The Thing 2011
Directed by Matthijs van Heijningen Jr. · 103 mins · 1,914 views
Synopsis
Trailers
Reviews (105)
-
J
you got a problem when the practical effects from 1982 are terrifying to this day yet cgi from 7 years ago looks like its from a show on the cw
2,518 17 -
S
The best parts of this are ripped straight from Carpenter, the worst parts have zero idea what makes The Thing (1982) so scary. I wouldn’t blame anyone for having some fun with it, but when its competition is so complex it’s hard to be open to such a guileless and unimaginative attempt – there’s no subtlety, no applicability, no point! And the CGI, are we serious? Rumor is some suit at the studio thought practical would look ‘too 80s’?!? Go figure. At least the irony of the imitation is funny, and Mary Elizabeth Winstead is beyond innocent. Carpenter must have loathed this. Woof.
366 21 -
V
-
J
someone give mary elizabeth winstead a back massage it must have been hard carrying this movie
278 -
A
my mom was like “let’s watch the thing. it’s good.” and then she puts this on someone get me out of here
1,548 17 -
S
Hi, my name is Screening Notes, and I’m… a remake apologist. Hi Screening Notes. It’s been three and a half weeks since my last remake, but last night… last night I watched the remake of The Thing, and I don’t mean John Carpenter’s 1982 masterpiece, I mean the new 2011 one… and I liked it. I mean, I didn’t just think it wasn’t bad, I actively enjoyed watching it. The effects are nothing compared to Carpenter’s and the ending has some issues (although the way the credits sequence sets up the 1982 version is nice), but I genuinely loved the introduction of the language barrier to heighten tension and play on the question of who’s a Thing, and I thought…
597 23 -
GGeoffrey Broomer 8 月 25, 2026
You see, what we’re talking about here is an organism that imitates other media forms, and imitates them …perfectly. When this Thing (2011) attacked The Thing (1982), it tried to digest it. Absorb it. And in the process, shape its own frames to imitate it. This, for instance, that’s not The Thing (1982). That’s imitation. We got to it before it had time to finish…
587 3 -
G
Honestly… pleasantly surprised. It was always going to be an insurmountable task to match the quality of 1982s The Thing, but 2011s remake doesn’t fall nearly as flat as many remakes these days do. We’re not doing a whole lot to expand on the lore or make ourselves feel unique when looked at side by side with the original, the way 2013s Evil Dead feels when compared to Raimi’s trilogy. But we’re also not doing anything to tarnish its predecessor and the legacy and influence it had left. Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.
270 10 -
H
-
A
-
T
I think it’s important to remember that this is supposed to be a prequel as opposed to a remake, even if it is very remakey and that’s because Carpenter’s The Thing is a pretty perfect movie so a simple remake would be a ridiculous idea. As a prequel or re-imagining, I think this is pretty good. It’s got some good atmosphere and while the story here is very similar to its source, it does do enough different to remind you that it isn’t just a complete remake. What really keeps this from being great is some of the lousy cgi. I’m not sure why you would remake a movie with legendary practical effects and not go for only the best cgi but it’s certainly a thing that happens so what do I know. Mary Elizabeth Winstead is amazing and deserves her own action/horror/sci-fi franchise so can we please make that happen already.
465 4 -
L
So dissapointed but atleast it coudlve been worse, I liked the idea of it being a prequel but a remake and the ending was amazing but it wasn’t as good as the original.😢
-
T
Tease
-
E
Das Remake von Jon Carpenters Klassiker. Auch nicht schlecht. Solider Body-Horror.
-
S
que coisa feia jesus eu fazia melhor no blender
-
J
Oh yeah (the prequal)
-
R
FODA. No começo fiquei meio perdida, achei meio paia, só ok. Tava pensando em desistir de assistir até chegar na parte em que eles começam a desconfiar uns dos outros. AÍ EU GOSTEI. Aquele suspense de ver todo mundo ficando maluco, sem saber em quem confiar e nem o que fazer, é foda demais. E pqp, esses alienígenas são feios demais, mas tipo feios de monstruosos e macabros (do jeito bom), e isso me ajudou muito a xingar os fdp…
-
2
Demasiado cgi q envejecio mal y bebe mucho de la peli original, aún así es decente pero sin estar a la altura de la de carpenter (obviamente)
-
J
-
R
-
P
Amogus
-
A
Why I saw this before the og the thing idk but this was an interesting one and the graphics were terrible
-
E
El cgi está culero, la cinematografía está bien meh, los personajes son todos carne de cañón pero la prota está bien guapa y pues está palomera, aunque al chile se me hace una falta de respeto que este bodrio este asociado con la obra maestra de Carpenter
-
N
nah ini nonton sampe akhir, plot twist jir. gaada yang bisa dipercaya, literally gue “yang itu gasi?, dia gasi?, yang cewe gasi?”
