I'd just after watching it... well it was not bad, idea how to recognize who is alien was quite smart
BUT I missed something, 82s movie made me want to throw up... well for me this one was too softcore, and there was few scenes where I rolled my eyes, so oh well, decent, but could be more grotesque
also I was afraid of bizarre CG usage, surprisingly it was not as flashy as I feared
THE THING wihtout Kurt Russel won't take the top spot and the acting was a bit dry but overall it was an OK movie. I appreciate the fact that they didn't re-make the John Carpenter movie and chose to do a prequel.
Loved the film...only wish there had been some coherent verbal give and take when the creature was in human form. Would have been interesting to get more insight about a sentient species capable of interplanatary flight.
Movie was good. It coulda been a little better. more exploration of the ship in the beginning woulda been really cool. but the crew only had so much money and time to make the movie. overall a dscent movie!!!!!
Besides, they laughed at the campiness if JC's special effects, and I really don't think they made it that way. When watching the new thing, I actually thought I was watching CGI when I was actually watching real life effects. Watch the documentary on the new version Blu-Ray and you'll see what I mean.
John Carpenters version of The Thing did not do well at the box office, only gaining the respect the movie deserved when it went to home video and eventually gaining cult classic as it should. Same people dogged this movie when it came out. I loved this version of The Thing as well. Grace rocks because she LOVES comics and movies. Keep up the great work Grace!
BTW i have the 82 movie in my collection and this does complement it quite nicely, it would have been even better if they had made it longer and let the tension build a little between the crew but i have read the studio wanted it to move at a faster rate and cut out some bit's.
Undoubtedly they might well include these on the dvd.
like "Nightmare on Elm Street" Remake, like "Friday 13th" Remake
the whole movie was just so uninspired. Even the effects...
it was not absolute crap, but srsly...its just again a senseless Remake.
or prequel in this case.
for the random audience, maybe ok to watch...but for Genre Fans or people who really like the tension, its not worth watching imo. not at the cinema at least....
@trustice1 9/10 for me, thought they really thought out this prequel they connected with john carpenters classic and the story was just really good, i really dont what you saying, IT IS NOT A REMAKE IT IS A PREQUEL!!!
Tell me why you think it deserves a 4/10 coz you seem to make no sense?
@92680BOYD Ah but did he live or was he the Thing? That is what made the ending of Carpenter's film so great, we just didn't know - it leaves many questions unanswered and it worked better because of it. Their attempt to do this didn't work as well. You are bang on about the effects though. Not one moment in the new film made me jump as much as the hands through the chest scene in the original.
SPOILER
I did like the ending bit with the dog and the helicopter.
@MrHarrylime79 I really love the ending on Carpenter's too! You just didnt know if the black guy was the thing or not hehe just built on tension, saying that i liked the ending on this prequel when the guy did not have an ear ring SPOILER *sorry, i really thought they made this film work and connected the story brilliantly. Why is everyone disliking the animation? I thought that it was amazing how realistic they made it! and they were really creepy and jumpy.
You know one thing you should honestly know what you are talking about, im guessing all fan's of Horror movies. The Thing is a cult classic, i bet all your video's in your dvd collection are all chick flicks maybe you should stick to that
Ahaha "30 years later an answer to a question nobody asked" Well if people didn't watch the movie they would have seen then dvd and asked themselves "what is that thing?"
It wasn't terrible, but it was much too parallel in terms of events to the '82 version. Plus, the jump out scenes weren't nearly as creative as the Carpenter version. It was a fun little movie, but Carpenter deserves better.
spacecraft sight. It seemed like everything grew spider legs where as it was under used and intelligent in the carpenter version. And it just seemed like the new cgi 'thing' was best stoled from a silent hill video game. Too brightly lit, too predictable. No time is spent with the character development to warrant you concern for their welfare, in fact the only thing that terrified me throughout this whole train wreck was the fact I wasted two hours of my life that I can never get back.
I thought Carpenter's is STILL the best. This one just plain sucked. Tho Carpenter version was innovative and smart, this one was a CGI snooze-fest. There were so many inconsistencies for it to be a prequel. For a start, the norwegians never unearthed the top of the space ship like they were seen doing in the video documentary footage kurt's boys recovered from the sight, if mary elizabeth had died in the snow vehicle near the sight, how come we never saw that when Kurt and co went to the
this chick is absolutely pathetic...."the 84 version" ?....how humiliating !!....Carpenter's version failed in 1982 cuz people werent ready for a film that was so in your face...everyone wanted to see the friendly alien.....Carpenter's version is nothing short of brilliant and nobody in mordern horror cinema shares his vision...if you wanna see amazing horror film making...go to the video store or your netflix account...horror films today are as dead as disco....Carpenter rules forever !
I've never felt comfortable with the question "on a scale of one to ten, how was this movie?" The reason is that on that scale too many people consider 7 to be average and this is probably because in school a C is called "average." 5 should be the average and you know why? Because it's in the god-damn middle people! Assuming 0 is the true low point. Sometimes I say 5 and people are like "what? Ah, so it sucked!" No ppl, if it sucked I woulda said 0,1 or 2.
