THE THING (2011) in Current Horror, Sci-Fi and Fantasy Films Forum

0 Points

Forum Jump

THE THING (2011)

Author	Comment
Dudley Manlove		#81	[-]
Apr 11 12 4:39 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	To be totally honest i kind of enjoyed it except for 2 jarring things in the opening which i never got over. 1 The whole vehicle falling deep into the crevise bit. It would be virtually impossible to safely get them out of that without proper equipment and certainly their authorities would need to be alerted, thenof course theri govt be told about the ship!!!. 2 The discovery of the Spaceship.; If its a prequal................. why is it hitting covered in a cavern rather than being blasted free by thermo charges as in the Carpenter film???? They went to a lot of smile making trouble to recreate the Norwegians deaths ala how they were discovered by Russell later on, but to have a totally different layout for the ship was incredibly silly and distracting.
Joe Karlosi		#82	[-]
Apr 22 12 8:16 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Last night my nephew came over and he was still harboring his wish to see this movie, so I did not resist and we rented it. All in all, I would agree with most of the comments in this thread. It wasn't bad, I'd call it "pretty good"... but it was virtually a remake of Carpenter's movie. I liked that it maintained the same basic tone of seriousness as the 1982 movie, and it was nice the way it had some attributes to the 1951 version, while not going too far overboard. I didn't like that there was so much English spoken. I realize that this was done to make it more palatable for audiences, but I join Godziwolf in his postings about it having been a major plot point in Carpenter's movie that the first crew wrote everything in Norwegian and they could not decipher any of it. I just did not find it consistent with this other group, who seemed quite fluent in English to the point where they would not have kept notes in Norwegian. I suppose it's a quibble that could be overlooked, but I would have preferred the whole movie subtitled. While I liked that they maintained the general tone of the '82 film, they relied too heavily on using ideas and dialogue that almost seemed shot-for-shot straight out of the other movie. (An example that comes to mind is the autopsy sequence). The heroine says something like "we're gonna find out who's who" (just like Kurt Russell did)... and at the end there are two survivors hanging out and one of them asks "so what do we do now?" (sound familiar?). I nearly had a fit when they came up with the familiar idea to draw everyone's blood (!!!), but at least they changed it to examining everyone's teeth. Don't know what else to say. I thought the CGI was obvious and took me out of things at times, and I prefer the practical effects from 1982. I thought the girl was cute. Oh, and I enjoyed the end credits and how they dovetailed it leading into the Carpenter movie. This ultimately was an unnecessary prequel... but not a bad horror movie on its own, and something to watch once. But calling it THE THING again was just a mess... even when my nephew and I discussed the film afterwards it was comical to hear us trying to distinguish what we meant ("which one, this one, or the other one?"... "You mean the Carpenter Thing, or this Thing...?"). Would a simple "Part One" or "The Beginning" hurt? "Guy named Squeamy got thrown from the fifth floor. He's deader'n a mackerel." Last Edited By: Joe Karlosi Apr 23 12 1:26 PM. Edited 1 times.
Alias the Scarecrow		#83	[-]
Apr 24 12 10:18 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	duplicate post. Last Edited By: Alias the Scarecrow Apr 24 12 10:21 AM. Edited 1 times.
Alias the Scarecrow		#84	[-]
Apr 24 12 10:20 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Alias the Scarecrow wrote: Dudley Manlove wrote: 2 The discovery of the Spaceship.; If its a prequal................. why is it hitting covered in a cavern rather than being blasted free by thermo charges as in the Carpenter film???? According to this film, the firing up of the ship's engines melted the ice instead of thermo charges..I dont remember such a scene in the Carpenter film showing detonation of thermo charges. It certainly was in the original THING FROM ANOTHER WORLD. Wasnt the ship already uncovered when MacCready & crew discovered it after visiting the other camp?
borchabob		#85	[-]
Apr 24 12 10:02 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Alias the Scarecrow wrote: Alias the Scarecrow wrote: Dudley Manlove wrote: 2 The discovery of the Spaceship.; If its a prequal................. why is it hitting covered in a cavern rather than being blasted free by thermo charges as in the Carpenter film???? According to this film, the firing up of the ship's engines melted the ice instead of thermo charges..I dont remember such a scene in the Carpenter film showing detonation of thermo charges. It certainly was in the original THING FROM ANOTHER WORLD. Wasnt the ship already uncovered when MacCready & crew discovered it after visiting the other camp? If I remember correctly, in the Carpenter film, the videos show the Norwegians setting the thermite charges, but no detonation. The ship was uncovered when Mac & doc discovered it. So its assumed the charges were detonated. Maybe they weren't, as this film suggests, but then why set them in the first place?
Bob Meyer		#86	[-]
Apr 24 12 11:23 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	I agree with much of what Joe Karlosi said. I enjoyed the movie for what it was, but don't really see the point in making it the way they did (other than, of course, $). The thing that irritated me most was that they claimed they were doing something that they ultimately didn't deliver on...at all. Completely faithful and meticulous telling of the story of the Norwegians as indicated by Carpenter's version? Nope. Old-style practical on-the-set SFX instead of CGI? Nope. If they had at least provided a new slant on the story instead of hitting the same beats and plot points of Carpenter's film, they might have had something. But it's a re-make much more than it is a "pre-quel". Not terrible, but again...what's the point? I thought the girl was cute. Mary Elizabeth Winstead should be in every movie. She comes across very convincingly as smart as well as gorgeous.
skelton knaggs		#87	[-]
Jul 3 12 4:55 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Oh my. I just found this oppressive slog to get through of a movie online and tried to watch it. Thank goodness for fast forward. A cheap cardboard cutout of the Carpanter film with just about the same setups. The CGI was pitiful. Why did they even bother??? "You can't smell any reefer, can you"?
theuglyinsect		#88	[-]
Jul 10 12 1:15 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Man, I absolutely loved this movie. The criticisms of it cribbing all the best moments of Carpenter's film are valid and is admittedly a genuine knock against it, especially in light of the fact that it's trying to position itself as a prequel rather than a remake. That said, I loved the creature design in the film and found all the neat little tie-ins to Carpenter's film pretty cool. The ending, when the Morricone theme from Carpenter's version kicks in is beyond awesome and ties in perfectly to the Carpertner film. Overall this film, with all it's faults, was way better than I expected.
terrymichaelpierson		#89	[-]
Jul 10 12 2:13 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Exceeded my expectations as well. I think if one of the biggest knocks against a remake/prequel/reboot is that it's too faithful to the source material you're in pretty good shape. It certainly wasn't John Carpenter, or Kurt Russell, but after dealing with reboots like Nightmare on Elm and Dawn of the Dead, the Thing seems pretty solid.
Carl Eyesnheart		#90	[-]
Jul 10 12 8:38 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	I would actually take the DAWN OF THE DEAD film over THE THING. NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET was horrendous, however. My fanzine all about Rock N Roll: www.sonicruin.com

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Add Reply

Yuku free message boards

THE THING (2011)