Escape to the Movies: The Thing

[Ghengis John]

A remake of a remake of an adaptation.

Bob, just wanna say. You've been so hyped for The Avengers, I hope it turns out to be as good as you're hoping for, for your sake. You might wanna tone it down a little though. If your expectations get too high you can only get disappointed, amigo. I'd love to think that you'll be like a kid the day before Christmas and when you ultimately race on over to the tree you'll unwrap the big box and find out you got exactly what you wanted, but please please please hold onto a little island of doubt in your heart that you can fall back to just in case you open that box up and it turns out to be pants.

 

[Robert B. Marks]

My girlfriend and I saw a Sunday matinee of the new Thing, and we both agreed it was the best prequel either one of us have ever seen. It had both of us on the edge of our seats for pretty much the entire movie, managed to maintain a scary atmosphere, but more to the point, it never felt forced or tacked on.

Here's the thing, if you'll pardon the expression - the stuff at the Norwegian base in the first movie was very, very odd. The prequel not only had to account for it, but somehow make it into a coherent story. And it succeeded. It not only set up the John Carpenter movie perfectly, it actually did feel like it was fleshing out the backstory, rather than tacking something on.

(For comparison, take the Star Wars prequels, which feel like they are taking place in an entirely different galaxy than the first trilogy.)

As far as we were concerned (and we watched the blu-ray of the John Carpenter Thing about two weeks before seeing the prequel), the first movie set a high bar, and the prequel matched it. Far from boring, it was actually a very scary movie, and neither one of us ended up checking our watches once during the entire movie.

So, this is one case where I pretty much have to disagree with Bob entirely.

 

[Zeriu]

Has anybody at least pointed out that the whole plot of the 1982 movie wouldn't be possible after this one? The Norwegians who chased after the dog in the first movie specifically warned the Americans that The Thing was not a dog. Only in Norwegian. The fact that the Norwegians can speak English either makes them really stupid for not warning the Americans in English, or it has no place in the same canon. That seems like the stupidest error anyone who writes movies can ever make. Now please permit me to rage in all caps:AAAAAAAAAAAARGH!!!!

 

[Zeriu]

I'm really surprised at the bad reception this movie is getting. I just saw it last night, and color me impressed. The amount of detail that they give attention to is pretty amazing - the plot fluidly moves from the ending right into the beginning of the 1982 film. The acting was pretty decent, especially from Mary Elizabeth, and there was a surprising lack of sexuality that so many movies find obligatory these days. The way Bob suggests that SOME kind of sexual tension was necessary bothers me.

The CGI effects don't really compare to the effects used in the original, but they were still pretty damn good. I feel this film really exemplified what the creature was fully capable of.

Men have a pathological mistrust of women so it would make sense they should have suspected her. I feel the writer doesn't really know people and just copy pastes a rational decision in a movie about a thing that fucks with your mind by disguising as your friend and then eats you. Jesus. Rational thought is off the table. watch "12 Angry Men" to see what good characters are about. Hint:It's not in all the good traits.

 

[Zeriu]

Blasphemy! The prequel trilogy is total crap even taken on it's own.

http://redlettermedia.com/plinkett/star-wars/

when you've got time watch all 3.

 

[Mahorfeus]

Has anybody at least pointed out that the whole plot of the 1982 movie wouldn't be possible after this one? The Norwegians who chased after the dog in the first movie specifically warned the Americans that The Thing was not a dog. Only in Norwegian. The fact that the Norwegians can speak English either makes them really stupid for not warning the Americans in English, or it has no place in the same canon. That seems like the stupidest error anyone who writes movies can ever make. Now please permit me to rage in all caps:AAAAAAAAAAAARGH!!!!

Except, the two in question couldn't speak English (particularly Lars, who was stated to be unable to speak English). Soooo... commence de-rage?

 

[Dave29]

Says the man who loved Sucker Punch and thought Rango was nothing special.

I know it's hard to disconnect one's love for the original movie, but that's not a reason to give a blatantly biased review. Yes it is not great, and yes the original is much better, but it isn't the piece of shit he's making out to be.

