As a part time comic geek and a full time movie geek I was surprised that anyone would green-light a film based on the old Marvel comic "Man Thing." Obviously I had no expectations for this straight to DVD release when I saw it last week but all in all I was pleasantly surprised. Now don't get me wrong, "Man Thing" is by no definition the best comic book film ever made but it is at least true to it's origins unlike "Batman Forever" and "Batman & Robin." The basic story is pretty much a product of the "plot wheel" and you won't see any big name actors but if you treat it for what it is, a solid B-movie, there are worse ways to spend an hour and a half. The title creature looks as if the special effects and costume designers did their best to capture this little known character's appearance and movement. Not to say that this film doesn't have it's problems, bad annoying camera gimmicks and cartoonish supporting actors among them, however I don't believe that a reviewers job is to turn into a whinny nitpicker. If you really love the medium there aren't that many films that you can't find at least one good element in. "Man Thing" never stood a chance to be much more than a guilty pleasure but honestly you can't expect a first rate film adaptation of a third rate comic book. This is a film for B movie night and that's not necessarily a bad thing. Cut. Print.
106 Reviews
"Maybe the swamp is in him... maybe he is in the swamp." No.
Quinoa198426 May 2016
In case you ever find yourself in that position, or you hear someone else, thinking that the Marvel Cinematic Universe films are weak or under-par or just simply *bad*, I encourage you to check out Man-Thing. Actually I don't because this would almost come across as a recommendation, and it's not that. It's about perspective: you can watch things like Thor 2 or one of the Amazing Spider-Man movies (and yes, Spider-Man 3 if you don't care for it), and realize 'yeah, well, at least it's not Man-Thing.' This is such a waste of time, and more than that a waste of potential - yes, potential - that it's barely on-par for the sludge that passes for Syfy channel movies of the week.
Everything is stock here, everything. Stock opening with the horny teens having sex in the swamp and one of them getting killed (lots of blood, to be sure, but not a single f*** given to suspense); stock villain with his 'you Yankee Sheriff don't understand get outta my way' twang; stock lead who barely makes a different facial expression except constipated consternation; stock friend deputy who we know may not last long; stock backwoods "good ol' boy" yokels where the closest thing to a joke involves taking a s*** in the swamp at night (and then, ::GASP:: one of them falls in to what looks like other s***); laughably stock Indian guide who patiently exclaims over a montage about how the "Man Thing" came to be due to corporate man's interference with oil rigs and who knows what; and stock love interest who really becomes a love interest because it's about that time for the hero man to kiss the hero girl and for them to almost have sex at an importune time.
Did I mention this movie is quite poor, because it is. And I think that it could have had potential as a) if it embraced it's dumbass B-movie roots and went for broader, or at least were more sincere in some other way, like with a script that went for crazier ideas or stakes, or b) if, I assume, they stuck closer to what Man-Thing actually is in the comics (I'd assume from what I've read from others reactions, I haven't yet read it though it comes from Steve Gerber who created Howard the Duck, that it's not close at all). Or maybe a stronger director with a better grasp on horror or comedy or horror-comedy. The best that Brett Leonard is able to muster for anything 'creative' or out of the box comes in super-fastly-whiplash-style editing to transition from, uh, one scene to another whenever it's time to get EDGY in that way that is terribly dated a decade on (though it was likely dated in 2005).
The acting is equally stock as the actors, though as one thing to give the movie credit the actor playing the bat-s*** photographer who keeps popping up in the 'Dark Water' of the swamp was fairly entertaining. But aside from that no one is memorable, certainly no one who can inject some madness or life into the thing. It's trying to play it too straight and be too serious-minded, but it the director and crew don't have the skills (or budget) to give anything close to some actual terror or properly mounting suspense. It's all a lot of people wandering in dark swamps and then BOOM then comes the CGI 'Man-Thing'. Indeed the best thing about the movie is the title, which I'm sure at the time Marvel patted itself on the back and handed out giant cigars for the whole staff for the fact that they got a comic called Man-Thing.
And it's not like I went into this wanting to hate it, at least not to this point (I suspected, given it was never released to theaters, to lower my expectations, but not to the point of bottom of the barrel). I want more raw, hard-R rated flicks from the likes of Marvel - the first two Blades and Punisher: War Zone embraced their B-movie roots and had good-to-decent directors behind them - but there needs to be a strong vision or something new to the table. Practically everything in Man-Thing, from the Indian environmental "messages" that feel somewhat coopted from *Swamp Thing* (and I'm sure with the comic that was intentional) to the small-town folk who are given the blandest, most generic 'Southern-good-ol'-f***-yeah' dialog, is telegraphed, rote, like things picked up off the dirty, un-vacuumed-for-15-years floor of a hack screen writing pig-pen floor. Even when we see the Man-Thing itself it feels disappointing, with the only thrill coming when it does something especially gory but that too isn't unexpected.
Only for the most die-hard horror-gore-comic-book fans. Or if you want to get that perspective I mentioned earlier. Or if you like a villain with the last name "Schist". Get it? It sounded like it's called s***!
Everything is stock here, everything. Stock opening with the horny teens having sex in the swamp and one of them getting killed (lots of blood, to be sure, but not a single f*** given to suspense); stock villain with his 'you Yankee Sheriff don't understand get outta my way' twang; stock lead who barely makes a different facial expression except constipated consternation; stock friend deputy who we know may not last long; stock backwoods "good ol' boy" yokels where the closest thing to a joke involves taking a s*** in the swamp at night (and then, ::GASP:: one of them falls in to what looks like other s***); laughably stock Indian guide who patiently exclaims over a montage about how the "Man Thing" came to be due to corporate man's interference with oil rigs and who knows what; and stock love interest who really becomes a love interest because it's about that time for the hero man to kiss the hero girl and for them to almost have sex at an importune time.
