Discussion in 'Science Fiction & Fantasy' started by Trekker4747, Oct 14, 2011.
I hope it will be good. Absolutely adore Mary Elizabeth Winstead!
Adore her too, will likely go see this movie with my buddy Saturday evening, will report back with my review that night.
Roger Ebert gave it a negative review (2.5 stars):
It's another one of his reviews that focuses less on the craft or the plot of the movie itself but more in the illogic of the creature imitating people and then exposing itself as a fraud. It's a bit more detailed than his "Nemesis" review where he criticized the movie for not lining up with how he thinks electricity will work in 400 years, but it's another one of those reviews where the movie's plot illogic overcomes the "craft" of the movie. (Comparatively, he was kind to "Real Steel" even though that movie's plot is just as thin if you were to analyze it.)
"The Thing" is a 39% ("Rotten") at Rotten Tomatoes based on 59 reviews. (22% "Rotten" based on 18 "Top Critic" reviews.)
Ebert didn't like Carpenter's version, either.
Well, Ebert's a fool then.
Suprisingly well made and fun prequel to the 1982 Sci-fi horror masterpiece which itself remains the definitive and faithful adaptation of John Campbell's novel "Who Goes There".
I can't wait to go to Universal next Friday and check out horror nights's Thing maze
Saw it at a free screenin' the other night...I wasn't too impressed, but then I just saw the original for the first time a couple of months ago, so its still fresh in my mind.
i'm off to see this. i doubt it will be as good as Carpenter's version, but it does look like fun.
LOT'S of people hated it and still do.
Why is it that none of the characters in the trailer look or sound Norwegian?
MEW's character is an American brought in to consult on what the Norwegians discovered, not sure on why everyone else "doesn't sound Norwegian" but then I'm not sure I can say what I think a Norwegian sounds like.
As for the original being disliked in its day, I suppose. But I see it as just one of those "cult classics." I mean Kurt Russell, Wilford Brimley, a giant mouth opening up out of a guy's chest and chomping off a doctor's arms?! The inexplicable idea that apparently flame-throwers are standard equipment at the south pole?!
What is there to not like!
The impression I get is that most people at the time were too turned off by the blood and gore to appreciate anything else about the film.
As for the new movie, I'll most likely wait for the rental. Hearing that it's basically just a rehash of the previous movie, only with a lot more CGI, doesn't exactly inspire much confidence.
Half the cast are damn Swedes, I mean Norwegians, so they better sound Norwegian.
This was excellent and you'll regret not seeing it in theatres. I was really worried it would just be a premake with CGI, but the beats they hit are actually pretty good and remind you of the 82 film rather than rip it off, while establishing their own beats as well. Being two teams of scientists, they come up with similar ideas, and the Things counter them in similar ways, but seriously, there's not a lot of ways to do things down at the South Pole. Copy shit. Get unmasked by some type of test. Slaughter people. Shoot it (not too effective), Kill it with fire! ... ??? ... Profit?
I thought they did especially well at setting up the aftermath to match (nearly) seamlessly with 82. The acting was good, sets great, CGI decent (seen better, seen worse, didn't throw me out of the film and while not as disgusting as the 82 practical effects, were pretty icky). I got head-faked at least once with who was a Thing, though some take-overs you knew were going to happen.
The setting was so cool to see again. Makes me wish At the Mountains of Madness hadn't fallen through.
Oh! They had musical cues/beats from 82 that instantly set the mood, too.
Ebert has his head up his ass still from not liking the first one. Typical of him, he misses plot points, references and inferences that are pretty plain to see, just so he can complain about shit. If I had a dollar for every time Ebert complained about shit that didn't even happen in the film, I'd have at least ten dollars.
Here's a clue or two, Ebert...The Thing didn't build that spaceship, it's last victim did. It uses a weird amalgam of body-parts because it is on an alien world and it takes time to figure out exactly what would be the best bodyform to morph into, let alone to do the morphing. Whenever a Thing separates, it no longer has any allegiance to its disparate parts. Each little bit of the Thing is interested in protecting itself, not the whole or the group. That's why it reveals itself and splits up to attack or runs away.
Anyway... If you liked the first one at all, you'll enjoy this addition to the Thingverse.
And there's definitely an opening for a sequel to 82 that could
link the survivors? of both films together...
At the Russian just base 50 miles north. We can make it!
Maybe even include some military guys this time or KGB, really get into the Meta who's a commie vibe of 82.
Manages to be reminiscent of both the 1950's and 1982 movies and still be its own movie...a sick, sick movie with several eye-hiding moments!
just got back from seeing this and i really enjoyed it. its a nice set up for the 82 film. sometimes it feels like you are watching the 82 film. the monsters are pretty gross looking and a bit over the top at times. its a fun film and if you enjoy the 82 Thing you will enjoy this.
Like the TCW film supposedly not mentioning the Force.
Ebert's not a fool, but he never did get the 82 version of the movie so it's no surprise that he didn't care for this one, which -- judging from the trailer -- is pretty faithful to the Carpenter version of the movie.
I wonder what Ebert thinks of the Hawks/Nyby version?
Or he might not be a fool; he just happened to dislike the movie.
It does happen, Internet.
I'm a huge fan of the Carpenter version. It's probably in my top 3 films of all time. I've watched it many times, quote lines from it, etc. I was skeptical that they would be able to capture the magic again but went in with an open mind.
I enjoyed the movie. I was very happy with how much attention to detail went into tying in the events of the prequel to the orginal. They pretty much thought of everything. Down to why there was an axe embedded in a door when Mcgready went to the norweigen camp in the orginal.
I only have two complaints. The CGI wasnt bad but it looked like...CGI. I think it would have been awesome if they didnt go the CGI route but of course that's a pipe dream.
The other complaint was the movement and behaviour of the creature was different. For one, it moved way too fast. I know, its because its CGI and they have the ability to do that now, but there was something so creepy about the orginal's slow movements. Also, the new creature was in the offensive, rather then like in the orginal where it seemed to be more concerned with being hidden and was a lot more strategic in it's attacks.
That being said, I enjoyed it, and am happy with how faithful the producer was to the orginal.
Separate names with a comma.