 

[Zeriu]

Has anybody at least pointed out that the whole plot of the 1982 movie wouldn't be possible after this one? The Norwegians who chased after the dog in the first movie specifically warned the Americans that The Thing was not a dog. Only in Norwegian. The fact that the Norwegians can speak English either makes them really stupid for not warning the Americans in English, or it has no place in the same canon. That seems like the stupidest error anyone who writes movies can ever make. Now please permit me to rage in all caps:AAAAAAAAAAAARGH!!!!

Except, the two in question couldn't speak English (particularly Lars, who was stated to be unable to speak English). Soooo... commence de-rage?

Thanks for pointing that out. You have sort of, almost reestablished my faith in Hollywood.

 

[Outcast107]

Says the man who loved Sucker Punch and thought Rango was nothing special.

I know it's hard to disconnect one's love for the original movie, but that's not a reason to give a blatantly biased review. Yes it is not great, and yes the original is much better, but it isn't the piece of shit he's making out to be.

This is moviebob were talking about. He so full of bias reviews that it isn't funny. Hell this site is full of bias thinking. Which is why I hardly come here any more. To much bullshit to deal with.

 

[Taunta]

I completely agree with this review. I saw this, and was so bored out of my mind that I would have walked out if not for my boyfriend insisting that we stay so we can get our money's worth.

The characters are 1-dimensional at best, I don't even remember anyone's names besides Lars, the main character was a magical protagonist with no flaws who always has the answer to everything, and this movie didn't scare me in the least. And this is coming from a horror wimp. Even the jump-out scares didn't surprise me.

Although I think my main complaint is that these filmmakers don't understand that a monster stays scary the less you see of it, because the thing is all up in your grill for most of the movie. I'm pretty sure you get to see it in all its glory not 30 minutes in.

Also, I'm sorry the thing, I can't take you seriously during the final climactic fight with that stupid scientist's face on.

 

[xDarc]

Thought movie bob was too harsh on it. I thought it was surprisingly not bad. After getting home I watched the John Carpenter version again for like the 100th time. I don't think I first saw the Thing until the early 90's; so to be able to see another movie playing off of it 20 years later was pretty damn cool.

I agree that most of the remakes of 80's horror movies have been duds, but this one is above the rest.

 

[Madara XIII]

Yo dawg, I heard you like remakes...

Seriously though, I would have watched the Avengers trailer again.

Ha! I was ninja'd

Anyways This is a review I can agree with Bob on for once. It was disappointing in every sense.
Plus I LIKED the sausage fest in the first thing.
Christ almighty, if you're going to put a woman in there at least give her some freaking character rather than just do it out of obligation.

Hell! bring Sigourney Weaver back if you must! She has experience with Aliens (See what I did there?)

Secondly the Head Spider will always remain the freakiest part of the Original The Thing for me.

 

[Madara XIII]

Says the man who loved Sucker Punch and thought Rango was nothing special.

I know it's hard to disconnect one's love for the original movie, but that's not a reason to give a blatantly biased review. Yes it is not great, and yes the original is much better, but it isn't the piece of shit he's making out to be.

This is moviebob were talking about. He so full of bias reviews that it isn't funny. Hell this site is full of bias thinking. Which is why I hardly come here any more. To much bullshit to deal with.

Indeed. I remember when I got marked as the Scum of the Escapist for ever daring to like Transformers or Call Movie Bob out on his bullshit review on Sucker Punch.

It's like Movie Bob's reviews are the Gospel to some of the Escapists.
Hell even I don't always agree with Yahtzees views on some games, because if I did then almost every game I have wouldnt be enjoyable to me.

 

[Madara XIII]

Now if they can get the Prequel to Alien right!

I'm sorry, but I have my hopes up along with the fact that H.R. Giger is getting directly involved with this!

 

[mchoueiri]

I am against this movie like most but it is worth noting this is not a simple remake it is a prequel to John Carpenters "The Thing"

 

[RJ Dalton]

Having finally seen the original, I have something to say about this video. I notice that in the original, they explicitly state there were only ten people stationed in the Norwegian base. Weren't there like 30 in the new movie. I only notice this because I looked up several clips just to see how bad the special effects were and noticed a damn lot of actors. And damn terrible CGI. I mean, that's almost sci-fi channel knock-off movie level CGI.

 

[Strazdas]

They test-screened with animatronics and the test audience HATED IT and DEMANDED CGI. so thats why they made a bad CGI that wasnt even planned.