Escape to the Movies: The Thing

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT
 

188 days that can't go fast enough! It's the only movie I'm looking forward to...
Not a big surprise this wasn't any good, but as last week showed us there's always hope. Oh well, now that's gone too.

Thank you Bob for proving my suspicions now I'm off to look up times for my local cinema as they are showing Ghostbusters.

Also did anyone think the idea of a remake disguised as a prequel as kind of ironic given the monsters ability to mimic other things?

Since it's a prequel--and if you're familiar with the opening of the original The Thing--doesn't that mean that you should know that everyone is going to be toast by the end of the movie? I thought the two guys in the helicopter in the opening of the original where the only two survivors, and they lasted all of five minutes.

ChildofGallifrey:
Now I'm confused. A friend of mine, who is a filmmaking student, said it was f'ing awesome. I tend to agree with Bob almost every time though, so I'm going to pass on this one.

So...your friend said it was awesome.

Moviebob said it sucked.

What do YOU say?

Soviet Heavy:

Stall:
Carpenter's The Thing really doesn't really rank up there for "memorable character". And if you didn't know Wilford Brimley was going to be the "face on the final boss fight," then you need to have your brain checked. Carpenter's The Thing is not really "classical" material: it's a cult film. Last time I checked, those two concepts are radically different.

So I fail to see how you can complain about these things int he remake if not even the original got them right, unless you are so blinded by nostalgia, and bitterly cynical about Hollywood to the point where it obscures your obligations as a critic.

Oh wait, this is MovieBob we're talking about. Of COURSE he can't do a proper job because he's too blinded by nostalgia and bitterly cynical about Hollywood! Silly me... expecting a critic to actually be critical instead of just complaining about how it's Hollywood being Hollywood and that it's not original!

Once again, MovieBob really cements himself as being one of the worst contributors on this site.

How about this then? Compare any of the CGI from the new Thing film, with this shot.

I see your dog transformation and raise you one head crab...spider....thing:

Seriously though, what a fuckin film eh? I had the good pleasure of seeing it on a proper movie screen just a couple of weeks ago at a small cinema that shows all the old movies.

I was going to watch it BUT not anymore.

This is what happens when studios reply too heavily on CG to save their poorly written/ill cast film.

I used to watch the first 2 movies back 2 back and I ALWAYS found the 82 version to be more of a sequel of the first.

***BTW***

The 1951 movie had a girl in it for pretty much the same reason this one did.

I remember first hearing about "The Thing" from, you guessed it, James Rolfe. It wasn't a a Monster Madness, though, it was a special "Alien Invaders" series of reviews, talking about classic Alien Invader movies and their remakes. He went over how he loved the original movie, and how he also enjoyed the remake, but ponders why they were remaking it AGAIN! Well, now that it's finally out, maybe he'll comment on it...

Here's where you can watch the review, you he goes over "The Day the Earth Stood Still" first:

http://cinemassacre.com/2009/01/19/alien-invaders-part-1/

Also, I STILL haven't seen the new Avengers trailer yet. Silly me.

I haven't seen the movie yet, but it's too bad it doesn't sound any good. With the current set of drek coming out from Hollywood though, I can't say I'm surprised.

The worst part has to be it being predictable. While bad enough by itself in a horror movie, for a film like the Thing; one that is supposed to thrive on distrust, paranoia and the fear of the unknown, it pretty much amounts to a Cardinal sin and betrayal of the previous film.

Sabrestar:
Sorry, Bob, but as far as I'm concerned there will only ever be one The Thing. And it was played by James Arness. I don't mind the love for Carpenter, but I just don't care for that sort of horror. The (real) original was not horror so much as suspense, which is probably why I prefer it. Still, I know I'm in a minority and I don't begrudge anyone their love of Carpenter's movie. Just don't ask me to sit down and watch it with you.

All the same, I'm glad to hear this one isn't good. No harm meant to those involved in it, but I didn't see a reason for it to be made and didn't want it to be successful. I hope they go on to better things than this.

Seriously? I LOVE, I mean I LOVE classic sci-fi and horror movies. But the one thing that is lacking from the original is any sense of danger, any sense that they weren't going to get through in the end. Such was the way of Hollywood at the time. And it is definitely not the material, as there were plenty of horror/sci-fi stories of that era with not so "hollywood" endings(I am Legend(the original book) is a prime example).

The absolute best thing about the 1982 version is the suspense. The buildup, accentuated by some VERY disturbing imagery. It is a prime example of exceptional film making. The score, effects, acting(Keith David is excellent) and most of all directing. It builds on a sense of isolation right up until the very end.

Bob is generally hit or miss with these types of movies, his opinions are far too colored by what can only be described as "kid who got lots of wedgies" syndrome, but I will probably wait for this one to hit DVD.

There is one major problem with reviewing this movie: the 1982 version kicked ass in astronomical proportions,so any follow up movie would have to be equally,or even more awesome.

