Apparently by reading the comments here and on the 1982 version, not many know the original movie was actually The Thing from Another World 1951. All being based on the 1938 book Who Goes There?.

A fun worthy prequel...I would be down to see a 3rd film too... Both films are better than most of the dribble Hollywood flicks at us

Not bad but definitely not as good as John Carpenter's 80ies horror classic of the same name. Its more of a action sci/fi movie with some scary moments than a proper horror flick. The SFX and acting is mostly good and the story's pace quite nice. However I never fully emerged into the flick, it just didn't grip me as Carpenter's did!

Unfairly maligned. I have no trouble recommending this to anyone who hasn't seen either of The Thing movies. This is a prequel, so if you haven't seen either film, watch this first and then the original. The original is better so watching it last makes sense. If you have seen the original, this one fleshes out some of the beginning very nicely. As sequels go, this one is great compared to something like the Matrix sequels.

enjoyable one but little off & lacked alot of things

For the first 30, this wasn't the worst. Then the CGI and terrible decisions kicked off and it was allllll downhill from there. Soooo many missed opportunities here.

Ok movie that could have been so much more memorable and have a cult following if they didn't switch awesome animatronics and practical effects for some ok CGI. It really bums me knowing they were heading in a good direction with really believable horror practical effects and puppeteering, and they just wanted to go with the CGI... it doesn't look as good, and the uncanny valley is unavoidable, you don't feel the horror.

The creature is very scary in the sense of that it can copy a human and that anyone could be 'it'. I think they went a little overboard with how this creature looks halfway through the movie. They wanted to make it scary, I get that but it's a bit much. I think it could've been equally as scary with a little less of the dramatics.

Cast, okay. Plot, okay. It's just an okay movie. Not the best and not the worst. It's a nice movie to watch on one of those evenings that your bored and need something to pass the time.

Everyone knows that remaking classic or genre defining films is going to be a let down for many people. The original was amazing because of the use of suspense and claustrophobia as much as FX. I'm a big fan of the original and bearing in mind it's 30 years old the FX are superb and the lack of CGI gives an almost more honest believable feel. That said, if you took this film on its own merits its by no means a turkey. It's a shame many of the scenes from the original are repeated because it didn't really have to be a remake and would have fared much better as a genuine prequel.

I thought it was really good, a deserving prequel to the 1982 john carpenter movie.

Much better than expected. Good action and surprisingly good special effects. Not very realistic in the sense that Kristoper Hivju could have taken that thing down no problem!

CGI WILL NEVER EVER BE AS GOOD AS PRACTICAL EFFECTS AND NEVER WILL BE A SUITIBLE REPLACEMENT.

"CHANGE MY MIND"

The movies plays it a bit too safe by having a bit too much in common with John Carpenter's "The Thing" and by being a bit too predictable if you know where the film is headed (it's a prequel.) The digital effects are also a bit much, for example the thing can transform in ways less believable than John Carpenter's film and it made me wonder had they went with practical effects would it have seemed a little more believable and cohesive.

Overall I enjoyed the film but it definitely felt like a fan-service, and even though John Carpenter's "The Thing" is my favorite movie this film felt a bit too safe and by the numbers.

COULD HAVE BEEN A 10/10 LIKE THE 82 THING, BUT SADLY COMES IN AT A 9/10
THE DODGY CGI AND WAY OVER USE OF IT AND NOT ENOUGH MESS AND PROPS BRINGS THE SCORE DOWN ALSO WHAT THE HELLA DID THE THING SWALLOW BEFORE CRASHING, A GIANT BUG, INSECT, BEETLE ARE SUMAT
NO...JUST...NO IT'S LIKE THEY JUST RAN OUT OF IDEA'S, TOTAL LACK OF IMAGINATION,
SO WILL JUST MAKE A MORE BUG THAN OWT.
NOW THAT'S JUST LAZY WRITING. MORE SLOP AND TENTACLES PLEASE. APART FROM THAT THEY TIED IT IN NICELY, SHOWED US HOW THING GOT THE WAY THEY WHERE WHEN OUR KURT
TURNS UP AND DID A GOOD JOB OF NOT PISSING ALL OVER THE ORIGINAL, LIKE SO MANY DO. PLUS IT FOOLED ME TILL THE VERY END IT WAS A PREQUEL, NOT A REMAKE ARE SEQUEL, THEY ACHIEVED THAT WITH THE MARKETING ASWEL, MISGUIDING US THAT WAY. CLEVER VERY CLEVER
SO KUDOS FOR THEM FOR THAT. THERE'S MORE RIGHT THAN WRONG WITH IT, AND FOR THAT IT JUST MISSED OUT ON A PERFECT SCORE.
LOVED HOW BOTH MOVIE'S HAD THERE OWN UNIQUE WAY OF DETECTING WHO'S HUMAN AND WHO'S NOT.

>"We isolate it and then we kill it."

I can see why people were upset about this movie, but I actually enjoyed it. Would I rather practical effects over CGI? Absolutely. In fact, thats the only thing that took me out of the movie a few times, but overall I think this is a serviceable prequel.

Edit: Apparently the writer said they were going to do practical effects and no CGI, and then the studio came in and said add CGI and more alien scenes. Bummer.