@titanictom307 Yeah that damn E.T. stole The Thing's thunder in the 80's. All those kids would have loved The Thing but they had to choose - The Thing or E.T. lol
Thanks! great news, by the way! It sucks to wait for a movie with an appealing trailer only to discover was being a pile of crap. Can't wait to watch this one!
The CGI is lame to be honest! and the first hour is fine! they start to build up some tension and paranoid situations BUT!!!!! then it falls apart into a monster in the dark/chase the humans movie!!??
Ummm..."Who Goes There" came out before "The Thing." It was what the film was based on. Please check your facts before doing a review; giving wrong information makes you less credible.
The critic's being needlessly disrespectful. She's not focusing on the films; she's just trying to be witty, but failing. I won't be checking out Beyond the Trailer again.
As soon as CGI was mentioned I lost interest. The original didn't have any in so why should this? oh that's right because it was made in 2011 and film makers can't make a Horror/Sci Fi film without computers, can they?
Well, despite all of this movie's supporters, it really wasn't that great of a movie in my opinion. There were a few jump scares here and there, but overall I didn't really find it to be very scary. Also, some of the special effects were crap and some things just looked stupid rather than scary. I give this movie a 7/10.
MillerMUCKERS,rodzandz ,EGru Ur all correct hoo raa the only problem in the new one is its kinda rushed not much time for fuck u I think ur the thing yada yada but still good
Hands down the 1982 version despite her saying 1984 hahaha was better, in original there was no finding of americans at Norwegian camp nor any mention or findings of such a thing plus they missed the Spectacular view of alien craft dug out not hidden in some crevace. But if one approaches this as a different version it's ok as a stand alone movie. Also because a movie didnt do well at box office doesnt make it a failure, Many so called failures became or were or was really good movies
Hands down the 1982 version despite her saying 1984 hahaha was better, in original there was no finding of americans at Norwegian camp nor any mention or findings of such a thing plus they missed the Spectacular view of alien craft dug out not hidden in some crevace. But if one approaches this as a different version it's ok as a stand alone movie. Also because a movie didnt do well at box office doesnt make it a failure, Many so called failures became or are or was really good movies
Hands down the 1982 version despite her saying 1984 hahaha was better, in original there was no finding of americans at Norwegian camp nor any mention or findings of such a thing plus they missed the Spectacular view of alien craft dug out not hidden in some crevace. But if one approaches this as a different version it's ok as a stand alone movie.
This movie has awful acting, the monster is lame, the special effects are terrible, the jump-out-of-your-seat scares are ridiculously predictable, the movie has no excitement(which is never good for a horror flick) and how they ended it is just blasphemy. What I'm really trying to say is:
Funny how the special effects were better in the 1982 version than the CGI they use in movies today. Also the 1982 version was not campy, it was very serious.
agree. The SPX were far scarier, more believable and realistic in the 1982 movie. The CGI in this prequel is already starting to look dated, and yes the 82 film was very serious, I thought the tone of this movie was lighter due to the fact that it was very buddy-buddy.
this chick is retarded for trying to down play the popularity of the original remake of the thing lol i saw this last night and it was way better then i expected. it was really slow to start didnt like how the story progressed/unfolded it was like the leading lady had already read the book and saw the original. would have liked to seen more character be more involved in the story. i chalk those complains up to me just being too much of a fan of the 1st. an ok movie but a great addon for the fans
I think the 1982 version did not do well in the box office, but it became a cult classic I guess you could call it afterwards. I'm a big fan of the 50's and 82 version.
It's completely obvious this woman hasn't a clue about the THING films (any of them). That doesn't aide her #1 issue of being utterly annoying on top of it. She's put all 3 films together, has no clue what JCs version is or why it's a horror and sci-fi classic, and seems to be a low-grade graduate of the "entertainment tonight school of editorial ". Wow. Which inept fool thought she would be convincing on camera portraying a film critic?
strange..... it sounds as though (according to the girl in the review), the novel 'Who Goes There', was inspired by the great 1982 version of The Thing. Trouble is, 'Who goes There' was written in 1932!
I loved this movie. Really ties in great with John Carpenter's version. To answer an earlier question, the man near the radio committed suicide rather than taken over by the creature. BTW Grace, keep up the great work. I would go to the movies with you any day!
Fuck this fat bitch. Saying oh why would anyone make a prequel to a film nobody saw in the first place?? Obviously plenty of people saw it. Including many of the people she interviewed as well as people leaving comments on this page. Of all the movies being remade or revisited this definetly deserved it unlike many. So fuck you fat trout mouthed bitch Thumbs up people
If your planning out watching the movie stay after the credits for an extra scene, intro to the 82' the thing. Or go to this website to read about it.
BTW, 82's The Thing has a HUGE fan base and it's considered one of the best horror sci-fi movies of all time. So calling it "a movie nobody saw in the first place" just because YOU never heard of it, is pure stupidity.
@rodzandz I think she was refering to the original's box office performance. Obviously it's garnered a huge following since then and is much more polpular now than it's initial theatrical release. Lol I doubt she really think's nobody saw it.
@rodzandz She trying to give an unbias review you jackass...if anything we need more critics like her. Thats the main problem with critics now-a-days they are all so fanboyish for something.