Did I mention this movie is quite poor, because it is. And I think that it could have had potential as a) if it embraced it's dumbass B-movie roots and went for broader, or at least were more sincere in some other way, like with a script that went for crazier ideas or stakes, or b) if, I assume, they stuck closer to what Man-Thing actually is in the comics (I'd assume from what I've read from others reactions, I haven't yet read it though it comes from Steve Gerber who created Howard the Duck, that it's not close at all). Or maybe a stronger director with a better grasp on horror or comedy or horror-comedy. The best that Brett Leonard is able to muster for anything 'creative' or out of the box comes in super-fastly-whiplash-style editing to transition from, uh, one scene to another whenever it's time to get EDGY in that way that is terribly dated a decade on (though it was likely dated in 2005).
The acting is equally stock as the actors, though as one thing to give the movie credit the actor playing the bat-s*** photographer who keeps popping up in the 'Dark Water' of the swamp was fairly entertaining. But aside from that no one is memorable, certainly no one who can inject some madness or life into the thing. It's trying to play it too straight and be too serious-minded, but it the director and crew don't have the skills (or budget) to give anything close to some actual terror or properly mounting suspense. It's all a lot of people wandering in dark swamps and then BOOM then comes the CGI 'Man-Thing'. Indeed the best thing about the movie is the title, which I'm sure at the time Marvel patted itself on the back and handed out giant cigars for the whole staff for the fact that they got a comic called Man-Thing.
And it's not like I went into this wanting to hate it, at least not to this point (I suspected, given it was never released to theaters, to lower my expectations, but not to the point of bottom of the barrel). I want more raw, hard-R rated flicks from the likes of Marvel - the first two Blades and Punisher: War Zone embraced their B-movie roots and had good-to-decent directors behind them - but there needs to be a strong vision or something new to the table. Practically everything in Man-Thing, from the Indian environmental "messages" that feel somewhat coopted from *Swamp Thing* (and I'm sure with the comic that was intentional) to the small-town folk who are given the blandest, most generic 'Southern-good-ol'-f***-yeah' dialog, is telegraphed, rote, like things picked up off the dirty, un-vacuumed-for-15-years floor of a hack screen writing pig-pen floor. Even when we see the Man-Thing itself it feels disappointing, with the only thrill coming when it does something especially gory but that too isn't unexpected.
Only for the most die-hard horror-gore-comic-book fans. Or if you want to get that perspective I mentioned earlier. Or if you like a villain with the last name "Schist". Get it? It sounded like it's called s***!
something is in that swamp
yuli_121217 April 2005
I have seen this movie and it's not so bad but it's not a movie that will give you a real sense of horror.the first thing is that the monster is not very scary at all...it's more like a big tree with red eyes,i have been more scared by the dogs in the movie and you will see what i mean if you watch it.The plot and the effects are good but the actors are not really trying.Overall it is a good movie to watch when you don't have anything better to do and you will not be very disappointed after but do not expect any masterpiece.If you ask yourself why that sheriff goes in the swamp only at night...it's a good question.my vote 5.5/10
Swamp Deuce
utgard1427 August 2016
Well this is excrement. It's supposedly about the Marvel Comics character Man-Thing but, in reality, it's a cheap little TV-quality grade-Z horror movie that has very little in common with the comics. Even then, there could be some value in this if it had even the slightest bit of talent behind it. But it doesn't and it sucks. The writing, acting, directing, special effects, music, and pretty much every single other thing you could think of is generic and cheap. The basic plot is that there's a creature in the swamp killing horny teenagers so the town's new sheriff investigates. This guy's the clichéd "big city cop turned country sheriff" character that has appeared in about ten thousand movies. He looks like a cross between Ed Westwick and a young Peter Deluise, so you can imagine what a commanding presence he has. He shows up in the bayou wearing a leather jacket and shades while toothless yokels say things like "You city boys shore are funny." Please. Honestly, just don't with this. It's garbage in every way. If you enjoy shitty made-for-TV/DVD horror movies then go right ahead and poison yourself with this stuff. I'd rather find something more productive to do with my time, like staring at the sun. Oh and Rachael Taylor's in this. Because it was made in Australia. Because that looks just like Louisiana. Because we're all idiots.
This was not even close to what Man Thing is.
moondog21 May 2005
Warning: Spoilers
So you read all the comments that are submitted? Let us test this because I WANT A REPLY! I want you to tell me WHY was this " movie " ever made. Did the " writer " or the so called director ever look at the comic? What the hell was this movie about ? Why did Marvel ever let this see the light of day to begin with ? Why did you not burn this trash screenplay when it crossed the desk ? Hey that is a lot of why and I bet I will never get an honest answer to any of the questions I have asked. Man Thing was one of the first comics I started when I was 10 or 11 so I feel I should get an answer. Man Thing is my favorite Marvel comic and to see it done into a movie is a dream come true but this is not the comic and it is not even close. So yes I would like to know who dropped the ball who was it that did not care at all as to how this movie would be done. THANK YOU for not caring, I think Stan Lee needs to be put back in charge. Yes I watched the movie but I knew it was going to SUCK just from the previews, Swamp Thing was at least closer to the story line than this garbage. Now what I really want to know is when are you going to do a Man Thing movie? Hey I am just a fan that has 99 percent of the Man Thing comics so what do I know.
