Escape to the Movies: The Thing
- Thread starter MovieBob
- Start date
PLEASE don't spend money on the 1950s film. Reasons:Tom Templeton said:
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.
Utter BS,Stall said:
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.
P.s Kurt Russell was awsome in that movie.
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.Stall said:
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
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
If you look closely you will see my hopes about the film flying out the window :\ (either that or Sax guy humping his sax but hey!) Its a damn shame they screwed this movie up so bad. As a huge fan of the original, I still might give it a try but I imagine myself feeling very very dissapointed after.
But they could have done a sequel! Am I the first to bring up the video game on a video game website? Sure the story wasn't great but the ending is fantastic if its cannon. "YAY IM SAVED, but the world is fucked though cause I r contagious with alien goo. Well time to give hugs to friends an family back at home." But I guess they used that ending in other movies. Still a good ending.Kenbo Slice said:
Yea I don't take his opinion seriously. I like pirates and I like transformers. He hated those. But it was good to know about the CGI, that is something that make me leery about this movie. My theory is movie critics are paid by the film industry to keep expectations low so that people are pleasantly surprised.Chezza said: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
Being a big fan of The Thing (and not the James Arness one - sorry, but Vegetable Frankenstein does nothing for me), I completely agree with you, Bob. When I looked at the trailer for this movie, I screamed out, "This is a remake masking as a prequel." From the other reviews I've read, I'm right. A remake-prequel where they replaced practical effects with CGI. I knew that was a mistake from the get-go.
I wouldn't mind more movies in the Thing universe (there is such a thing as creativity, not that Hollywood believes it), but not if this is the kind of thing we get to look forward to.
I wouldn't mind more movies in the Thing universe (there is such a thing as creativity, not that Hollywood believes it), but not if this is the kind of thing we get to look forward to.
Thanks for reminding me that I don't have my ps2 anymore so I can't play the game again!! *runs off crying*mcnally86 said:
Have an X-box? Pawn shops have em cheap and x-boxes don't die. Really the story was rubbish but it was an awesome game. For anyone who didn't play the game but liked the movies go play it. It is exactly how they are. You can execute people who you suspect of being an alien and if they don't mutate all the other survivors may think you fell off the deep end and try to kill you before you kill them. Not only are there loyalty levels there are sanity levels and if you have your party follow you into a room with lots of blood/bodies in it they may start firing wildly at the walls screaming "something moved in that corner" if you leave em in their too long. On the other hand if you tell them to wait outside while you search the room the AI's might have a group meeting and decide when you come back to them that you were out of sight too long and now you could be the thing. The scariest moments of the game are when you know 1-2 of your buddies are infected but you have to act cool because you need someone on your side (even if they are pretending) or your all alone. Just don't forget and let your guard down!Kenbo Slice said:
Okay, so the only thing I remember from this review was Captain America saying to Tony Stark, "Big man in a suit of armor. Take that away and what are you?" With Tony replying, "Genius. Billionaire. Playboy. Philanthropist." I love Robert Downey Jr. It seems Thor does, too.
Did something else happen?
Think I'm gonna find that trailer, now.
Did something else happen?
Think I'm gonna find that trailer, now.
The most tragic thing about the remake is how, when I first saw the trailer, a tiny part of me was hoping that it somehow could be At the Mountains of Madness being resurrected. Damn Hollywood for cancelling a potentially great horror film in an Antarctic setting, while allowing a half-done remake of a horror film in an Antarctic setting live.
Nostalgia or not, the new Thing just isn't very good. What made the 1982 version enjoyable was the intense sense of suspicion and paranoia that it evoked. No one could properly trust anyone else because any one of them could be a monster in disguise. Even the main character wasn't above suspicion. The monster "jumping out" was used to show the horror of what these characters were up against and release the audiences' tension so they could build it up again.
This new version completely forgets why its predecessor became such an enduring film. Except for about 25 minutes in the middle when it remembers WHY the original was scary, the new film settles for jump scare after jump scare after mother-bleeding jump scare. That is what the horror boils down to, and they even cheat at that because human physiology is, to certain extent, hard-wired to react suddenly to sounds over a certain decibel. Which explains why this film is LOUD. OVERLY LOUD. HEADACHE INDUCING, BRAIN SPLITTING LOUDNESSS. Its a forced reaction with absolutely no substance to it. Near the end I just plugged my ears and thus negated any shock factor the film had left.
Also, while the 1982 film lingered with disturbing glee over the grotesque transformations the creature takes on, the new film can barely keep the monster in frame for more than a split second. Only one of its creature designs of ungodly human-morphing abomination is even interesting to look at (SPOILER: and the only reason this is the case is because this transformation was technically designed in 1982), but the film keeps it hidden in low light and half shadow. This is mostly, as Bob pointed out, due to the CGI special effects being terrible. I'd go so far to call them insipid. Dull, lifeless, uninteresting.
I could go on to say how the plot crumbles to pieces in the 3rd act, or that the characters are all stand-ins for the exact same characters in the 1982 film (the two American male characters even LOOK like actors Kurt Russel and Keith David). How the shape-shifter itself completely disregards its own "hide in plain sight" rules most of the time and just boils down into another generic killing machine. Hell, the gore is even so bland I have a uneasy feeling this was originally supposed to be PG-13.
I'll just say this:
The Thing is not worth your time. And definitely not your money.
This new version completely forgets why its predecessor became such an enduring film. Except for about 25 minutes in the middle when it remembers WHY the original was scary, the new film settles for jump scare after jump scare after mother-bleeding jump scare. That is what the horror boils down to, and they even cheat at that because human physiology is, to certain extent, hard-wired to react suddenly to sounds over a certain decibel. Which explains why this film is LOUD. OVERLY LOUD. HEADACHE INDUCING, BRAIN SPLITTING LOUDNESSS. Its a forced reaction with absolutely no substance to it. Near the end I just plugged my ears and thus negated any shock factor the film had left.
Also, while the 1982 film lingered with disturbing glee over the grotesque transformations the creature takes on, the new film can barely keep the monster in frame for more than a split second. Only one of its creature designs of ungodly human-morphing abomination is even interesting to look at (SPOILER: and the only reason this is the case is because this transformation was technically designed in 1982), but the film keeps it hidden in low light and half shadow. This is mostly, as Bob pointed out, due to the CGI special effects being terrible. I'd go so far to call them insipid. Dull, lifeless, uninteresting.
I could go on to say how the plot crumbles to pieces in the 3rd act, or that the characters are all stand-ins for the exact same characters in the 1982 film (the two American male characters even LOOK like actors Kurt Russel and Keith David). How the shape-shifter itself completely disregards its own "hide in plain sight" rules most of the time and just boils down into another generic killing machine. Hell, the gore is even so bland I have a uneasy feeling this was originally supposed to be PG-13.
I'll just say this:
The Thing is not worth your time. And definitely not your money.