-
S
ожидал какого-то дип дайва в вопрос социальной мимикрии, как какие-то супер тонкости выдают в человеке импостера, на уровне лексики и персонального вокабуляра например (ну тип те же НЕСУРАЗНЫЕ формулировки во время диалогов, которые мб трудно было бы адаптировать в дубляже, но мне кажется интересно было бы с этим поиграться), но для этого надо больше погружаться в пероснажей, раскрывать их, чего фильм явно не хотел делать с таким-то количеством действующих лиц, потому опять ударяемся в конкретизацию лорных условностей, что почти всегда…
3 -
K
not as good as the OG but the visuals were insane
-
I
Tá, já que fez uma imitação, pelo menos ela é boa? The Thing de John Carpenter é um clássico absoluto e um dos melhores filmes que já vi, então foi impossível não ficar com a cara meio virada durante todo esse filme, mas em certos momentos, quando eu quis encará-lo melhor, me senti mais preso do que eu achava que ficaria. A época que eu vi esse filme pela primeira vez foi meio conturbada e eu meio que tinha uma…
-
E
CGI shit fest
-
T
Will never be as good as the original
-
S
Bad end
-
D
-
J
final girl !!
-
F
Rubbish. Why make an inferior by numbers prequel? I gave up half way through – but still – what’s the point?
-
E
bir önceki filmde yaşananlar konu alınıyor.önceki filmle tamamen aynı kurguda ilerliyor sadece sonda biraz farklılaşıyor sonu bile aynı etkiye sahip olmayı amaçlıyor ama başaramıyor ilk filme çok iyi bağlanmış.karakterlerin derinliği ve kişilikleri birinci filmde daha ayırt edilebilirdi burada biraz manken olmuşlar onun dışında ilkiyle aynı kalite
1 -
C
oof BAD prequel mediocre movie
-
K
Thought this was the original I’m so annoyed rn frick you Dillon wasting my time at least Ramona flowers was there
-
N
Honestly, it’s not that bad. It’s biggest flaws are that the CGI isn’t as good as the practical effects and it kinda loses me in the third act. Other than that, it’s pretty good. I don’t quite get the hate this gets.
-
Z
Mary Elizabeth Winstead gives such final girl vibes. I love how this film sets up the original so well😮💨
-
W
-
V
franchement pas ouf du tout j’ai rigolé le long du film ça fait pas peur woullah mais c grv un film féministe parce que y faut tj écouter les meufs 🤓 la mort du chien bruh
-
S
CGI was crap Didn’t like that we saw a lot of the thing cuz it made it kinda less scary cuz of cgi and cuz it took out the amount of mystery from the alien creature Plot was fineI would’ve preferred originally planned way of endingBut I liked how they merged it with og film The blood test was kindaaaaaa more realistic and less moral cuz of the way the way the end result wasNot the worst prequel
-
G
Ну есть Мери Элизабет унинстед, так что +
-
I
Sympa, mais moins bien que le premier mais tout de meme bien. J’aime bien le faite qu’on suive l’histoire des norvégiens qui découvrent l’extraterrestre. Mais je trouve qu’on a moins le coter horreur du film comparé au premier.