It's like Star Wars,the prequels,if taken indepedently aren't bad(save for a few parts.I'm looking at you Jar Jar),but compared to the original trilogy,they just don't hold up.Sure there's CGI and cool fight scenes,but as much as they tried,Yoda flipping around at shit exploding left and right just doesn't match up to the epic lightsaber fight at the end of Return of the Jedi.

Damn our high expectations!

Before watching: "pleasebegoodpleasebegoodpleasebegoodpleasebegoodpleasebegoodpleasebegood"
After: "Fuck"

Sniper Team 4:
Since it's a prequel--and if you're familiar with the opening of the original The Thing--doesn't that mean that you should know that everyone is going to be toast by the end of the movie? I thought the two guys in the helicopter in the opening of the original where the only two survivors, and they lasted all of five minutes.

yeah i'm surprised in the review he states that there are survivors when you know from the 82 that there wasn't any. I'm wondering if they come up with some bs way to keep winestead's character vertical.

MovieBob:

...At first, it seems to be setting up the interesting addition of gender and/or cultural biases becoming part of the equation and people's suspicions of who may or may not be the Thing, but that never materializes and you begin to suspect...the only reason for her and one random character to be female is because someone uttered the dreaded "Sausagefest" at a story meeting.

Actually, from what I've read from the 1982 The Thing(If IMDB's Trivia Page is more reliable than Wikipedia), the script originally had a woman, but she ended up getting pregnant and was replaced with another male. If anything, the director's trying to copy the original script as closely as possible. However, in this day and age, the "Sausagefest" makes about as much sense.

OT: What a shame, just because I maybe held out a sliver of hope that it might have been good. Oh well, I still have the original on VHS, can't be too bad to check out. Good Review, Moviebob.

... I will watched it anyway, my biggest problem with MovieBob is that when I disagree with him I REALLY disagree with him.
Since I love the Carpenter's remake, I will watch and hope that it's good or not was bad was MovieBob seens to believe.

Oh, look. Moviebob hates yet another movie that I found to be pretty damn good. How about if you want to see a movie go and see it instead of letting some cynical, self-entitled "critic" tell you not to..

TokenRupee:

MatParker116:
A similar reason is why Sean Bean ended up in the Silent Hill film.

Because his parts were the only well-acted or good bits in the movie?

I may see this. Didn't think it would be as good as The Thing to begin with.

Original script had no male parts, someone said something, BEAN>

A good point about how CGI has been such a bad thing for some film makers. With all that time building a monster and finding just the right spot to film it from so you can't see things like pumps or a puppeteer special effects shots were more finely crafted things.

If remakes, prequels, and the like were actually well crafted things either making up for the limits of special effects at the time of the original or skillfully crafting a story into the modern age I wouldn't mind them. Sadly too many films like a money grab to bank on a name and to market at teens who will not watch a film over 5 years old.

CGI just doesn't bring the holy wtf shit factor practical effects bring. Especially if the CGI is done bad.

That "head-spider" still freaks me out. The Thing (1982) is one of the best horror movies to date.

DJDarque:
Oh, look. Moviebob hates yet another movie that I found to be pretty damn good. How about if you want to see a movie go and see it instead of letting some cynical, self-entitled "critic" tell you not to..

I can't be the only person who sees the hilarity of putting critic in inverted commas.

Kind of like saying, "well that's just your 'opinion'."

What a surprise, Bob didn't like it. Who'd a thunk?

I adore the original and that's enough to make me go and watch this, even if it's nothing but a revisiting of the same thing.

I really wanted this movie to be good. Maybe I was way off base when I thought that it could be to The thing what aliens was to alien.

why does everyone give such a fuck as to what mbob says, if you wanted to go watch it then fucking watch it and make up your own minds. Honestly some of these comments have been just stupid, things like, wow. bob just saved me some money, or lucky, cause i was gonna watch this one... seriously.

The moment when Thor laughs... makes me super confident I'll LOOOVE this movie :D
And no, you can NEVER see this trailer too often!!! Good plug, Bob!!!

Falseprophet:
"Sausagefest". The interesting thing about the 1982 Carpenter version is precisely that it is a sausagefest. Most horror films throw in at least one or two female characters so they can be the ones to panic and scream at the monster.

That, or their job was to have sex with one of the male leads then die a horrible horrible death so said male has a revenge excuse.

It's not a remake, it's a prequel. Derp a derp

so dumb to even try to prequel one of the greatest genre movies ever made. Carpenter is still alive, at least they could have had him involved.
I watch the 1982 classic at least once a year & still love it. Having this crap tacked on to the cannon is disappointing.

Oh, Hollywood... why are you so Hollywood?

they couldn't remake the the Carpenter classic if they tried, at least they couldn't make it better in any way. Testament to the talent of the Director, cast & crew involved.

The Avengers trailer gave me a massive erection.

Gee, let me act surprised that a remake of one of my favorite movies ever was a complete and utter clusterfuck. Oh, right, I don't have to, since I saw it coming miles away.

MatParker116:
A similar reason is why Sean Bean ended up in the Silent Hill film.

Which was an equally awful idea.