Saw this today - SERIOUS continuity flaws between this one and the '84 version.
1) The Norwegian who chased down the sled dog at the beginning of '84 version didn't look like the guy who was supposed be the same person in new flick
2) '84 version showed video record from Norwegian camp of their expedition exposing alien craft to surface - new version shows attempted launch of craft responsible for exposure
3) New one doesn't even explain the throat-slitting suicide at Norwegian camp
I saw this with my boyfriend tuesday and i have to say i give the movie a 6/10. I have watched the 1982 version which was not to bad and actually pretty good.
Apart from the average special effects, I thought the movie was great. The costumes and mood mimic "30 days of night", a great choice. No review talks about the chameleon that the lead actress is; she was the boob in deathproof, you immediately forget her baby face in the movie. I owned the VHS, then DVD, now blu ray of the 1982 The Thing and I will buy the Blu ray of this Thing when it comes out. Definetely an 8 on 10. Also, the pace of the movie is better than the 1982 one.
She says that no one saw the 80's film I disagree, she also says it was a flop...Blade Runner was poor at the box office but is a great film, Transformers did great at the box office but is a big turd ... A lot of us that grew up during the 80's ended up watching this a lot because after it was released the VCR was popular and most of us would have a few films in our libraries, to own a original tape was 50 - 70. bucks so we had copies from cable or another VCR. The Thing had a big following
Usually interviewed opinions are a crapshoot, but this woman knows her stuff. Notice she knows this is the 3rd film, not the 2nd. Her opinion's credibility shot up by a factor of 100 when I heard that, and if she says it's good, I'm ready to go see it. :)
I haven't seen this movie yet, but I saw Carpenters. I thought Carpenters characters were quite good. They had a little bit of humor at times and seemed to mesh... and of course, it had the diabedas man in it, William Brimley.
Well for one I liked the original, it wasn't a novelization the 1982 is a remake from a different movie from I think the 50s ( I might be wrong) that was based on a novella titled Who goes there? Now this movie may not have been asked for but I think it might be a good homage.
The thing about this movie (besides an unnecessary prequel) is that the acting, story and directing are completely bland - and in some cases quite awful. The sense of dread and suspense of Carpenter's the Thing was completely missing. If you can overlook minor (or in some cases obvious) plot holes, this movie is at its best mindless escapism. You don't put this movie on a resume and expect to impress any future employers. Unless you want to be a B-movie director/actor for the rest of your life.
I was a little disappointed that the 2011 version had little to no character development, while the 1982 version had a bit humor and good character development.
I am going to go see this in the theatre, if I wasn't 3 at the time I would have seen the 1984 in the theatre. I remember the first time I watched the 1984 one with my pops, I was like damn that was scarey. He commented on how it was a remake, so I used my allowance to go and rent the original (it was redone in color) the monster looked like a carrot, I was laughing at him because he thought it was scarey when he was younger. :)
And she said it came out in 84, but it was 82. One of the women she interviewed also referred to agoraphobia as a fear of gore....
tjs50 1 day ago
The novel came out way before the 1982 movie
tjs50 1 day ago
I'd just after watching it... well it was not bad, idea how to recognize who is alien was quite smart
BUT I missed something, 82s movie made me want to throw up... well for me this one was too softcore, and there was few scenes where I rolled my eyes, so oh well, decent, but could be more grotesque
also I was afraid of bizarre CG usage, surprisingly it was not as flashy as I feared
taith2 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
THE THING wihtout Kurt Russel won't take the top spot and the acting was a bit dry but overall it was an OK movie. I appreciate the fact that they didn't re-make the John Carpenter movie and chose to do a prequel.
konman001 1 week ago
Comment removed
konman001 1 week ago
to all those idiots who call the thing prequel a CGI shit fest it wasn't, most of it was real, they just used CGI to touch it up a bit.
goratron1 1 week ago
I liked the prequel more than the than carpenters 1982 the thing.
goratron1 1 week ago
Ok DEAD SPACE COPIED THE THING YOU IDIOTS AND THE THING CAME OUT IN'82!
theInsaneCashew 1 week ago
when i saw this movie i thought it was a live action Dead Space movie
superjam18 3 weeks ago
this movie sucks, terrible acting.
KryptonPlayer 4 weeks ago
the title for the movie was perplexing. i assumed it was a remake of the john carpenter movie.
BRm2008 1 month ago
Loved the film...only wish there had been some coherent verbal give and take when the creature was in human form. Would have been interesting to get more insight about a sentient species capable of interplanatary flight.
Sparky1002 1 month ago
it was dumb...
karenciuxlowis 1 month ago
i didnt like themovi
karenciuxlowis 1 month ago
Movie was good. It coulda been a little better. more exploration of the ship in the beginning woulda been really cool. but the crew only had so much money and time to make the movie. overall a dscent movie!!!!!
Pacethemace9 1 month ago
@Alucardfanboy8745. Hey dracula the movie is not remake. it is a prequel idiot!