Gaw'awful and then some......
val-1201 May 2005
This movie should have just been burned out in the swamp it was filmed in. Marvel and Lion Gate Films need to brace themselves for the truckload of letters the Native American Community is going to write to complain about this sewage sludge.
I and a few friends tried to watch it all the way through. Tee left after 30 minutes. Dan left after an hour. Out of give only one of us lasted the full two hours of trash. The camera work is beyond pitiful. The budget obviously did not include extras, site locations, or something that would have passed as a plot. Again Hollywood takes a D-Character and tries to make a major motion picture. As a 25 year comic book collector, I can count on one hand how many of my friends even knew who Man-Thing even is. This movie trashed the entire premise of the Man-Thing story.
For the record, I am surprised that they even released this crap at all.
I and a few friends tried to watch it all the way through. Tee left after 30 minutes. Dan left after an hour. Out of give only one of us lasted the full two hours of trash. The camera work is beyond pitiful. The budget obviously did not include extras, site locations, or something that would have passed as a plot. Again Hollywood takes a D-Character and tries to make a major motion picture. As a 25 year comic book collector, I can count on one hand how many of my friends even knew who Man-Thing even is. This movie trashed the entire premise of the Man-Thing story.
For the record, I am surprised that they even released this crap at all.
Confusing Waste of Time
JimRaynor551 May 2005
Warning: Spoilers
I knew next to nothing about the character, but I decided to watch this because I have an interest in comics and comic book movies. Seeing that it was making its premiere on a Saturday night on the SciFi channel (home of crappy B-movies) my expectations were low. However, I expected to be at least marginally entertained.
This movie was originally intended either for a theatrical or direct-to-video release. However, since it came out on TV, all the nudity and a lot of the cursing were edited out. This was unfortunate, since nudity might have been the only thing worth seeing in this movie. The opening scene (in which Man-Thing kills a guy having sex with his naked girlfriend) is so heavily edited that you don't even know what happened to the guy.
The film introduces over half a dozen supporting characters, all of which are completely useless, in terms of storytelling, AND within the universe of the movie. The movie portrays Lousianians as a bunch of stereotypical drunken, stupid, hicks. Even if there might be people who live up to that stereotype, it was annoying that pretty much EVERYONE was like that. Particularly annoying was the extent of some characters' drug addiction. A security guard is seen drinking on the job, and then putting cigarettes in his mouth even as Man-Thing comes to kill him. The characters who aren't hicks are either cowardly or stupid. Almost none of these characters served any storytelling purpose before being unceremoniously killed off, yet the movie introduces so many of them (and mentions several other people at different times) that it got hard to keep track of everyone.
Plot? What plot? Basically 80% (if not more) of this movie could have been cut, with no loss to the story. An example of such a scene is when a hick villain leaves his brother to take a dump alone in the swamp. A perfect time to kill him off, right? But no, we hear the man fart, see him take a dump, fall in the mud, and then walk back to his brother complaining. What's the point? The few parts that did seem to be relevant to the story were muddled and confusing.
The love story was completely forced, and made no sense. The sheriff and this blonde woman meet each other only a couple times, and she mostly just hates him. Then, with no explanation, they just started kissing.
This movie really offers you nothing. There's no drama, because the characters are just a bunch of useless cardboard cutouts, and they're handled so ineptly that you can't even determine some of their motivations. There's no horror, because the monster barely shows up, and you always see it coming. There's no story, because nothing happens, and what little happens is poorly handled and confusing. This movie elicited no emotion from me, and I watched the whole thing in a bored neutral state. The only reason I'm not giving it a 1/10 rating is because I've seen worse, and the movie didn't offend me so much as bore me.
This movie was originally intended either for a theatrical or direct-to-video release. However, since it came out on TV, all the nudity and a lot of the cursing were edited out. This was unfortunate, since nudity might have been the only thing worth seeing in this movie. The opening scene (in which Man-Thing kills a guy having sex with his naked girlfriend) is so heavily edited that you don't even know what happened to the guy.
The film introduces over half a dozen supporting characters, all of which are completely useless, in terms of storytelling, AND within the universe of the movie. The movie portrays Lousianians as a bunch of stereotypical drunken, stupid, hicks. Even if there might be people who live up to that stereotype, it was annoying that pretty much EVERYONE was like that. Particularly annoying was the extent of some characters' drug addiction. A security guard is seen drinking on the job, and then putting cigarettes in his mouth even as Man-Thing comes to kill him. The characters who aren't hicks are either cowardly or stupid. Almost none of these characters served any storytelling purpose before being unceremoniously killed off, yet the movie introduces so many of them (and mentions several other people at different times) that it got hard to keep track of everyone.
Plot? What plot? Basically 80% (if not more) of this movie could have been cut, with no loss to the story. An example of such a scene is when a hick villain leaves his brother to take a dump alone in the swamp. A perfect time to kill him off, right? But no, we hear the man fart, see him take a dump, fall in the mud, and then walk back to his brother complaining. What's the point? The few parts that did seem to be relevant to the story were muddled and confusing.
The love story was completely forced, and made no sense. The sheriff and this blonde woman meet each other only a couple times, and she mostly just hates him. Then, with no explanation, they just started kissing.
