Karry Best movie of this year hands down!

MoPoshy Absolutely brilliant

ChicDragon It's a mild crowd pleaser for people who are exhausted by blockbusters.

Tyreece Hulme One of the best movies of the year! Incredible from the beginning to the end.

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.

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

JGDragov I didn't go see The Thing in 2011 for two reasons. One, I was reluctant to support a prequel when what I had really wanted for thirty years was a sequel. Two, the movie seemed to have vanished from the theaters only after a few weeks. In the meantime, I only heard negative things(no pun intended) about this film so I didn't feel like I was missing out.However, something really weird happened when I finally caught it on HBO. I liked it! No, I mean I really liked it. To be clear, the criticisms about it being an unnecessary and almost too similar story to John Carpenter's classic are all fair. And, like most sic-fi movies today, there is more cgi than I would care to see. But the people making this movie clearly worship Carpenter's movie every bit as much as any die hard Thing fan. They go to great lengths to match up to the events suggested from the 1982 version and I personally appreciate them doing so. I also liked their method of detecting who was the Thing. It was different than MacReady's test but it was original.(Nothing will ever top the petri dish sequence and dialogue, Carpenter and Russell just nail it).If you're a fan of the original looking for something completely different or a "new take" on The Thing From Another world, than this movie is not for you. But if you're like me, and always wondered who put that ax through the door or what events led up to the two-headed thing burnt up in the snow at the Norwegion compound than I highly recommend this flick.

bfsr81 The movie is acceptable and can be rated with a 6-7 until you watch 1982 version!! That version is a very good/excellent movie with better leading characters, more suspense, Ennio Moricone ...etc. and done almost 30 years before. Once you watch the original you find that this movie didn't add anything.I give it a 5 because my first impression was good. But I can easily understand why people who watched the original first might be even giving less punctuation to this movie. If you have already watched 1982 version don't lose your time on this version as you will not enjoy it.