Pacethemace9 1 month ago
movie was ok better then fright night hands down.
matt11708 1 month ago
Besides, they laughed at the campiness if JC's special effects, and I really don't think they made it that way. When watching the new thing, I actually thought I was watching CGI when I was actually watching real life effects. Watch the documentary on the new version Blu-Ray and you'll see what I mean.
dadofducks 1 month ago
John Carpenters version of The Thing did not do well at the box office, only gaining the respect the movie deserved when it went to home video and eventually gaining cult classic as it should. Same people dogged this movie when it came out. I loved this version of The Thing as well. Grace rocks because she LOVES comics and movies. Keep up the great work Grace!
dadofducks 1 month ago
he keeps saying '84 lol
i enjoyed it, dude at least is a prequel not a remake like loads of stuff is being done these days -.-
Buxenwolf 1 month ago
worst movie ive seen in a while
bruizer1100 1 month ago
Bitch bye! Movie was the shit!
adrianspencex 1 month ago
The Thing wasn't a flop! It didn't make a lot of money but it still performed reasonably well.
AlucardFanboy8745 1 month ago
@AlucardFanboy8745
It didn't even make back the money it cost to make. Atleast Carpenter's did.
This one is a flop
snake2006 1 month ago
@snake2006 I mean't carpenters, the remake sucks.
AlucardFanboy8745 1 month ago
matched the original? I hope he was joking, this is much much worse and, although publicising itself as a prequel it's more like a remale.
SpaccaVagone 1 month ago
Bitch just review the movie.
penguinlord76 1 month ago
For a lady who does movie reviews she doesn't seem to know shit about movies.
Nragemachine 1 month ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
Want To See This Awesome Movie in Full? Go G0m0vie.got.to
yndunneho1979 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
G0SH! Ever Seen this this M0VIE IN HD now here at M0viem0vie.up.to Have a Seat and enjoy it!
helpsalokno1989 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
God, L00K what I just SAW! Justin Bieber Put his big C0CK in Selena G0MEZ here at Juztinber.got.to You should check it out!
sionenroti1982 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I watched Full HD Version of this Movie at M0viesReal.way.to
ercatiramb1986 2 months ago
"A novelization" (shows original 1938 novella the movie was based on)
TiniNormi 2 months ago
@TiniNormi ha I laughed at that and she doesn't even mention The Thing From Another World
tornadomaster96 2 months ago
2:18 bitch... did you just say 1984?
dustychildress96 2 months ago
Everyone who comments here is a bitch.
replyandyousuckballs 2 months ago
@mariano26788
Adaptation of Who Goes There
Johnlindsey289 2 months ago
@zippy2508
Have you forgotten the existence of the 1951 version The Thing from Another World?
Johnlindsey289 2 months ago
This movie was OK but Carpenters version still has it beat.
TheMarkster1957 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Check out my review of this movie.. and others..in Comment section of my Channel
fergusil2 2 months ago
i really loved this prequal.stays true to the original.just really enjoyed it.the effects were great.
hart2316 2 months ago
I thought this film was amazing! They really connected it with the first one, i really really liked it
JoeLadleyCoolDude 3 months ago
fuck this bitch.
ellhurst 3 months ago
BTW i have the 82 movie in my collection and this does complement it quite nicely, it would have been even better if they had made it longer and let the tension build a little between the crew but i have read the studio wanted it to move at a faster rate and cut out some bit's.
Undoubtedly they might well include these on the dvd.
shathriel 3 months ago
Love my horror movies and sci-fi and me and my mate's really enjoyed this :)
shathriel 3 months ago
lame prequel...
like "Nightmare on Elm Street" Remake, like "Friday 13th" Remake
the whole movie was just so uninspired. Even the effects...
it was not absolute crap, but srsly...its just again a senseless Remake.
or prequel in this case.
for the random audience, maybe ok to watch...but for Genre Fans or people who really like the tension, its not worth watching imo. not at the cinema at least....
4/10
trustice1 3 months ago
@trustice1 9/10 for me, thought they really thought out this prequel they connected with john carpenters classic and the story was just really good, i really dont what you saying, IT IS NOT A REMAKE IT IS A PREQUEL!!!
Tell me why you think it deserves a 4/10 coz you seem to make no sense?
JoeLadleyCoolDude 3 months ago
i think you are cute!! be my girlfriend? lol :)
daiatlus79 3 months ago
Great film, ... great prequal
feuerwassergeist 3 months ago
most of these people dont even realize that its a prequal.
MrNerdyBrit 3 months ago
The CGI thing was just laughable.
The film takes place in 1982 however there is nothing 80's about it.
Did they just have to bring the Americans in instead of keeping the cast all male, white, Norwegians?
The characters are one-dimensional and could care less who died next.
Major plot holes that just ruined it for me.
Feels too much like a copycat or new adaptation of the 1982 version rather than a prequel.
LordBrakensiek 3 months ago
the original was really good. i think, it's the fact that a black guy actually lived in the orginal, unlike the obvious new one.
plus, the cgi required no real input unlike the original, where the crew put time and work into making the creature look more realistic.
92680BOYD 3 months ago
@92680BOYD Ah but did he live or was he the Thing? That is what made the ending of Carpenter's film so great, we just didn't know - it leaves many questions unanswered and it worked better because of it. Their attempt to do this didn't work as well. You are bang on about the effects though. Not one moment in the new film made me jump as much as the hands through the chest scene in the original.