This movie really offers you nothing. There's no drama, because the characters are just a bunch of useless cardboard cutouts, and they're handled so ineptly that you can't even determine some of their motivations. There's no horror, because the monster barely shows up, and you always see it coming. There's no story, because nothing happens, and what little happens is poorly handled and confusing. This movie elicited no emotion from me, and I watched the whole thing in a bored neutral state. The only reason I'm not giving it a 1/10 rating is because I've seen worse, and the movie didn't offend me so much as bore me.
Pretty Decent
gothic_a6665 November 2005
The Man-thing is your average monster movie, which is likely to appeal to the die hard fans of the genre, leaving all others wondering just what was the point of making it in the first place.
Yet, a few things stand out, mainly the scenery and the monster itself. The swamp was captured on film in a very ambiguous way, it that it is both realistic and somewhat nightmarish and disturbing. We owe that to the excellent cinematography, responsible for delivering an uncanny goldish light and the impressive shots of oozing green vegetation.
Now, the monster. Apparently, it was based on some Marvel creature I have never heard of. Either way, for a B movie, it was a very competent display of half man, half plant beast, something that could have easily become ridiculous, especially since I doubt the FX team had a large budget to work with. Still, I believe we get to see a bit too much of the Man Thing, the more footage there is on the creature the less impact it usually manages to create on the viewer.
Another thing that surprised me about this flick were the deaths. They are gruesome and convincing, with roots and barks impaling people throughout the movie. Not extremely gory but still very graphic in terms of sheer violence.
What kills this movie is the usual...a terrible cast, abhorred acting and a plot that is too shallow to hold. Everything is highly predictable and we all know who will die and who will make it. All that is part of the genre's conventions, and since the Man-thing aims to be a monster flick, and clearly is mostly concerned with the most dedicated of fans, I can say it achieved all of its goals.
Yet, a few things stand out, mainly the scenery and the monster itself. The swamp was captured on film in a very ambiguous way, it that it is both realistic and somewhat nightmarish and disturbing. We owe that to the excellent cinematography, responsible for delivering an uncanny goldish light and the impressive shots of oozing green vegetation.
Now, the monster. Apparently, it was based on some Marvel creature I have never heard of. Either way, for a B movie, it was a very competent display of half man, half plant beast, something that could have easily become ridiculous, especially since I doubt the FX team had a large budget to work with. Still, I believe we get to see a bit too much of the Man Thing, the more footage there is on the creature the less impact it usually manages to create on the viewer.
Another thing that surprised me about this flick were the deaths. They are gruesome and convincing, with roots and barks impaling people throughout the movie. Not extremely gory but still very graphic in terms of sheer violence.
What kills this movie is the usual...a terrible cast, abhorred acting and a plot that is too shallow to hold. Everything is highly predictable and we all know who will die and who will make it. All that is part of the genre's conventions, and since the Man-thing aims to be a monster flick, and clearly is mostly concerned with the most dedicated of fans, I can say it achieved all of its goals.
Based on the popular comic book of the same name from Marvel comics group.
ma-cortes13 November 2009
An Oil Company whose owner is an ambitious villain(Jack Thompson)is polluting the Bywater lands and the villagers are up in arms and a swamp thing is committing horrible murders. A new sheriff named Kyle(Matthew Le Nevez) arrives the little town. He is sent to the Bayou to investigate , helped by a deputy (Alex O'Loughlin) . There finds a beast, a plant with an animal's aggression power for survival and fury. Meanwhile the sheriff falls in love with a gorgeous elementary school teacher named Teri ( Rachael Taylor).
This exciting picture is packed by thrills, chills, gory killings and brief nudism in charge of Imogen Bailey. It's an unusual mix of monster movie and intrigue but definitely an enjoyable movie. From the producers- Avi Arad and Stan Lee- of Spiderman, Daredevil, X men, Blade and several others. Director Brett Leonard made this campy swamp romp adapted from the Marvel comic books of the same name. Director deliberately use comic-book style to keep us from taking anything too seriously. It's a co-production USA-Australia filmed in Sydney , New South Wales with good cinematography by Steve Arnold. Fans horror will love this movie about a monster part vegetable, part man . In similar style adapted from D.C. Comics were made in 1982 ¨The Swamp Thing¨ by Wes Craven with Louis Jourdan, Adrienne Barbeau and Ray Wise in which a chemical installation turns into walking vegetation monster. And its following : ¨Return of Swamp Thing¨(1989) by Jim Wynorski with Heather Lockleaar, Lous Jourdan and Sarah Douglas.
This exciting picture is packed by thrills, chills, gory killings and brief nudism in charge of Imogen Bailey. It's an unusual mix of monster movie and intrigue but definitely an enjoyable movie. From the producers- Avi Arad and Stan Lee- of Spiderman, Daredevil, X men, Blade and several others. Director Brett Leonard made this campy swamp romp adapted from the Marvel comic books of the same name. Director deliberately use comic-book style to keep us from taking anything too seriously. It's a co-production USA-Australia filmed in Sydney , New South Wales with good cinematography by Steve Arnold. Fans horror will love this movie about a monster part vegetable, part man . In similar style adapted from D.C. Comics were made in 1982 ¨The Swamp Thing¨ by Wes Craven with Louis Jourdan, Adrienne Barbeau and Ray Wise in which a chemical installation turns into walking vegetation monster. And its following : ¨Return of Swamp Thing¨(1989) by Jim Wynorski with Heather Lockleaar, Lous Jourdan and Sarah Douglas.
Worse than The Hulk!
