I loved it. I thought it was great how they made the ending the start of the 1982 movie.
Good acting - yes CGI, but I thought it was good CGI.
Yes, the prequel an enjoyable film. But yet I am still confused why it's hated so much.
It's superb brother.
Look at this board and you'll soon see why it gets hate;
1. It's a 'remake' of a beloved 'original' (in truth it's a prequel to a remake). People had already decided they were against this movie before they even saw it. They saw it as an competitor to the John Carpenter movie. This happens to most remakes/sequels, unfairly bashed by overreactive fans who feel threatened.
2. It's became a whipping boy in the practical vs CGI debate. That's one of the only criticisms people can name. It's tiring. These same dorks will tell you that The Thing (1982) has the best effects EVER, then will slam this movie as a no good piece of shit because it's effects aren't as good as the literal best in movie history.
3. It has yucky girls in it. The Thing (1982) has some really weird fans who hate women. The fact that this is the second most common criticism they have of this movie says it all.
Conclusion: If your criticisms of a movie are it has CGI and women in it then it sounds like a great movie that you're grasping at straws for reasons to hate.
This movie is as good as the 1982 version. Don't let the 'old movies good, new movies bad' crew hear this though. They'll hit the ceiling.
This movie is not terrible. Compared to the remakes that were coming out during that era, especially stuff made by Platinum Dunes, this one is actually pretty good and towards the top of that crop. Its biggest issue is that it is asking to be compared to one of the greatest films of all time and it simply cant compete.
Carpenter is a million times a better director than Matias Van Heineken. The 1982's atmosphere, musical score, pacing, editing, etc all blow the 2011's efforts out of the water. The cinematography of the 82 film still looks breathtaking, compared to this shakycam mess where it looks like it was shot by Michael J Fox. Also, the continuity is atrocious. Why does the thing just attack people at random when it's very calm and calculated in the 82 film? How did the dog scale and entire mountain range in the span of 5 minutes? Not to mention; very bad CGI in some parts (the helicopter split-face was SyFy channel levels of awful), while the practical effects from 1982 still look excellent even 40 years later.
It's a solid 6/10. Not bad on its own. But it fails as a companion piece to the 82 film, which is basically how the filmmakers are begging you to view it.