SPOILER
I did like the ending bit with the dog and the helicopter.
MrHarrylime79 3 months ago
@MrHarrylime79 I really love the ending on Carpenter's too! You just didnt know if the black guy was the thing or not hehe just built on tension, saying that i liked the ending on this prequel when the guy did not have an ear ring SPOILER *sorry, i really thought they made this film work and connected the story brilliantly. Why is everyone disliking the animation? I thought that it was amazing how realistic they made it! and they were really creepy and jumpy.
JoeLadleyCoolDude 3 months ago
Grace asks 'why hasn't anybody made a film about the race to the South Pole?' Well Grace they did, Scott of the Antarctic (1948)!
Sorry girl but I think I've watched your reviews for the last time.
agentfarnsworth 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Fuck off BITCH!
junkyturd 3 months ago
"30 years later an answer to a question that nobody asked" Speak for yourself you dumb blonde bitch.
Who the fuck let her out of the kitchen again?
GetInThaKitchen 3 months ago
@GetInThaKitchen the same on that let you out of middle-earth stupid Troll.,
LifterC3 3 months ago
You know one thing you should honestly know what you are talking about, im guessing all fan's of Horror movies. The Thing is a cult classic, i bet all your video's in your dvd collection are all chick flicks maybe you should stick to that
Fishfinley 3 months ago
Ahaha "30 years later an answer to a question nobody asked" Well if people didn't watch the movie they would have seen then dvd and asked themselves "what is that thing?"
Thunder213MMXI 3 months ago
1984 version are u fucking dumb its 82 u bumd blonde
jimdesbiens 3 months ago
Frank Capra's "It's a wonderful Life" was a flop to.
floatingcompassmedia 3 months ago
It wasn't terrible, but it was much too parallel in terms of events to the '82 version. Plus, the jump out scenes weren't nearly as creative as the Carpenter version. It was a fun little movie, but Carpenter deserves better.
TehVenezuelan 3 months ago
ign gave this 2 and a half listen to the fans or the people instead of bunch of nerds how cant reiview shit!
557011 4 months ago
@557011 amen
mandalorian9 3 months ago
spacecraft sight. It seemed like everything grew spider legs where as it was under used and intelligent in the carpenter version. And it just seemed like the new cgi 'thing' was best stoled from a silent hill video game. Too brightly lit, too predictable. No time is spent with the character development to warrant you concern for their welfare, in fact the only thing that terrified me throughout this whole train wreck was the fact I wasted two hours of my life that I can never get back.
mytommyland 4 months ago
I thought Carpenter's is STILL the best. This one just plain sucked. Tho Carpenter version was innovative and smart, this one was a CGI snooze-fest. There were so many inconsistencies for it to be a prequel. For a start, the norwegians never unearthed the top of the space ship like they were seen doing in the video documentary footage kurt's boys recovered from the sight, if mary elizabeth had died in the snow vehicle near the sight, how come we never saw that when Kurt and co went to the
mytommyland 4 months ago
hahahaha she said 1984, ah well ;P
spyrothedragon590 4 months ago
Many times my heart was pumping blood, i wish scary parts went faster.. =D
ihalloway 4 months ago
this white grl's fucking stupid just another dumb blond
hellaskinnyskin 4 months ago
this chick is absolutely pathetic...."the 84 version" ?....how humiliating !!....Carpenter's version failed in 1982 cuz people werent ready for a film that was so in your face...everyone wanted to see the friendly alien.....Carpenter's version is nothing short of brilliant and nobody in mordern horror cinema shares his vision...if you wanna see amazing horror film making...go to the video store or your netflix account...horror films today are as dead as disco....Carpenter rules forever !
sargeantdino 4 months ago
They better not kill anymore dogs i thought marley and me was bad.....But agreed you need to shut it porker 1982 was fuucking incredible.
sefsfsesefsefsefsefs 4 months ago
I've never felt comfortable with the question "on a scale of one to ten, how was this movie?" The reason is that on that scale too many people consider 7 to be average and this is probably because in school a C is called "average." 5 should be the average and you know why? Because it's in the god-damn middle people! Assuming 0 is the true low point. Sometimes I say 5 and people are like "what? Ah, so it sucked!" No ppl, if it sucked I woulda said 0,1 or 2.
SandBarAndYou 4 months ago
*joker comes up to the alien* "why so serious?" *kills it*
Mariuspersem 4 months ago
"a movie nobody saw in the first place"..the most stupid comment I ever heared..
alak58 4 months ago
Is that a dick she's holding? oh! its a mic.
Omnitrix8 4 months ago
i think these people thought you were from the makers so they were trying to be nice. the 2011 sucked ass. the original is king.
ronzilla3000 4 months ago
THe film was "NOT" a FLOP... E.T. came out around at the same time!! DUH figure it out the other film stole THe thing[s] Thunder!!!
titanictom307 4 months ago
@titanictom307 Yeah that damn E.T. stole The Thing's thunder in the 80's. All those kids would have loved The Thing but they had to choose - The Thing or E.T. lol
SandBarAndYou 4 months ago
comic book is real good, very faithful to the movie.
mahender6969 4 months ago
"...the original WHITEOUT"? You mean the oriiginal "The Thing From Another World"?