Tom Templeton:
Anyone know where to get 'The thing from another world'? I've looked everywhere for a copy

PLEASE don't spend money on the 1950s film. Reasons:

Firstly, forget the "whodunnit" nature of Carpenter's film. The 1950s film is a monster movie, pure and simple. The tension is, I think, supposed to come from the dispute between the scientists who want to study the monster, and the soldiers who want to kill it. Trouble is that...

Secondly, everyone pays lip service to how dangerous the monster is, yet when it's not around they don't seem to be scared of it, and the film never actually shows us any real threat to humankind from this lumbering thing. Yeah, it looks kinda impressive, but they don't even bother to explain why it looks vaguely human-shaped. Erm... guys... this one doesn't imitate anything, it's a MONSTER. Care to make it look like something... anything... other than a guy in a freakin' suit? Give it some claws, or a beak? Anything?

Thirdly, the token female character. One of the most annoying token females in the history of film. I'm not exaggerating. She does nothing to advance the plot. She has no character arc of any sort. She cleans, cooks, and acts as the love interest of the male lead character (none of the other men show any interest in her despite the fact that none of them have had any sex for three damn months.) About a quarter of this film is spend on her and her pointless, lustless romance with the main guy.

So... it's not tense. It's not scary. The monster is never a credible threat to humanity, although it does look kinda cool in one or two scenes. The characters are forgettable. The main conflict in the film, that between scientist and soldier, goes nowhere. An inordinate amount of time is spent on the sole female character despite the fact that she somehow manages to be even less interesting than most of the rest.

In short... film's a dud. Catch it on late-night TV sometime, then forget about it.

Stall:
Carpenter's The Thing really doesn't really rank up there for "memorable character". And if you didn't know Wilford Brimley was going to be the "face on the final boss fight," then you need to have your brain checked. Carpenter's The Thing is not really "classical" material: it's a cult film. Last time I checked, those two concepts are radically different.

So I fail to see how you can complain about these things int he remake if not even the original got them right, unless you are so blinded by nostalgia, and bitterly cynical about Hollywood to the point where it obscures your obligations as a critic.

Oh wait, this is MovieBob we're talking about. Of COURSE he can't do a proper job because he's too blinded by nostalgia and bitterly cynical about Hollywood! Silly me... expecting a critic to actually be critical instead of just complaining about how it's Hollywood being Hollywood and that it's not original!

Once again, MovieBob really cements himself as being one of the worst contributors on this site.

Utter BS,
Carpenter's The Thing, 1982. is a Classic. No doubt about it. & a tightly made, ensemble cast, independent work of Genius. Look at the wiki on the film, look at the people involved. It's an enduring film that still stands up right from the opening scenes with ominous sounds from Ennio Morricone, to the excellent special effects, acting, script, photography, set design & direction.
It's a film that most people have seen & remember & keep in mind this is a genre 'Monster' movie & a type of remake in itself of a 1951 Howard Hawks Film. Quite remarkable really, without doubt one of my favorite films of all time & without doubt a film deserving the 'Classic' designation, unarguably way more than just another 'Cult Classic'. Cult Classic is for films like 'Pink Flamingos' or 'Plan9 from Outer Space' or 'Faster Pussycat Kill Kill Kill' or any number of other great movies with limited appeal.

No NO No NO NO No No No NO I will not ever watch any other version than the 1982 version...ever!

P.s Kurt Russell was awsome in that movie.

Stall:
Carpenter's The Thing really doesn't really rank up there for "memorable character". And if you didn't know Wilford Brimley was going to be the "face on the final boss fight," then you need to have your brain checked. Carpenter's The Thing is not really "classical" material: it's a cult film. Last time I checked, those two concepts are radically different.

So I fail to see how you can complain about these things int he remake if not even the original got them right, unless you are so blinded by nostalgia, and bitterly cynical about Hollywood to the point where it obscures your obligations as a critic.

Oh wait, this is MovieBob we're talking about. Of COURSE he can't do a proper job because he's too blinded by nostalgia and bitterly cynical about Hollywood! Silly me... expecting a critic to actually be critical instead of just complaining about how it's Hollywood being Hollywood and that it's not original!

Once again, MovieBob really cements himself as being one of the worst contributors on this site.

Last time I checked, there is something called a "cult classic". A film that does poor box office, is different, but has a rabid following. Blade Runner, The Thing, 2001, Scott Pilgrim, Office Space, any midnight movie, basically any genre film that's highly revered. Many of these films are considered a classic because of how they've spread through all of culture.

I hope your incorrect Bob as I really want enjoy the new Thing movie which ill see tonight. I will cling to my hope that this is just our difference in taste.

For example your very review had me pipped to watch Captain America to only walk out disappointed. It was a family flick, pg sort of film where the "bad guy" who is too evil for Hitler was just a cheesy villain worthy of a morning cartoon. That film was probably got a bias review because of your love of comics and nostalgia.

So far my search for of reviews suggests critics are not fans of the prequel but the general public are. Considering there are more general people than critics I suspect its made for us. Though I really hope the CGI is too obvious :(

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here