-
J
Finding the impostor scene was good
-
G
É assim que vou descrever o covid daqui a uns anos Este n e bem o real, e apenas uma versao barata mas n deixa de ser bom
-
G
An impressively tense and atmospheric sci-fi thriller that honors its iconic predecessor. The practical-meets-digital creature effects are genuinely unnerving, and the chilling, paranoid isolation of the Antarctic outpost is captured to absolute perfection. 🧊👽
-
K
-
Z
-
S
A prequel but the same exact events transpire….in a worse way
-
S
The true horror would be absorbing becoming other people because ehww
-
T
Un prequel qui avait pour bonne idée de raconté les évènement avant The Thing de 1982 mais au final, on n’a un film qui mise sur un type d’horreur mal foutu et la gâche complètement, la CGI n’aide pas non plus, dommage on dirait plus une copie mal faite que autre chose mais en même temps difficile de faire mieux voir aussi bien
-
I
Starting from the very first scene, this movie manages to keep you on the edge of your seat the ENTIRE time. It’s become a Halloween tradition to watch every day lol
-
G
это, разумеется, не уровень фильма карпентера, но все еще хорошо
-
F
The movie basically just repeats the 1982 version. I really think they should’ve approached it differently. Almost every major detail and event feels like a repeat of the original. A prequel should explore the untouched pieces of the story, not recreate the same movie with different characters. We already knew what happened at the Norwegian base, but there was so much more they could’ve explored without simply repeating the same events. I did like the original much more. The 1982 film had a much stronger atmosphere and tension, while this one felt more like a remake disguised as a prequel.
-
J
“So, I’m gonna die because I floss?“ I just don’t care? Felt meaningless, it would’ve been a cool idea and interesting prequel if they didn’t butcher almost everything. The thing was ugly af, looked like some ps2 resident evil game. Just so uninspiring No real sense of unease or uncertainty, no memorable moments. Big up Kate tho
6 -
👾
-
D
Proof that remakes and prequels and rehashes and reimaginings exist in essence of what “The Thing” truly is. An imitation. It loses what makes the original, original. Similar to AI, it lack substance and feels like it just makes shit up. Solely exists add lore to a 10 minute scene of them exploring this camp and the opening to the original. There is so much interesting stuff you can do but you just do the same old shit. It must be nice living in a world where we reference and do the same things everyday. Instead of experiencing or trying to create something different.
1 -
A
“ughhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh its not the john carpenter movie!” i don’t care! the acting is pretty good and the cgi isn’t that bad! of course, The Thing ’82 is better but nothing can do it like the original, still pretty delicious watch though.
-
H
One of those films that rocks so much more when someone explains it to you than when you watch it. such a shame
-
L
It’s allllllriiiiiiiight?! I guess… Carried by Mary Elizabeth Winstead, the film struggles to hold its own when she is not around, bland designs, static characters and an overall display of Executive Producer meddling…. Results in a subpar movie that should have been a beautiful successor to film that has been in the hearts of many for years. Let’s hope for a better future for THE THING.
-
J
كان فيه رعب في الفيلم القديم انما دا مجرد بتاع اسمه البتاع تمثيل اي بتاع معندوش بتاع
14 -
S
Bruh first off, why even bother naming the exact same as the predecessor. This is a prequel to the original “The Thing”. GO WITH SOMETHING NEW! As much as I hated a lot of things in this, there were some moments I thought were kinda cool. This is not how you make a prequel though.
-
M
-
S
i like this movie but i’m ngl that alien is the worst thing i ever seen i can’t believe that was allowed to be made it’s so sinister but overall love it 😊🙏🏻starting to feel like my mom
-
C
I wouldn’t say this was a good movie. It was poorly executed. There was little to no development/buildup for the main character. No reason for us to root for her other than the fact she is Mary Elizabeth Winstead. She did a great acting job but that alone can’t make me score higher. If anything I would’ve given this a 2.5 but she was in it. So I couldn’t do that to her. There was little explanation. Little believability in…
1 -
S
Es una lástima porque la película es bastante decente pero en su intento de ser simultáneamente su propia cosa y una precuela, no consigue ser ninguna de las dos a efectos prácticos (sólo funciona como precuela si (spoiler) añades un segundo equipo de investigación al final de la película que haga de puente, pero incluso así hay un montón de cabos sueltos). El cgi no le llega ni a los talones a los efectos prácticos de la original, pero sí…
-
X
Haven’t watched the first one, but HOLY SHIT IT’S AMONG US I didn’t know. Nice sci Fi, nice horror, I would add some more character development so that the “impostor” feels more intense
-
B
Avant de jouer un sauvageon dans Game of Thrones, Kristofer Hivju a joué un Norvégien ce qui est sensiblement la même chose
-
R
-
F
1982 yapımı filmde olayların patlak verdiği yer olarak gördüğümüz Thule istasyonundaki yaşananları izlediğimiz, orijinal filmden yaklaşık 30 yıl sonra vizyona giren prequel film. Maalesef bu yapım sektörde zibilyon tane örneğini bulabileceğiniz, ortaya yeni bir fikir koymadan, izleyici tarafından çok beğenilmiş ilk filmin ismini kullanarak, yapımcılarının ceplerini doldurmaya çalıştığı yapımlardan bir diğeri. Filmin sonlarına doğru “Biraz farkımız olsun” diyerek farklı bir şeyler denemeye çalışmışlar ama bu durumu daha da kötü hale getirmiş bence. Yalnız her şeye rağmen hakkını vermem gerek filmin sonunu orijinal filmin başındaki sahneyle bağlayış şekilleri çok iyi olmuş. Orijinal film ne kadar akılda kalıcıysa bu yapım da o kadar silik.