HorrorAdventures 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Please if you want make some good content search for more information about the subject....
eNeRatti 4 months ago
Rather See Paranormal Activity..lol..
Shaky903 4 months ago
@Shaky903 GTFO
Steven77769 4 months ago
Still haven't seen this yet
Anyone seen it?
Is it any good??
Thank! :)
AaronH9111 4 months ago
Thanks! great news, by the way! It sucks to wait for a movie with an appealing trailer only to discover was being a pile of crap. Can't wait to watch this one!
Black123Beard 4 months ago
A novelization? I thought the movie was BASED on the novella 'Who Goes There?'... Aaanywhoo...
DrGregoryHouseIT 4 months ago
Guys leave Grace alone, everyone makes mistakes and most of the time she's right on the money.
ItsMeFletcher 4 months ago
Just because she never heard of the '82 version doesn't mean nobody has heard of it. That was the best Sci fi movie I've ever seen.
MrMajorMinecraft 4 months ago
this bitch needs to shut up
Steampringles 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Very good. Go see it, it was worth it.
ven0IVI 4 months ago
The CGI is lame to be honest! and the first hour is fine! they start to build up some tension and paranoid situations BUT!!!!! then it falls apart into a monster in the dark/chase the humans movie!!??
Fender1976uk 4 months ago
Ummm..."Who Goes There" came out before "The Thing." It was what the film was based on. Please check your facts before doing a review; giving wrong information makes you less credible.
animeotaku307 4 months ago
@animeotaku307
Damn right and it was an awesome novel
Johnlindsey289 2 months ago
The critic's being needlessly disrespectful. She's not focusing on the films; she's just trying to be witty, but failing. I won't be checking out Beyond the Trailer again.
GrantsWatching 4 months ago
As soon as CGI was mentioned I lost interest. The original didn't have any in so why should this? oh that's right because it was made in 2011 and film makers can't make a Horror/Sci Fi film without computers, can they?
69crafty 4 months ago
its more of the same but different...lol
NikeThe 4 months ago
For some reason I don't think that you, nor any of the people you interviewed, accurately represent the fans of John Carpenter's 1982 version.
EngineerAdams 4 months ago 24
Well, despite all of this movie's supporters, it really wasn't that great of a movie in my opinion. There were a few jump scares here and there, but overall I didn't really find it to be very scary. Also, some of the special effects were crap and some things just looked stupid rather than scary. I give this movie a 7/10.
GODGuardianOfDeath 4 months ago
stop talking lady!!!!
xsbsp 4 months ago
MillerMUCKERS,rodzandz ,EGru Ur all correct hoo raa the only problem in the new one is its kinda rushed not much time for fuck u I think ur the thing yada yada but still good
MrTHEMONEEMAKER 4 months ago
saw the 81 version on skyv anytime n i loved it so hopefully this will be at least half as good.
maxbushballity 4 months ago
@maxbushballity will it was the early 80s version
maxbushballity 4 months ago
MillerMUCKERS,rodzandz ,EGru Ur all correct hoo raa
MrTHEMONEEMAKER 4 months ago
Hands down the 1982 version despite her saying 1984 hahaha was better, in original there was no finding of americans at Norwegian camp nor any mention or findings of such a thing plus they missed the Spectacular view of alien craft dug out not hidden in some crevace. But if one approaches this as a different version it's ok as a stand alone movie. Also because a movie didnt do well at box office doesnt make it a failure, Many so called failures became or were or was really good movies
EGru1 4 months ago
Hands down the 1982 version despite her saying 1984 hahaha was better, in original there was no finding of americans at Norwegian camp nor any mention or findings of such a thing plus they missed the Spectacular view of alien craft dug out not hidden in some crevace. But if one approaches this as a different version it's ok as a stand alone movie. Also because a movie didnt do well at box office doesnt make it a failure, Many so called failures became or are or was really good movies
EGru1 4 months ago
Hands down the 1982 version despite her saying 1984 hahaha was better, in original there was no finding of americans at Norwegian camp nor any mention or findings of such a thing plus they missed the Spectacular view of alien craft dug out not hidden in some crevace. But if one approaches this as a different version it's ok as a stand alone movie.
EGru1 4 months ago
2:27 Megaman
NewNickostudiosX 4 months ago
'82 not '84
NightfenceProduction 4 months ago 10
This movie has awful acting, the monster is lame, the special effects are terrible, the jump-out-of-your-seat scares are ridiculously predictable, the movie has no excitement(which is never good for a horror flick) and how they ended it is just blasphemy. What I'm really trying to say is:
THIS MOVIE SUCKS!!!!!!
dvdreview1 4 months ago
Funny how the special effects were better in the 1982 version than the CGI they use in movies today. Also the 1982 version was not campy, it was very serious.
dalmain77 4 months ago
@dalmain77
agree. The SPX were far scarier, more believable and realistic in the 1982 movie. The CGI in this prequel is already starting to look dated, and yes the 82 film was very serious, I thought the tone of this movie was lighter due to the fact that it was very buddy-buddy.
