|Page 7 of 47:||               |
|Index||469 reviews in total|
I have to admit that i was dubious about this film prior to watching it. The sheer number of cheap remakes that Hollywood seems obsessed with churning out, i thought i'd but condemning myself to sheer irritation. However i was very pleasantly surprised, firstly because i realised that it was a prequel & not a remake, secondly because it is not one of those cheap movies with a whole cast full of gym sculpted teens with hair looking like they've just strolled out of a Hollywood hair salon, all with substandard acting ability. The cast here are exactly what you would expect to find in a remote research facility, most of them look rough around the edges, unshaven, clothes that are practical, not fashionable, and nearly all of them around the middle age mark. The effects gives the creatures' appearance, abilities & nature a realistic perspective. This film is aimed at people who have seen the original & as a result doesn't waste any time with an inappropriate pace of the movie. I'd definitely recommend this, its a gem
Being a fan of the 1982 film by John Carpenter, I was excited when I heard that they were making a prequel to the THING. I also had relatively high expectations. The film was great. It definitely deserved to be related to John Carpenter's classic; However the film was not perfect. As far as explaining everything that happened at the Norwegian camp they were spot on. The only problem I had with the film was the pacing. Unlike the '82 version this film was a little rushed. While the film was creepy and of course gory they lacked the atmosphere that the first one had. In the first movie you had a sense of the chills running down your spine, whereas this one kind of lacked that. You didn't feel as though you were there and felt claustrophobic. Other than that the film was great. The thing(no pun intended) that was impressive was even explaining the minor details that you would miss if you don't watch the first movie with detail. All in all I thought movie was really good definitely lived up to the name. I give the film 9/10
I would give Carpenter's movie 10/10 and this one only 9/10 mostly because I was so impressed with the former. Otherwise, this movie is very, very good. One more time I convinced myself that I should not trust the critics' opinions and that movies that I like tend to become cult movies. Of course I will purchase this BD and it will become a part of my personal Sci-Fi collection. The characters are great and the play is fluid. The CGI is not too bad, either. The girl seems to be quite in control of herself despite the situation but I've seen similar characters so it's believable. Wish there was also a sequel to this movie that would follow her character. Overall, a great movie.
Halloween is coming closer, so I've been catching up on my scary
movies, and one movie I've added to my list of "have seen" is The
Thing, a prequel to John Carpenter's The Thing, itself a remake of The
Thing from Another World from 1951, itself based on the story "Who Goes
There?" by John W. Campbell Jr. Wow, what a story this one has.
In the film, Kate Lloyd, a paleontologist (Played by Mary Elizabeth Winstead), is brought to a Norwegian outpost stationed in Antarctica, after the researchers there discover a mysterious specimen trapped in ice. They bring it back to their base, and celebrate their discovery that would give them eternal notoriety, but the creature eventually thaws out, and escapes. What else? Kate discovers that once this creature kills its prey, it can copy it perfectly, waiting for its next victim. Tensions become high. Anyone in the station could be the thing.
Again, this film is meant as a set up to the events of the 1982 film by John Carpenter, a film that is widely regarded as one of the greatest horror movies in history. Just don't expect it to match that level of quality. Some might place blame on debut director hard to spell and pronounce, but the problem lies more with the screenplay. It captures some of the same tension and paranoia of the original, but there's not quite enough characterization, and story elements that border on absurd, including the ending.
And even if it's a prequel, it might as well have been a remake. In a lot of ways it plays out just like the original, with a minor exception to the now famous blood testing scene swapped out for checking for fillings in teeth. But even this has flawed logic. One character even remarks, "So, because I floss, I'm the monster??" I'm probably nit-picking, but that's my story.
But you can at least thank the cast (Although, you probably won't be able to distinctly tell who a lot of the Norwegians are), including Mary Elizabeth Winstead, who gives off a commanding presence, clearly channeling Ellen Ripley of the Alien series. The film also features a very creepy sense of atmosphere. The production design is claustrophobic, the sound design exceptional, the music terrific, and the effects (Even if obvious at times) is good stuff. And even though their work might be overshadowed by CGI, let's not forget the conceptual design and make up effects of Alec Gillis and Tom Woodruff Jr.
All in all, it's fine, even kinda fun, just don't expect something terrific out of it. Also, remember to stay to watch the credits for a special scene.