JediToreador30 April 2005
Warning: Spoilers
I thought The Hulk was the worst Marvel movie.
I was wrong.
At least that had enough -happening- to put it in the theaters. Man-Thing didn't even have that. It was supposed to be in the theaters, but even they knew it was so bad that if someone had to pay to see that, they'd write in and demand their money back.
This movie started out very very slow. But I thought that I'd give it a chance. Lots of good movies have a slow beginning. And so I kept watching. And watching. And watching. And nothing happened. At all. I was waiting for there to be some point where it became an interesting movie, but that point never happened. It was the same slow boring story from the very beginning to the very end. It was only half way through and I was already checking my watch, thinking this has to be almost over.
Th end was lame. You explode one drill and the Man-Thing is calmed? He's happy now? I don't think so. This made him look like a bad guy completely. He's not. Well, not exactly. But they didn't even bother with any of that in the movie. He was just a cranky tree that didn't like people drilling in his swamp.
You can't call it horror, because it wasn't scary in the least. You saw through the Man-Thing's eyes in choppy spliced-up little slide shows of the-gods-know-what because you can't even focus on any of them. It's not scary, it's annoying. And they don't explain -why- he sees in fast motion or whatever that is.
And then there is the gratuitous relationship. Hey, I have nothing against romance in action movies, but is it too much to ask that they get to know each other a -bit- before they start to make out and all that? He tosses her over his shoulder and what, she's smitten? Give me a break. Her character was completely pointless. Oh, and "Hey we just saw this big huge explosion, two people die and the Man-Thing implode and we're standing in the middle of a creepy dark swamp in the middle of the night, let's kiss." Um, no.
And then let's talk about the Man-Thing himself. Like the Hulk, you have to suffer through 3/4 of a boring movie to even -see- the title character and in this case, when you do, he looks TERRIBLE! What were those silly things coming from his back? They weren't vines, they looked more like bloated snakes. Yuck! He was just a head and glowing red eyes and those yucky things. Totally disappointing.
I saw it on SciFi, so I can't say I wasted my money. If I had seen it in the theaters, I'd be mad. Very mad. Needless to say, I won't be picking up the DVD.
I was wrong.
At least that had enough -happening- to put it in the theaters. Man-Thing didn't even have that. It was supposed to be in the theaters, but even they knew it was so bad that if someone had to pay to see that, they'd write in and demand their money back.
This movie started out very very slow. But I thought that I'd give it a chance. Lots of good movies have a slow beginning. And so I kept watching. And watching. And watching. And nothing happened. At all. I was waiting for there to be some point where it became an interesting movie, but that point never happened. It was the same slow boring story from the very beginning to the very end. It was only half way through and I was already checking my watch, thinking this has to be almost over.
Th end was lame. You explode one drill and the Man-Thing is calmed? He's happy now? I don't think so. This made him look like a bad guy completely. He's not. Well, not exactly. But they didn't even bother with any of that in the movie. He was just a cranky tree that didn't like people drilling in his swamp.
You can't call it horror, because it wasn't scary in the least. You saw through the Man-Thing's eyes in choppy spliced-up little slide shows of the-gods-know-what because you can't even focus on any of them. It's not scary, it's annoying. And they don't explain -why- he sees in fast motion or whatever that is.
And then there is the gratuitous relationship. Hey, I have nothing against romance in action movies, but is it too much to ask that they get to know each other a -bit- before they start to make out and all that? He tosses her over his shoulder and what, she's smitten? Give me a break. Her character was completely pointless. Oh, and "Hey we just saw this big huge explosion, two people die and the Man-Thing implode and we're standing in the middle of a creepy dark swamp in the middle of the night, let's kiss." Um, no.
And then let's talk about the Man-Thing himself. Like the Hulk, you have to suffer through 3/4 of a boring movie to even -see- the title character and in this case, when you do, he looks TERRIBLE! What were those silly things coming from his back? They weren't vines, they looked more like bloated snakes. Yuck! He was just a head and glowing red eyes and those yucky things. Totally disappointing.
I saw it on SciFi, so I can't say I wasted my money. If I had seen it in the theaters, I'd be mad. Very mad. Needless to say, I won't be picking up the DVD.
Fun to watch, but don't expect too much
boyinflares24 September 2005
An interesting choice for Marvel to adapt to the big screen (or in most cases, the small screen), but don't go expecting "X-Men", "X-2" or "Spider-Man". What we have here is a fairly good horror movie, with a great location and likable cast who all look like they are having fun. Matthew Le Nevez and Alex O'Lachlan (the Sheriff and the Deputy) are two hotties who make the film even more worthwhile, and Rachael Taylor was pretty good too. The special effects were decent, and the swamp looked real (but then again, I'm no swamp expert), it was creepy and looked just right to have a serious case of missing-persons. I applaud Marvel for an interesting take on the villain also - not Man-Thing, but the concept of the destruction of the environment. This environmental destruction takes a human form in Jake Schist, played by Pat Thompson, and his cronies. The horror aspect of the film wasn't over-played, nor under-played, but subtle, and the cinematography used when Le Nevez and Taylor enter the "Dark Water" is excellent. My only major complaint with the film was that it was a little slow-paced in some places, and it would have been nice to see a little more romance between Le Nevez and Taylor's characters. Otherwise, a decent watch.
Marvel's Man-Thing rips apart rednecks in comic book creature feature!
