Ava-Grace Willis Story: It's very simple but honestly that is fine.

Lidia Draper Great example of an old-fashioned, pure-at-heart escapist event movie that doesn't pretend to be anything that it's not and has boat loads of fun being its own ludicrous self.

Hattie I didn’t really have many expectations going into the movie (good or bad), but I actually really enjoyed it. I really liked the characters and the banter between them.

Walter Sloane Mostly, the movie is committed to the value of a good time.

demontrace This movie spits in the face of The Thing(1982), and is an absolute disgrace to the series. It has almost none of the clever set ups of the previous movie, and doesn't establish suspense anywhere close to what the first film did.It wasn't clear what was happening or who the thing might be in the previous movie, because you were only fed as much information as the characters had. In this movie, you have unnecessary pauses as characters react to situations, completely illogical responses to situations, and excessive showing of The Thing itself, killing it's value as a monster from another world. The more you see the thing, the less frightening it is, and even more so with CGI effects. The previous movie had some ridiculous animations at times, but it's the real deal what you see unfold. It's gruesome, and handmade. The CGI animations in this just look ridiculous, and it establishes similarly ridiculous death scenes. The characters seemingly stand there as they then get executed by the Thing. The characters in the previous film seemed considerably more helpless, and surprised by The Thing when it attacked. It was quick, and lethal. The death scenes in this one go on forever, as people stand around in shock with their mouths hanging open. I cannot believe no matter how horrible the sight, that people would just stand there with flamethrowers in hand, and just watch as people get devoured.I'll also add there's some gag worthy small talk flirting at the beginning of the movie(I'm most certainly not referring to the Norwegian joke at the very beginning), that I'm pretty certain no one asked for, EVER, in a Thing movie. Just what my suspenseful movies need, some pointless flirting. Not dogging on the female actors, they're fine, but the previously all male cast definitely kept those people more focused on the plot, and not a drugged Joel Edgerton mumbling some charm.This movie is laughably bad, but no where near the level of being enjoyable. It reveals some prequel information for The Thing universe, but somehow a movie released 29 years after the previous movie, couldn't hold a candle to that movie. Whoever created these scenes was clearly drunk, or had their child think these up. So stupid it's painful.

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.

Vile Fly I feel I was biased, being a fan of the original, so I recorded the reaction of a 16yr old 2yrs ago. He had never seen either movie before, but was desensitized because he was a horror fan. (used to gore-violence)This prequel never made him jump out of his seat, but the original did. (2 inches, in fact) He said the creature had no consistent strategy, except at the end. "there was a little paranoia, but not enough to put you on edge." The creature effects weren't as scary as the original, because it wasn't "juicy and organic and messy". He also noted that there were no uncomfortable silences, either. He did like the alternative test idea to find out who was who....but wondered why they didn't go for the blood test 1st thing. I told him it would have been copycat work to do so....and this had to be different. He agreed. The rec room gore scene did make him cringe, though. To sum up: this prequel was a creature-feature movie, the original was a horror movie.For me, I knew there was too much to live up to, and simply accepted it. Would have loved more final dialogue between the Thing-guy and the heroine when she had the flame thrower pointed at him....something like: "where are you from?" "I don't know." "Are you a weapon of some kind?" "I don't know." "What are you?" "That which survives." "Not this time." "Not here, but somewhere else for sure."