Escape to the Movies: The Thing

[LordXel]

The Avengers trailer was the best damn trailer of anything. I cannot wait, I am going to love it sooo much. I havn't been paying much attention to Super Mario 3D Land, but a blue shelled Mario with a boomerang is freaking awesome.

Anyway this movie... not really interested in it. Still it looks better than The Human Centipede 2. This review was fun to watch. Maybe its because you put The Avengers trailer in. God I loved that.

 

[SidingWithTheEnemy]

As a teenager, I watched the '82 film because of Kurt Russell. You know, the guy from "Escape from L.A.","Tango&Cash" and "Tequilla Sunrise" and of course I liked his acting and I was even quite impressed by Keith David's performance.
But this new film, what kind of actors are playing in their? Did they play in good films before? Did they play at all?
It's not only about CGI or not, its about chosing the right actors for the job (and of course the money involved to hire good ones).

 

[Mahorfeus]

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.

 

[Shiftygiant]

I can't. I AM NOT IN THE CORRECT AREA OF SERVICE. I THINK SOMEONE MENTIONED SOMETHING ABOUT AMAZON EARLIER. THIS IS ALL IN CAPITALS BECAUSE CAPS LOCK IS STUCK.

 

[Chezza]

Came back from watching it last night. You know what? It's not bad. However 2 scenes of CGI looks rather poor meanwhile the rest is fantastic. The character development is short and you cant expect to laugh, cry, hate and somewhat grow with every character in the movie, and if you do its brief however that would change the entire damn atmosphere.

Indeed The Thing could almost be called a remake however they have done a fine job connecting the pieces to lead into the previous installment without repeating the same scenes. I walked in expecting to be a bit disappointed thanks to Bob's bashing and yet I was pleasantly satisfied.

They do not lack gore in the middle of the film btw, its fantastic

So I suppose I should not take Bobs opinion so seriously anymore. He is just a comic book man.

 

[Aiddon_v1legacy]

Spoony and the Cinema Snob ripping this POS a new one:

http://spoonyexperiment.com/2011/10/14/vlog-10-14-11-the-thing

http://thecinemasnob.com/2011/10/15/reviews-trespass-and-the-thing-2011.aspx

 

[bulldogftw]

I think I'll just watch my Thing from Another World DVD

 

[Ulquiorra4sama]

Hah! Low expectiations means i don't lose anything!

The movie itself is a classic in its genre and there're few things that can meassure up to something of that status. So yeah, i think i WILL watch the original instead, but i'm still gonna have some popcorn while watching it >_>

Also, i would've been completely satisfied with cutting off where you did, but oh well... To the youtube website!

 

[haruvister]

My problem with CG:

Physical effects (modelling and make-up) made you ask, "How did they do that?"

CG makes you ask, "How much processing power did they need to render that?"

The answer to the latter question will never be interesting.

 

[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.