TheThingKing 3 months ago
this chick is retarded for trying to down play the popularity of the original remake of the thing lol i saw this last night and it was way better then i expected. it was really slow to start didnt like how the story progressed/unfolded it was like the leading lady had already read the book and saw the original. would have liked to seen more character be more involved in the story. i chalk those complains up to me just being too much of a fan of the 1st. an ok movie but a great addon for the fans
lxs07 4 months ago
is this girl a thing?
imtheduke 4 months ago
it took 30 years, because in the old one, you didnt NEED to see the origonal story. it was implied. and i liked that.
LookLoveShoot 4 months ago
Wow this ho-bag is annoying. A lot of people saw 1982 The Thing and we do care about it.
sebs30v 4 months ago
@sebs30v
I think the 1982 version did not do well in the box office, but it became a cult classic I guess you could call it afterwards. I'm a big fan of the 50's and 82 version.
dalmain77 4 months ago
i asw it last night, and i really liked it, was really good
thought the theater was half empty, still think people enjoyed it
333AndMan 4 months ago in playlist More videos from BeyondTheTrailer
@333AndMan
You saw it? Cool!
My main question is was the special effects any good?
Was there alot of CGI or was there alof of practical effects as well?
Also how was the story?
Thanks! :)
AaronH9111 4 months ago
@AaronH9111
to me the cgi was really good
and there wasent as much
the story i think was great, it fits into the old film perfectly
and your welcome :D
333AndMan 4 months ago
It's completely obvious this woman hasn't a clue about the THING films (any of them). That doesn't aide her #1 issue of being utterly annoying on top of it. She's put all 3 films together, has no clue what JCs version is or why it's a horror and sci-fi classic, and seems to be a low-grade graduate of the "entertainment tonight school of editorial ". Wow. Which inept fool thought she would be convincing on camera portraying a film critic?
JDHammondman 4 months ago
Why are they saying the 1984 version? Huh....? It was 1982....that lady seems as like a dumbass for mistaking the year of the Carpenter film.
Booshty2 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
strange..... it sounds as though (according to the girl in the review), the novel 'Who Goes There', was inspired by the great 1982 version of The Thing. Trouble is, 'Who goes There' was written in 1932!
JoeSzilagy 4 months ago
Comment removed
JoeSzilagy 4 months ago
fuck sake, why does every movie today have to have a dumbass american teen queen. this is an insult to the 82 masterpiece. fuck hollywood
warwick2155 4 months ago
very very ya
jeciiies3 4 months ago
I loved this movie. Really ties in great with John Carpenter's version. To answer an earlier question, the man near the radio committed suicide rather than taken over by the creature. BTW Grace, keep up the great work. I would go to the movies with you any day!
dadofducks 4 months ago
Grace!!! You gave away the ending! That's the ending of the movie, that's the twist its a prequel. My mom looked it up!
SillyGreenTopaz 4 months ago
Lars is a badass, nuff said.
WalrusWANTStaco 4 months ago in playlist More videos from BeyondTheTrailer
the movie is so discusting and ill never foget wat i saw it will be wierd 4 ever
angie2wow 4 months ago
Da Thang is doin it´s Thang again
SamyouALjaxon 4 months ago
The host is ignorant...and trying to be funny but does a horrible job..the video was good just a few things she was saying was foolish
BboyOcean0 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Fuck this fat bitch. Saying oh why would anyone make a prequel to a film nobody saw in the first place?? Obviously plenty of people saw it. Including many of the people she interviewed as well as people leaving comments on this page. Of all the movies being remade or revisited this definetly deserved it unlike many. So fuck you fat trout mouthed bitch Thumbs up people
NotEntertaining 4 months ago
Comment removed
NotEntertaining 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
If your planning out watching the movie stay after the credits for an extra scene, intro to the 82' the thing. Or go to this website to read about it.
gunsjy.blogspot.com/2011/10/thing-2011-ending-credits.html
vc2o6 4 months ago
THIS MOVIE WAS FKN RAD!
koolaid5684 4 months ago
Carpenter's The Thing is from '82 not '84 lady...
Get your facts checked!
BTW, 82's The Thing has a HUGE fan base and it's considered one of the best horror sci-fi movies of all time. So calling it "a movie nobody saw in the first place" just because YOU never heard of it, is pure stupidity.
rodzandz 4 months ago 42
@rodzandz I think she was refering to the original's box office performance. Obviously it's garnered a huge following since then and is much more polpular now than it's initial theatrical release. Lol I doubt she really think's nobody saw it.
Skoople88 4 months ago
@rodzandz Yeah seriously. The Thing from the 80's was freakin' awesome. Great special effects.
SandBarAndYou 4 months ago
@rodzandz theres a game even
ihalloway 4 months ago
@rodzandz She trying to give an unbias review you jackass...if anything we need more critics like her. Thats the main problem with critics now-a-days they are all so fanboyish for something.
cjcool91 4 months ago
Saw this today - SERIOUS continuity flaws between this one and the '84 version.
