In mostly unrelated news, Mary Elizabeth Winstead is still gorgeous. Oh yes and woo for Avengers!
Escape to the Movies: The Thing
- Thread starter MovieBob
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I often disagree with Bob's opinions (e.g. liked Robin Hood and Green Lantern, disliked Prince of Persia, just plain laughed at the Planet of the Apes film), but I'll take it into consideration nonetheless - when I rent the movie a few months down the line. I can't watch horror flics in the theatre, the tension drives me crazy.
Anyway, did the 1982 version really need a remake? About a year ago I watched it for the very first time, and in my opinion today's special effects and CGI can't produce anything remotely as scary as the kind of body horror displayed in that movie.
Anyway, did the 1982 version really need a remake? About a year ago I watched it for the very first time, and in my opinion today's special effects and CGI can't produce anything remotely as scary as the kind of body horror displayed in that movie.
No surprise here, unfortunately.
If there was some way I could start an elite strike team to stop the remake machine forever, I doubt I would have a hard time finding recruits. Seriously, if we could take that fucker out, it would be a massive victory for creativity everywhere...
Fuck you. Juan Carlos Fresnadillo.
If there was some way I could start an elite strike team to stop the remake machine forever, I doubt I would have a hard time finding recruits. Seriously, if we could take that fucker out, it would be a massive victory for creativity everywhere...
Fuck you. Juan Carlos Fresnadillo.
Yeah, The Thing provided some of the most horrifying scenes I've seen in a horror film.Sonicron said:
Especially that whole defibrillator scene where the dude's chest eats the doctor's hands...then that head thing crawls away. Just...holy crap.
You'd have to hit it from orbit. Only way to be sure.Harry Mason said:
/oblig
For those of you who haven't seen the original, see it. It's really well done and stretches the tension out in a way that few horror movies tend to do. In addition, it's a fascinating time capsule of what frightened America at the time. I'm not suggesting it's political by any means, just that it's an interesting way peer into the psyche of a culture.
Also, the ending is fantastic. Even scary movies don't do that much anymore.
How about this then? Compare any of the CGI from the new Thing film, with this shot.Stall said:
I'd like to note... by the way...
Damn you Robert Downey Jr! You're such an asshole!
I didn't want to care about the Avengers because I don't like Marvel... but then you come along, being all witty, and charming... and now I kinda want to watch your movie...
I enjoyed the Ironman movies so much, because I could watch it and pretend the rest of the Marvel universe didn't exist, so long as if I left before the credits were over.
Angry!
Damn you Robert Downey Jr! You're such an asshole!
I didn't want to care about the Avengers because I don't like Marvel... but then you come along, being all witty, and charming... and now I kinda want to watch your movie...
I enjoyed the Ironman movies so much, because I could watch it and pretend the rest of the Marvel universe didn't exist, so long as if I left before the credits were over.
Angry!
"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. Here you have a bunch of hardened men, the kind assigned to harsh conditions for months at a time, losing their shit. A very unique dynamic you just don't see in other horror films. (The closest is that other great 80s horror sci-fi film, James Cameron's Aliens, where the female characters keep their heads on even while scared out of their minds, and if there's any useless panicking it's among the male characters.)
And sure, with today's knowledge of movie tropes you can predict the ending of Carpenter's "The Thing". Not so easy back in 1982 when it was inventing or establishing some of those very same tropes.
Dude! Spoiler tags for the unintiated!Stall said:
And sure, with today's knowledge of movie tropes you can predict the ending of Carpenter's "The Thing". Not so easy back in 1982 when it was inventing or establishing some of those very same tropes.
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.
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.
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?
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.
I see your dog transformation and raise you one head crab...spider....thing:Soviet Heavy said:
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 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.
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.
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.
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).Sabrestar said:
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!
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!