BA_Harrison15 March 2006
The Schist oil company is polluting the Bywater swamp and the locals are up in arms about it but that is nothing compared to how the guardian of the swamp, Man-Thing, feels. Man-thing will not rest until the drilling platform has gone, and until then he will kill anyone he can get his branches on.
New sheriff in the town, Kyle Williams, and sexy third grade school teacher, Teri, embark on a quest to put an end to the death and destruction.
Brett Leonard's adaptation of the Marvel comic books is an enjoyable and schlocky monster flick that never gets ideas above its station and is savvy enough to give its core audience exactly what they want; we get moderate gore, a smattering of nudity, a pretty decent monster and a plot that doesn't exactly tax the old grey matter.
The swamp locations are a sufficiently creepy setting for the tale. Swimming in mist and bathed in a spooky green glow, they allow Leonard to use shadows and light for maximum effect - at times concealing the horror and at others, revealing it in its full gory glory.
The effects both the gore and the creature are also pretty impressive. When Man-Thing gets busy on his victims, he doesn't hold back and we get a range of gruesome body parts splashed across the screen during its 105 minute running time.
In fact, the only thing that really lets this film down is its pacing. The film is too long (by about 20 minutes) and too much time is spent with characters either chatting or wandering aimlessly through the swamp. If there had been a little less talk and a little more action, I'd have rated it higher.
New sheriff in the town, Kyle Williams, and sexy third grade school teacher, Teri, embark on a quest to put an end to the death and destruction.
Brett Leonard's adaptation of the Marvel comic books is an enjoyable and schlocky monster flick that never gets ideas above its station and is savvy enough to give its core audience exactly what they want; we get moderate gore, a smattering of nudity, a pretty decent monster and a plot that doesn't exactly tax the old grey matter.
The swamp locations are a sufficiently creepy setting for the tale. Swimming in mist and bathed in a spooky green glow, they allow Leonard to use shadows and light for maximum effect - at times concealing the horror and at others, revealing it in its full gory glory.
The effects both the gore and the creature are also pretty impressive. When Man-Thing gets busy on his victims, he doesn't hold back and we get a range of gruesome body parts splashed across the screen during its 105 minute running time.
In fact, the only thing that really lets this film down is its pacing. The film is too long (by about 20 minutes) and too much time is spent with characters either chatting or wandering aimlessly through the swamp. If there had been a little less talk and a little more action, I'd have rated it higher.
Don't waste your time
macchiedinchiostro8 July 2019
It is a bad movie. Badly written and directed, not to mention the acting. And to make matters worse, it misses completely the point in depicting the Man Thing character. There's no origin story, no empathy with the creature and you do not understand its purpose. Steve Gerber's stories were so thematical and the Man Thing, despite being almost brainless, worked as a cathartic catalyst. He could discern good from evil and was a strange kind of antihero. Waste of time.
Not a very good film.
MissLinn25 January 2012
Warning: Spoilers
I think the title says it all. Man-Thing. This is the kind of film actors only agree to do because they need the money. Not that all the actors are good ones. The sheriff ( Matthew Le Neves ) have the same facial expression during the whole film. The woman ( Rachael Taylor ) he fancy is overacting to the roof. The brothers Thibadeaux are caricatures. And I mean, how many boiled alligator-heads do you actually need? The Mant-hing itself is pretty well done, but a bit small. And not very scary, maybe he need a set of really big teeth ? I have not read the comic-book ( because I do not read comic-books ). Maybe Marvel went to far? Now, why the hell is Alex O'loughlin in this mess?? He is a solid actor and way to good looking guy. Alex honey, if you need money, just call me, OK?
I expected better and I don't know why
dashizer721 May 2014
Warning: Spoilers
I went into this movie knowing it was probably low budget (and it seemed to be), made for TV, and all sorts of things, but something inside me thought there was more to this. I was very wrong and at some point without even knowing who the actors are, anything really about the film besides the "monster" it is named after and appears in the film that this was Australian. Why am I mentioning this being Australian? Because the main female protagonist has an accent an accent that is supposed to be a Southern style bayou like accent, but you hear these glimpses of her real accent her Australian accent and this goes for many of the Australian characters.
I find it also tropish, or in a way offensive that every movie dealing with nature and spirits seem to end up with Native Americans. That's not the only offensive thing there are the garish dead bodies which are obviously props, or a guy with make up. ***Spoiler*** One of the dead guys the racist security guard can be seen breathing in the scene where the sheriff kneels down to examine him at the behest of the coroner.
I wouldn't say the acting was all bad, and I think the actors did their best but the guy who wrote this sucked, the director was terrible, whoever was in charge of cinematography needs to have been fired. It's an interesting watch just don't expect anything from this besides a cool looking creature.
I find it also tropish, or in a way offensive that every movie dealing with nature and spirits seem to end up with Native Americans. That's not the only offensive thing there are the garish dead bodies which are obviously props, or a guy with make up. ***Spoiler*** One of the dead guys the racist security guard can be seen breathing in the scene where the sheriff kneels down to examine him at the behest of the coroner.
I wouldn't say the acting was all bad, and I think the actors did their best but the guy who wrote this sucked, the director was terrible, whoever was in charge of cinematography needs to have been fired. It's an interesting watch just don't expect anything from this besides a cool looking creature.
Crap-Thing
blocherd1 May 2005
Warning: Spoilers
I saw this movie and it was crap! It was so far from the Comic Book rendition, and we don't even get a glimpse of Man-Thing until the last 20 minutes of the movie. The make-up of the title character was terribly cheap and didn't even give a remote resemblance to the real thing.
