AniInterview Sorry, this movie sucks

Vashirdfel Simply A Masterpiece

Stometer Save your money for something good and enjoyable

Intcatinfo A Masterpiece!

elliotjeory A dark and interesting horror. Comparisons to the original will lead to disappointment but it was a good horror as a stand alone film. Some scary bits and freaky monster scenes.

paulclaassen A prequel to 1982's classic The Thing. Very interesting with equally good effects. I do prefer the original, though, as this version seem to follow cliches of the genre towards the end.

marieltrokan In traditional terms, a change that's unwelcome is actually a stability that's pleasant. The 2011 prequel The Thing is an unwelcome change that's real. The disturbance is an actual disturbance.As opposed to the tradition, an actual pleasant stability isn't deceptive. But, what does a stability that's kind look like?A stability is a structure of support. Kindness is a distribution that's beneficial to the party that receives - and the party that receives is distinct to the support structure.The structure that supports itself gives to another party; the party that receives is a structure that's unable to support itself. One party doesn't need physical structures outside of it, the other party does. The party that needs external reality is the party that benefits from distribution - the party that doesn't need external reality doesn't benefit from distribution.External reality is the party that gives kindness. The opposite of external reality receives kindness. The kindness isn't external reality, and it is't the opposite of external reality.External reality is the non-living. Kindness is neither the non- living or the living. The non-living gives neither itself nor the opposite of itself, and the living benefits from neither itself or the non- living. Inertness gives neither inertness or movement; movement benefits from neither movement or the absence of movement. Stillness means to move neither movement or stillness - stillness moves movement that's still and stillness that moves. Movement benefits from neither movement or the movement of movement that's still and stillness that moves.Stillness stops deception. Movement benefits from neither movement or the stopping of deception. Stillness stops deception, therefore movement helps deception.Movement benefits from neither helping deception or stopping deception. Movement needs to neither support or oppose deception. Movement needs to neither be still or be itself, so that stillness can annihilate deception. To help stillness do its job, human beings need to avoid stillness by not moving. By not moving around, human beings can let physical reality eradicate eradication.Physical reality is the actual answer to life's mystery - not scientists. By not moving, human beings can help physical reality unify reality.Eradication is another sentient force. To destroy this sentient force, human beings need to understand that they aren't the solution, but that they can at least help the solution - objects such as cups, doors, helicopters and snow

Blueghost I don't remember too much of Carpenter's film to really comment on this as a prequel to that film, but I do seem to recall it was a bit more grounded and, as per other reviews, didn't rely on massive CGI visuals to carry some pretty thin story material.I don't like horror. I really don't. I think it's a stupid genre. But the original "Thing" movie from the 50s had , like I say, a kind of plausibility or grounded approach to the story. This film is purely a gimmick combined with elaborate visuals.I just had a real hard time getting through it as the gimmick of "who might be next" wore out its welcome the minute the first victim hit the floor. And as for the CGI, it's just needlessly expository, and gross in both gory and just silly presentation. That is to say you know it's going to be something pretty scary, but when it's finally presented the novelty wears off. There's also no real theme or message the author is trying to convey. It's essentially a cash cow to keep an old property alive and making money by creating a market tie in. Unlike the original film from the 1950s, which had an actual message to it, this one is just another CGI fest with a hack and slash bent to it.I'll also add that for all the effort put into explaining the science or to make it contemporary for the sake of younger science savvy viewers who demand something that at lest looks like plausible science, there isn't a whole lot of additional scientific effort going on here, again unlike the original film, or even the remake of which this is supposedly the backstory.It's a thriller without meat relying on one trick. And the plausibility or said trick is never tested by the characters. In this way the script is pretty vapid for a scifi film with horror overtones. In short, it's one long corporate film making snooze fest in spite of all of the thrills and action injected into the thing. I mean technically it's not a poorly executed film. If this were made in the 80s by some C-average UCLA director, we might have gotten something that was more in B-movie territory with little coverage and a lot of master shots with unconvincing dialogue and flat performances. Kudos to this film for avoiding that pitfall. But it's otherwise a yawn-fest that suffers from a lack of interesting material and relying on "wow" caliber CGI visuals.In the end it's not that good a film. Howard Hawks' film was noted for being intriguing. Carpenter's was noted for being an imaginative update of the same material. This is attempting to inject money into production values to make more money.There's very little here.Watch at your own risk.