1) The Norwegian who chased down the sled dog at the beginning of '84 version didn't look like the guy who was supposed be the same person in new flick
2) '84 version showed video record from Norwegian camp of their expedition exposing alien craft to surface - new version shows attempted launch of craft responsible for exposure
3) New one doesn't even explain the throat-slitting suicide at Norwegian camp
LET-DOWN.
steveb0503 4 months ago
@cayetanoluis yeah, but it's true. watch one of her vids from august and its a big change for 2 months...
that said, my desire to bend her over a counter has not diminished in any way whatsoever.
thebearclawjones 4 months ago
I saw this with my boyfriend tuesday and i have to say i give the movie a 6/10. I have watched the 1982 version which was not to bad and actually pretty good.
hapibth0pel3ss 4 months ago
Apart from the average special effects, I thought the movie was great. The costumes and mood mimic "30 days of night", a great choice. No review talks about the chameleon that the lead actress is; she was the boob in deathproof, you immediately forget her baby face in the movie. I owned the VHS, then DVD, now blu ray of the 1982 The Thing and I will buy the Blu ray of this Thing when it comes out. Definetely an 8 on 10. Also, the pace of the movie is better than the 1982 one.
chris14091975 4 months ago
She says that no one saw the 80's film I disagree, she also says it was a flop...Blade Runner was poor at the box office but is a great film, Transformers did great at the box office but is a big turd ... A lot of us that grew up during the 80's ended up watching this a lot because after it was released the VCR was popular and most of us would have a few films in our libraries, to own a original tape was 50 - 70. bucks so we had copies from cable or another VCR. The Thing had a big following
zombietooth 4 months ago
Jesus. New content every week day? You are one hard working girl, Grace. ;D
IceFlower162 4 months ago
Sweety you're getting FAT, get some diet like before.
videotitan1 4 months ago
1:59
Usually interviewed opinions are a crapshoot, but this woman knows her stuff. Notice she knows this is the 3rd film, not the 2nd. Her opinion's credibility shot up by a factor of 100 when I heard that, and if she says it's good, I'm ready to go see it. :)
TheJediCharles 4 months ago
looking good with the glasses Grace!
Tylerd172 4 months ago
I thought the movie was great
djvelma 4 months ago
wow she has big boobs
MsDead90 4 months ago
I haven't seen this movie yet, but I saw Carpenters. I thought Carpenters characters were quite good. They had a little bit of humor at times and seemed to mesh... and of course, it had the diabedas man in it, William Brimley.
spaceydayz2 4 months ago
The movie is great entertainment. CGI was the best, the acting above average.
As for the plot...well its is a remake of the Kurt Russell flick sort of and we already know the good guys lost even before we paid for the ticket.
mrains100 4 months ago in playlist Season 1
Like always, another good film raped by a director, first it was Predator, now its The Thing, WHAT NEXT, RAPING JAWS, OR DRACULA
MegaSlashProductions 4 months ago
Thanks for reviewing this. Was fun to watch. :)
HorrorAdventures 4 months ago
The Carpenter movie was released in 1982, not 1984.
metfilmguy2009 4 months ago
Comment removed
MrThedude77777 4 months ago
Well for one I liked the original, it wasn't a novelization the 1982 is a remake from a different movie from I think the 50s ( I might be wrong) that was based on a novella titled Who goes there? Now this movie may not have been asked for but I think it might be a good homage.
MrThedude77777 4 months ago
:( Spoiler alert!
FullMetal000Alucard 4 months ago
The thing about this movie (besides an unnecessary prequel) is that the acting, story and directing are completely bland - and in some cases quite awful. The sense of dread and suspense of Carpenter's the Thing was completely missing. If you can overlook minor (or in some cases obvious) plot holes, this movie is at its best mindless escapism. You don't put this movie on a resume and expect to impress any future employers. Unless you want to be a B-movie director/actor for the rest of your life.
zev007 4 months ago
Gonna watch it just because of the Norwegian actors :P
lboy1193 4 months ago
Why does no one know that there was a version in 1951????!?!!?!
CharlesLaurita 4 months ago
@CharlesLaurita because the 1982 version was much better, its not like you made the 1951 movie, relax
MegamaXX500 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
the orginial 1982 movie was serious same with the prequel i give this movie this movie 10 stars out of 10
TheTwilightSagaSucks 4 months ago
The movie is not a remake but the prequel to the first film. This film was really great and it linked the two movies together perfectly.
imperialfist93 4 months ago
I was a little disappointed that the 2011 version had little to no character development, while the 1982 version had a bit humor and good character development.
MrGemini180 4 months ago
no one can top Snake Plissken.
I am going to go see this in the theatre, if I wasn't 3 at the time I would have seen the 1984 in the theatre. I remember the first time I watched the 1984 one with my pops, I was like damn that was scarey. He commented on how it was a remake, so I used my allowance to go and rent the original (it was redone in color) the monster looked like a carrot, I was laughing at him because he thought it was scarey when he was younger. :)
Aristophile 4 months ago
Acting sucked. Characters sucked. Dialogue sucked. Story sucked. Movie in general sucked. Still had a good time. :)
CecenaGuy 4 months ago
The Thing was really good. Big upz to the film and cast\crew.
Themadbomber187 4 months ago
Hi there movie buff. Look up nazi, neushwabenland, and camp X, oss,CIA .
Norway spiral and that's the TRUE untold premise for this movie. Believe it, or suffer.
noodlesmealey 4 months ago