Watch The Thing For Free

Excellent, Without a doubt!!

Don't listen to the negative reviews

There's no way I can possibly love it entirely but I just think its ridiculously bad, but enjoyable at the same time.

The movie's neither hopeful in contrived ways, nor hopeless in different contrived ways. Somehow it manages to be wonderful

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.

It didn't take me long to figure out that this was supposed to be a prequel, that's the good part...But I am very disappointed in the presentation. First of all, why make this movie 29 years after the classic John Carpenter excursion into science fiction horror ? Second, why make it at all, if you aren't going to spend some money on it, and at least attempt to make it interesting ???Frankly, this "prequel" is dull, boring, and missing the fears and tensions that made the classic so captivating...the alien monster is almost laughable, with too many static shots, and drawn out scenes that simply don't get the adrenalin levels going. the cgi is very low key, amateurish really...To me, this is a prime example of the motivation in the film industry lately...throw something together, and hope for some money to tart rolling in...

This is a very effective, suspenseful, freaky, scary horror movie. I was really blown away by it and am going to watch it again, tomorrow night. There are some eye-popping scenes in it. The movie makers made a HUGE mistake in calling it 'The Thing' which led everyone to believe it was a remake of John Carpenter's 1982 movie. It's NOT. It's a prequel and it would work very well as a 'The Thing' binge showing the movies in tandem. The plot differs enough from Carpenter's that it could've been called any numbers of 'things' and had it's own identity. I'm sure executives were involved in the naming because they can't seem to get enough of shoving remakes down our throats even though audiences have had to endure more than enough of them. This movie had my attention from start to finish and it's one of the stronger horror outings of the new millennium. The acting is all very good and the film captures the air of total paranoia and mistrust. Mary Kate Winstead did a standout job. The creature effects and blended CGI works more often than it doesn't. The movie is also well directed, doesn't rely on many jump scares and keeps you engaged and wondering what's going on and how it will all play out. I refused to even watch this movie for years because the title led me to believe it was remake and by definition would suck. It doesn't and if you want a good scare, check it out.

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.