Films based on characters from Marvel Comics were doing so well, but this one is a real embarrassment to their reputation.
I was hoping to have Man-Thing himself done with CGI, complete with the long trunk as he was featured in the comic books.
Also the Man-Thing was not suppose to be evil as he was portrayed in this movie, just mis-understood!
Films based on characters from Marvel Comics were doing so well, but this one is a real embarrassment to their reputation.
I was hoping to have Man-Thing himself done with CGI, complete with the long trunk as he was featured in the comic books.
Also the Man-Thing was not suppose to be evil as he was portrayed in this movie, just mis-understood!
Get away from this swamp!
gazineo-118 April 2005
'Man-Thing, The' is a movie produced by the Marvel Productions and according to its credits is based on a Marvel comic book character. After this piece of information, you'll believe that the movie is an adaptation - like some other as 'Spider Man' or 'Daredevil' - of the stories concerning the big, green and mute (he only thinks, not talk)good monster called 'Swamp Monster, The'. Sorry, but you'll be completely wrong. This ludicrous, stupid movie is a unbelievable and far fetched story about a monster - and a bad one, not a good guy like the Marvel character - who is a product - if one can say so - of the Indian legends and beliefs about a 'spirit of the swamp' who lives in the 'Dark Waters'. This monster seeks revenge against some business men who owned a factory installed inside the swamp and responsible for environment damages. The rest is just garbage, shabby situations and boring development all around. Maybe this movie is the worst work made with the Marvel label as advertisement. Please, don't lose your time. Get away from this horrible swamp!
Mind-numbingly awful!
CuriosityKilledShawn24 November 2006
I will not spend too long reviewing this turd as I am still very annoyed that I spend 90 minutes of my precious time watching it. Instead I will simply say that Man-Thing is not only the worst comic-book movie ever made, but it is also one of the worst films ever made ever. I cannot believe that utter trash like this comes to DVD but Howard the Duck does not.
Set in the Deep South but filmed in Austrailia with Ozzie soap actors (who are so expressionless and wooden you can almost see the sawdust flaking off them) the film is an hour and a half of the most mundane, generic blandness you could ever imagine. Almost nothing happens as characters sleepwalk from scene to scene, all being pointlessly killed by a pointless monster.
Brett (I've never directed a good film in my life) Leonard shoots the film like a TV movie with either a green filter or an orange filter over the lens (oooh...how atmospheric) as his only means of 'sophistication'. The man began life with The Lawnmower man, so he didn't really have so far to fall before making this pile of crap.
My God, it's just so bad. Never waste time or money on this. I beg you!
Set in the Deep South but filmed in Austrailia with Ozzie soap actors (who are so expressionless and wooden you can almost see the sawdust flaking off them) the film is an hour and a half of the most mundane, generic blandness you could ever imagine. Almost nothing happens as characters sleepwalk from scene to scene, all being pointlessly killed by a pointless monster.
Brett (I've never directed a good film in my life) Leonard shoots the film like a TV movie with either a green filter or an orange filter over the lens (oooh...how atmospheric) as his only means of 'sophistication'. The man began life with The Lawnmower man, so he didn't really have so far to fall before making this pile of crap.
My God, it's just so bad. Never waste time or money on this. I beg you!
One of the better Sci-fi channel originals I've seen...
willywants23 June 2005
Something evil is living in a swamp, something that kills all that enter its territory, the "dark waters". As more people are killed, the local town sheriff learns that a swamp-monster of Indian legend is responsible. Can he stop the creature before it can continue killing? "Man-Thing" has gotten primarily bad reviews here on IMDb, but I thought it was
not terrible. Not great either, loaded with clichés, yes, but I've seen much worse films released courtesy of the Sci-fi channel. Any of you ever seen of "Boa Vs. Python"?!?!? There's plenty of stuff to like here. The swamp photography is beautiful. The shades of greens gave the film a very nice look, and the swamp is setting is effectively creepy. Director Brett Leonardwho you may remember as the guy behind 1992's "Lawn Mower Man"gives the film good atmosphere, and there were even a couple of creepy moments towards the finale. The monster was scary and looked very, very impressive, to say the least. There was some pretty weak CG used for its tentacles among other things but thankfully the creature itself is a good old-fashioned man-in-a-suit creation, and a darn good one at that. Kudos to the effects team on this memorable, nasty-looking beast. Oh, there's the abundant gore too, which is certainly a plus. I won't give away what happens in the film, but I will say gore fans will be very happy. I also liked Roger Mason's creepy, atmospheric score.
Problems begin with two things: The script and the actors. The screenplay offers lots of typical horror conventions: Throwaway monster victims, cheap pop scares, greedy and unrealistic bad guys, wise Indians who know about the monster, and so on. If you know the genre, you're probably familiar with this set-up by now, and it can be very tiring. The actors are mostly weak (Save for lead actor Matthew Le Nevez who wasn't bad), and those "southern" accents sure sound Australian if you ask me!
"Man Thing" is flawed and offers a familiar set-up, but if you can overlook that you'll be treated to a gory, creepy monster movie. Better than most made-for-TV horror films I've seen, and I've seen a lot.
6/10.
Problems begin with two things: The script and the actors. The screenplay offers lots of typical horror conventions: Throwaway monster victims, cheap pop scares, greedy and unrealistic bad guys, wise Indians who know about the monster, and so on. If you know the genre, you're probably familiar with this set-up by now, and it can be very tiring. The actors are mostly weak (Save for lead actor Matthew Le Nevez who wasn't bad), and those "southern" accents sure sound Australian if you ask me!