**1/2 out of ****
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
The Thing is directed by Matthijs van Heijningen Jr. and adapted to
screenplay by Eric Heisserer. It's based on the novel Who Goes There?
by John W. Campbell and is a prequel to John Carpenter's The Thing from
1982. It stars Mary Elizabeth Winstead, Joel Edgerton, Ulrich Thomsen,
Eric Christian Olsen and Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje. Music is by Marco
Beltrami and cinematography by Michel Abramowicz.
Antartica, 1982, and scientist Kate Lloyd is requested to investigate something strange at a Norwegian base station. By accident the Norwegians have discovered what appears to be an alien craft frozen beneath the ice. Their thoughts prove to be correct and they are rightly celebrating a magnificent discovery, particularly as there appears to also be a frozen being in the ice. But it's not long before everyone at the base begins to regret unearthing the being......
No serious John Carpenter fan wanted this film, it wasn't needed or required. His 1982 film is an awesome slice of sci-fi horror, a remake itself of a very good film, The Thing from Another World (Howard Hawks 1951), Carpenter flipped the scenario around from Hawks' movie to great effect. Paranoia and creeping dread blended with amazing beasties to make for what many feel is one of the ultimate sci-fi horror movies going. So why remake it then? Well, we are told by Heijningen Jr and his team that this is a prequel to Carpenter's movie, asking the big questions such as just what happened at the Norwegian base station before Kurt Russell's manly mob got there? Making this a sort of filling in the blanks session. Not a bad idea at all is that, something good to work from, even if we know from the beginning of Carpenter's movie just how many Norwegian's survived!
Now the problem here is that it may be a prequel, and attention to detail in scenes linking both films together is rather ace, but it's devoid of freshness, the makers pretty much following the exact same formula of Carpenter's film. Cue a group of scientist types getting spooked by something ghastly stalking them, cue one by one them getting offed in grizzly ways by a assimilating menace and cue paranoia and suspicion. They even put in the test sequence from 82, only with a metal slant instead of blood, while the creatures are the same only bigger in body horror terms and budget. Instead of Kurt Russell's mighty machismo, we get Winstead's spunky lady (she's the one without the face fuzz here), but it's the same old same old routine, only for the Scott Pilgrim crowd. When all is said and done, this is pretty much a remake of a far far better film.
Yet for all that is annoying and unadventurous about it, it's still a bunch of fun, the director is capable in having us wonder what is around the corner, utilising the cramped interiors for maximum fret. The various creatures born out of the Thing are monstrous, especially the two headed one which we see horrifically birthed, and even though the CGI is there, with some of it poor, much of it is blended with practical work and the human actors to stop it from being "all" about the effects. It's also nice to report that there is undeniably love and respect for the 82 cut. Leading cast performances are efficient, but Winstead is just too young and looks out of place, she does not, however, fail for lack of effort to make her thinly written part work. Bonus is the Norwegian actors adding some intense character dynamics to the plotting. Beltrami's score nods appreciatively to Morricone's original, and on Blu-ray Abramowicz's steely coloured photography really pings out of the screen.
In an alternative universe where there is no John Carpenter film, this would be a well regarded entry into the creature feature stable. With enough shocks and squirmy screams delivered for the genre eager crowd. But unless you are someone who hasn't seen Carpenter's superior movie, then this will feel like a shallow imitation, just like, ironically enough, one of The Thing's assimilated humans. A generous 7/10 from me because I did have fun watching in the privacy of my own home with the lights off. Other Carpenter fans, though, are most likely to start rating from my 7 and work backwards I feel.
The first one was better ofc.It s older but better. But I liked the film so much.I watched it at 3 a.m and I have headphones.So I scared.The thing s screams are the scariest screams ever(for me).And The thing is really different from other monsters and aliens.It can infect anybody it touches.So it can attack anytime and it can be anybody.But the film wasn t as good as the first one.Because it wasn t so realistic.The thing is too clever but sometimes it acts like an idiot.It hides and waits to attack.But sometimes it acts like a wild animal.Anyvay,the thing is really weird and I like it.It s too disgusting and bloody.
This is a prequel to probably one of the best horror films ever made, a
true classic and a very good addition to the story. It tells what
happened in the events leading up to the original film. The last shot
of this film links to the first shot of the original.
