Escape to the Movies: The Thing

[MB202]

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.

 

[Wriggle Wyrm]

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.

 

[theApoc]

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.

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).

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.

 

[Exocet]

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!

 

[Daveman]

Before watching: "pleasebegoodpleasebegoodpleasebegoodpleasebegoodpleasebegoodpleasebegood"
After: "Fuck"

 

[Darks63]

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.

yeah i'm surprised in the review he states that there are survivors when you know from the 82 that there wasn't any. I'm wondering if they come up with some bs way to keep winestead's character vertical.

 

[shogunblade]

...At first, it seems to be setting up the interesting addition of gender and/or cultural biases becoming part of the equation and people's suspicions of who may or may not be the Thing, but that never materializes and you begin to suspect...the only reason for her and one random character to be female is because someone uttered the dreaded "Sausagefest" at a story meeting.

Actually, from what I've read from the 1982 The Thing(If IMDB's Trivia Page is more reliable than Wikipedia), the script originally had a woman, but she ended up getting pregnant and was replaced with another male. If anything, the director's trying to copy the original script as closely as possible. However, in this day and age, the "Sausagefest" makes about as much sense.

OT: What a shame, just because I maybe held out a sliver of hope that it might have been good. Oh well, I still have the original on VHS, can't be too bad to check out. Good Review, Moviebob.

 

[Diablo2000]

... I will watched it anyway, my biggest problem with MovieBob is that when I disagree with him I REALLY disagree with him.
Since I love the Carpenter's remake, I will watch and hope that it's good or not was bad was MovieBob seens to believe.

 

[DJDarque]

Oh, look. Moviebob hates yet another movie that I found to be pretty damn good. How about if you want to see a movie go and see it instead of letting some cynical, self-entitled "critic" tell you not to..

 

[MatParker116]

A similar reason is why Sean Bean ended up in the Silent Hill film.

Because his parts were the only well-acted or good bits in the movie?

I may see this. Didn't think it would be as good as The Thing to begin with.

Original script had no male parts, someone said something, BEAN>

 

[Ashley Blalock]

A good point about how CGI has been such a bad thing for some film makers. With all that time building a monster and finding just the right spot to film it from so you can't see things like pumps or a puppeteer special effects shots were more finely crafted things.

If remakes, prequels, and the like were actually well crafted things either making up for the limits of special effects at the time of the original or skillfully crafting a story into the modern age I wouldn't mind them. Sadly too many films like a money grab to bank on a name and to market at teens who will not watch a film over 5 years old.

 

[Crazy_Dude]

CGI just doesn't bring the holy wtf shit factor practical effects bring. Especially if the CGI is done bad.

That "head-spider" still freaks me out. The Thing (1982) is one of the best horror movies to date.

 

[Daystar Clarion]

Oh, look. Moviebob hates yet another movie that I found to be pretty damn good. How about if you want to see a movie go and see it instead of letting some cynical, self-entitled "critic" tell you not to..

I can't be the only person who sees the hilarity of putting critic in inverted commas.


Kind of like saying, "well that's just your 'opinion'."

 

[Notsomuch]

I really wanted this movie to be good. Maybe I was way off base when I thought that it could be to The thing what aliens was to alien.

 

[Kenjitsuka]

The moment when Thor laughs... makes me super confident I'll LOOOVE this movie
And no, you can NEVER see this trailer too often!!! Good plug, Bob!!!

 

[008Zulu_v1legacy]

"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.

That, or their job was to have sex with one of the male leads then die a horrible horrible death so said male has a revenge excuse.

 

[Kenbo Slice]

It's not a remake, it's a prequel. Derp a derp

 

[Sm0gg]

so dumb to even try to prequel one of the greatest genre movies ever made. Carpenter is still alive, at least they could have had him involved.
I watch the 1982 classic at least once a year & still love it. Having this crap tacked on to the cannon is disappointing.