor imitation of the first one.

I don't think there's many directors out there that could have done a lot with this film, tbh. Everything that Spoony guy says above is true about the original, but there's no way you could get that same level of tension in this prequel in my opinion, not when you know the story.

CGI just does not work for "living" things. It looks awful 100% of the time and throws you out of films immediately.

The biggest problem for me though was the usual scientists acting completely out of character (no containment protocols, no sterilisation..they didn't even wear masks...) this happens in films all the time now and it's just too unbelievable and kills films outright.

As for the way they just left the spaceship there...just laughable.

I guess that I'm in the minority but I really enjoyed this. I've been burned by crappy remakes of my favorite horror movies so many times that 'The Thing' (2011) just sat in my queue for months but I finally gave it a go. You could tell that some of the people behind the camera were fans of the 80's version... enjoyed the various nods to it. I was also impressed with the CG (which I figured was going to be terrible). It was about as good/creepy as one could expect without resorting to 100% practical effects. In fact my only complaint with it was that they may have showcased 'The Thing' transformation once or twice too often.

WTF?  For reals?

Damn...I was so pissed off by this little, shitter.  So fucking weak...

Quoted from Dreamscale WTF?  For reals? Damn...I was so pissed off by this little, shitter.  So fucking weak...

Maybe I just enjoy movies set in the Antarctic for whatever reason. I liked 'Whiteout' too and don't know of anybody else who does.  

Quoted from derekr Maybe I just enjoy movies set in the Antarctic for whatever reason. I liked 'Whiteout' too and don't know of anybody else who does.

You may be right.

I saw Whiteout in the theater and was furious over how horrible it was.  One of the poorer films I've ever seen that had money and star power behind it.