28 2 -
N
2 verecektim ama kardeşimin zoruyka 2.5 veriyorum çünkü evet fena bağlamamışlar ilk filme. Ama bu filmin ilk filmle alakası yok. 2010’ların body horror’u cgi ile abartılıp içine edildiği saçma saoan bir aksiyon filmi olmuş. İlk filmdeki gerilim, bilinmezlik zerre yok bu filmde. Kapıları aralayıp avını arayan bir yaratık. Diğer üyeleri bulduğu gibi indirirken ana karakterle kovalamaca oynuyor. Karakterler arasında ilk filmdeki gerginliğin yarısı bile yokken saçma sapan birbirine güvensizlikler, lider role bürünmeye çalışmalar.. dengesiz ilişkiler. İlk filme bağlamaya çalışmalarına veriyorum sadece bu puanı. İyi seyirler.
1 -
L
definitivamente não é perspicaz como a obra original, optando por um caminho mais seguro, uma trama mais genérica e efeitos visuais feitos digitalmente, o que prejudica diretamente a imponência da ameaça. apesar dos pontos negativos, consegue despertar a tensão e a paranoia em quase todos personagens, infelizmente não é o caso da protagonista, que visivelmente estava sendo protegida por forças maiores.
-
R
I really wanted to like this film, but it seems they just wanted to remake a superior film and slap a “prequel” tag on it. Sure, they set up some Easter eggs for the Carpenter film, but this is the best they could do for a prequel? Also, the effects are not good. Effects from 1982 shouldn’t be better than 2011. If anything this film just reinforces my love for the Carpenter flick.
-
B
For its era I have nothing negative to say. They did what they needed to do with the end credits scene.
-
E
Litteraly a worse copy of the old one and top 3 worst cgi i’ve ever seen
-
B
Il faut regarder l’original
-
A
cómo puede ser que sea casi 30 años más moderna y con bastante más presupuesto y que se vea tan pero tan mal
1 -
D
Is it a prequel? Is it a remake ? Is it any good ? I enjoyed aspects of the film (acting, ufo plot) I had a hard time with the cgi It’s very hard to not be judgemental when it’s based on Carpenters masterpiece
-
U
Quand un film sortit il y a trente ans et plus efficace que toi il faut se remettre en question le film
-
R
Lame. Gets an extra star just for the two Norwegians that survive. Oops spoiler
-
M
Effects in the original: 5 stars Effects in this one: *wet fart sound*
-
K
Coolest part of this movie is how well it matches up with the events of the original. There was close attention to detail about the dog, the bodies outside and the state of the camp. Despite that the movie isn’t great. The cgi is brutal and makes everything seem kind of goofy. They didn’t build up much suspense with the point of the creature which is that it’s hiding in plain sight and rather made it more of a monster…
-
T
This is a disgrace to my name
-
L
I really hope that one day they somehow release a version without the ugly CGI plastered over top of the incredible practical effects created by Amalgamated Dynamics for this film.
1 -
Z
Among us in real life (sus, sus)
-
B
So boring
-
N
Character’s level of foolishness: Ultra Pro Max✨
-
I
lars e kate sendo os melhores
-
A
A good “we have The Thing at home” knockoff
-
V
Better than its worst detractors say, it’s a perfect example of studio interference ruining what could have been a great prequel. It has good ideas peppered into cheap looking computer effects that lack the visceral quality of Bottin’s work in the original.