At first I was worried about this film for two reasons. First, as the film was set on a Norwegian camp how much reading would I have to do whilst trying to follow the story? Second, the original film is amazing a true classic of the horror genre. Would this film do justice to the story and would the use of modern effects change the feel of the story? My fears were soon put to rest. Fortunately it appears that the universal language for scientists working in the Antarctic is English! There are a few subtitles throughout the film but not that many. Now a big thank you to the producers of this film. It is clear that they are true fans of the original and this is evident in the title. They couldn't come up with a title better than "The Thing". They could have gone with The Thing: Begins but nothing sounded as good. This film was made by fans of the original and they have ensured that it links into every reference made in the original to the Norwegian base, even down to an axe in the wall seen in the first film, showing how it got there in this one. The cast is made up of very good actors, none of them are particularly well known to everyone. I recognised a few faces, but this is good as you have no idea who will survive as there no major stars.
Story wise, if you have seen the original you know what to expect but the film makers know this and throw a few curve-balls in. The famous "blood test" of the original almost happens here but cleverly it gets change for something else also unexpected. The creatures origins are left alone and rightly so as there is no way of knowing them. It is just a creature trying to survive by killing everyone in its way. Do we really need to know more than that? The effects are also very good, but this is what you would expect from modern effects. Where the original films effects were ground breaking, the ones here are what you can see in most Hollywood creature films. The difference here is the attention to making the creature effects look like the original. Again the makers of the film have done a great job in making the two films fit together both story wise and visually. I wish all sequels/prequels would have enough respect for the audience like this one has.
My nemesis(a film critic on UK radio) struck again with this film. They rated this film a "good strong 3 stars" asked why not 4 stars they stated that Happy Feet Two was released at the same time and this was a 4 star film and they enjoyed it more. What???! How can you compare a horror with a cartoon? Shouldn't you rate them as individual films in different genres?
The original (and the Remake) are kind of untouchable. So the producers
thought they'd try to make an Origin story. Which of course will be not
really surprising to those who know one of the other movies. It also
seems to be almost a blueprint copy of what happens in the other movies
too. But that doesn't take too much away from the movie. The actors
sell it beautifully.
Of course puritans still won't like it, because how could you make a movie like that, that plays before the 80s Thing and have the effects be newer then that? Also what about how to spot "the Thing"? Will there be a new way and why wouldn't they use the same thing in the "sequel" (aka Original/Remake from the 80s)?! If you don't mind those minor (for me) things, you will enjoy the movie. You can see they did their best with this
If you're the type of person that invests emotionally in such things as
films, then I reckon that if you're a huge fan of the original Thing,
you're going to hate this one. Instead, if you've got half a brain and
can separate fact and fiction, then you should enjoy this prequel.
After all, what horror fan doesn't like to see gigantic monsters running around eating folk? That's what this film sets out to do, and it does it well, but if you start drawing comparisons with the original then you're going to end up with a headache.
I'll be honest - I'd still much prefer to watch the original again, but I think they did a fair job here. There's nothing offensively bad about the film (no hip-talking teens, no MTV editing, etc). It's a straight forward horror. Maybe too much CGI for it's own good, but it's still better than any torture-porn crap we're being force fed these days.
What I'm finding hilarious when reading the rest of the reviews here is that people (men, I'm guessing) are getting upset that there's a woman in the film! A woman! God help us all! Morons. A film is a film, and nothing more. I'd welcome an alien invasion right about now - might thin down the number of brain dead shut-ins using the IMDb.
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
If something is good to recognize, is what other directors have done in previous years. This film is really a tribute to John Carpenter, in every way. Each take remembers the movie 1982, so much so that in the scene in which Lars burns with the flame thrower to the thing, immediately recalls Kurt Russell doing the same in the previous version. Here we can not talk remake, is clearly a prequel, which explains the origin of the story, and so well taken care of the details in every way, the ice cube that remains after the escape of alien, the creature with two heads is burned in the ice, in Carpenter's film is found by the Americans, until the letters of the helicopter. I did the exercise to see The Thing, 1982, immediately after that of 2011, and it is impressive how well they match the two movies. It is fully recommended for fans of the genre and for those who want to see a real tribute to Carpenter and one of his best films, if not the best.
|Page 7 of 47:||               |
|Plot summary||Plot synopsis||Ratings|
|Awards||External reviews||Parents Guide|
|Official site||Plot keywords||Main details|
|Your user reviews||Your vote history|