-
B
-
L
I can’t believe the remake before this one was actually woke in comparison. Also script was booty. Best part of the movie was the during credit scene
1 -
O
The only 2 good scenes are the last two lol
-
A
Me jode un poquito que haya varios infestados a los que simplemente no se les de ningún indicio de que hayan tenido contacto con la cosa. Pero por lo demás me parece una película bastante buena y disfrutable. 🔥
-
D
Vi toda la película sin saber que no era la de los 80s hasta los créditos me di cuenta q era la misma actriz que hace a ramona flowers 😭😭😭 voy a llorar soy una retrasada como iban a tener cgi en los 80s
-
L
Who can it be now ? 🎷🎷🎷 I thought I was watching the 1982 version 😵 Idk abt that one yet but this was so ass
-
M
O filme não tem paciência pra te envolver no suspense, logo de cara jogam um monstro gigante na tela e pronto, não tem o clima de desconfiança. A maioria das cenas com a coisa são bem porcas, não digo pelo cgi, elas são mal dirigidas mesmo, apesar de eu gostar de uma ou outra, por exemplo aquela que ela ta assimilando o adam e o rosto dos dois começam a se misturar. E quando tentam recriar os momentos icônicos do…
-
O
虽然完美闭环 但是这和1982版差太多了
-
K
Mary Elizabeth is the only nice thing I have to say about this prequel.
-
R
Honestly I don’t know why everyone is hating. It is a good prequel. A lot of the things 😉 shown on the original appear on this one too. Tho it’s not the same (imo the original is better) it is pretty good. Some times the cgi is a bit… meh… (let’s leave at that) but apparently they made the director use cgi eventho he didn’t want to. Edvard😛😛😛😛
-
J
As far as random sequels (prequels) being made 20-30 years after the original film, this is pretty decent. The special effects are lackluster but the movie does a pretty great job at tying things back to the original and nails the setting and characters without being too self serving in its setup.
-
D
Приквел «Нечто» очень даже норм. Учёные, в отличие от тех, что у Карпа, оставляют существо таять в кубе льда в соседней комнате, пока весело пьют и, вообще, немало тупят, но это обязаловка к хоррорам 2010-х (как и скримеры, как и неубедительные цифровые эффекты) – зато есть прекрасная final girl (скучаю по Мэри Элизабет Уинстед) и именно женщина выступает голосом рацио в эмоциональном и действующем от инстинктов мужском коллективе.
3 -
K
Era necesario si, pero tiene ese algo que no gusta todavía.
-
N
Good movie, great connector going into the original, definitely relies too much on CGI throughout the whole thing, was amazing to see what happened to the Norwegians and to see the beginning of 82s the thing recreated at the end of this. Overall solid movie not too bad but not the best a nice watch though. (Also a rough estimate of the time when watched as not too sure) (still can’t top the original)
-
D
these scientists are idiots
- Synopsis
- When paleontologist Kate Lloyd travels to an isolated outpost in Antarctica for the expedition of a lifetime, she joins an international team that unearths a remarkable discovery. Their elation quickly turns to fear as they realize that their experiment has freed a mysterious being from its frozen prison. Paranoia spreads like an epidemic as a creature that can mimic anything it touches will pit human against human as it tries to survive and flourish in this spine-tingling thriller.
- Director
- Matthijs van Heijningen Jr.
- Writer
- Eric Heisserer
- Studio
- Universal Pictures, Morgan Creek Entertainment, Strike Entertainment
- Country
- USA
- Language
- English, Norwegian, Danish
- Year
- 2011
- Runtime
- 103 mins
- France12 Oct 2011
- Australia13 Oct 2011
- USA14 Oct 2011
- UK14 Oct 2011
- Spain19 Oct 2011
- Russia20 Oct 2011
- Bulgaria21 Oct 2011
- Hungary27 Oct 2011
- Lithuania28 Oct 2011
- Netherlands17 Nov 2011
- Czechia08 Dec 2011
- Denmark03 Apr 2012
- South Korea14 Jun 2012
- Italy27 Jun 2012
- Japan04 Aug 2012
- UK06 Feb 2012
- Netherlands22 Feb 2012
- Netherlands23 Nov 2013
Write a Review