"Man Thing" is flawed and offers a familiar set-up, but if you can overlook that you'll be treated to a gory, creepy monster movie. Better than most made-for-TV horror films I've seen, and I've seen a lot.
6/10.
The worst of the recent Marvel movies (by far)
jmuntmootcourt28 August 2008
I've only flipped through a few of the comics, so I can't make any statements about the relevance of the plot to the stories. I don't think the relevance is the biggest thing to be worried about.
Aside from the gratuitous (though nice) boobie shot and blood, this isn't even worthy to be called a horror flick. The script is atrocious, though not an excuse for the acting. One odd thing is that the random supporting characters did a better job than did the main ones. With Marvel's budgets for other movies, why couldn't they afford anybody that could act for this one? I know "horror" movies tend to promote "unknowns" (Depp and McConaughey spring to mind), but lots of them can actually ACT in such simple settings even when they aren't future superstars.
The plot was also nonexistent. What you read on the DVD case, IMDb, etc. is about it. Dude gets hired to be a sheriff. Weird stuff happens in the town. Dude investigates. People die. The end. Some of the character interactions made me think there might have been some sort of conspiracy, revenge from a guy who becomes Man-Thing, whatever. Nope. Just a crappy "it's protecting sacred ground" explanation, and a couple of dudes who were shown to be "bad guys" at the outset. A possibility of more, which I won't spoil or spell out, but it wasn't delved into enough to make it worth a crap anyway.
No fact-checking above the 4th grade level, either. Area 51 is in Roswell, NM...not Nevada. And water cannot protect you from a 500+ foot explosion that takes place 30 feet away from you.
Since they spent so little on everything else, you'd think they could spring for some special effects. You'd think wrong. There were a couple of cool shots, and then about 5 minutes (if that) at the end that were decent action/effects, but that's it. If not for that, this would get a 1/10 instead of a 2/10 from me. Worth watching once for the teeny bit of coolness when you actually see more than a tentacle (yes, they actually made him look good during those 5 minutes). They probably intended the audience finally seeing Man-Thing to be climactic, but instead, you just think, "now, why didn't they have more of THE TITLE CHARACTER in it?" And I must restate another reviewer's question...why didn't they investigate the swamp during daylight hours??? Not really even worthy of the Sci-Fi 2am slot.
Aside from the gratuitous (though nice) boobie shot and blood, this isn't even worthy to be called a horror flick. The script is atrocious, though not an excuse for the acting. One odd thing is that the random supporting characters did a better job than did the main ones. With Marvel's budgets for other movies, why couldn't they afford anybody that could act for this one? I know "horror" movies tend to promote "unknowns" (Depp and McConaughey spring to mind), but lots of them can actually ACT in such simple settings even when they aren't future superstars.
The plot was also nonexistent. What you read on the DVD case, IMDb, etc. is about it. Dude gets hired to be a sheriff. Weird stuff happens in the town. Dude investigates. People die. The end. Some of the character interactions made me think there might have been some sort of conspiracy, revenge from a guy who becomes Man-Thing, whatever. Nope. Just a crappy "it's protecting sacred ground" explanation, and a couple of dudes who were shown to be "bad guys" at the outset. A possibility of more, which I won't spoil or spell out, but it wasn't delved into enough to make it worth a crap anyway.
No fact-checking above the 4th grade level, either. Area 51 is in Roswell, NM...not Nevada. And water cannot protect you from a 500+ foot explosion that takes place 30 feet away from you.
Since they spent so little on everything else, you'd think they could spring for some special effects. You'd think wrong. There were a couple of cool shots, and then about 5 minutes (if that) at the end that were decent action/effects, but that's it. If not for that, this would get a 1/10 instead of a 2/10 from me. Worth watching once for the teeny bit of coolness when you actually see more than a tentacle (yes, they actually made him look good during those 5 minutes). They probably intended the audience finally seeing Man-Thing to be climactic, but instead, you just think, "now, why didn't they have more of THE TITLE CHARACTER in it?" And I must restate another reviewer's question...why didn't they investigate the swamp during daylight hours??? Not really even worthy of the Sci-Fi 2am slot.
One of the most underrated movies on IMDb.com!
JTallman1605 April 2007
When I first saw "Man-Thing" on the shelf in the local video store, I was definitely intrigued by the cover; enough to read the back, anyway. After reading the case, I thought it sounded good, but the movie happened to be already checked out. The video store did, however, have a copy of the DVD to purchase for $4.95. I was a little hesitant at first, but after seeing that it was based on a Marvel comic book, I figured it couldn't be too bad.
I rented about six or seven other movies that night, and when I got back to my dorm room, I immediately looked them up on IMDb. I must say, I was a little disappointed to see that "Man-Thing" was only given an average rating of 4.0 out of 10.0. Thinking that I might just have blown five dollars, I put the movie on my shelf and forgot about it.
A few nights later, I was having trouble sleeping, and decided to throw the movie in. The opening scene was like that out of any typical horror film, but after the first few minutes, I was hooked. The plot was well thought out, the characters were both interesting and relatable, and it kept showing you just enough of the monster to keep you watching. In fact, you don't see very much of it until the last fifteen minutes of the movie.
I'm not saying that "Man-Thing" was the best movie I've ever seen, but for putting a movie in at 3:30am, I wasn't tempted to go to sleep once. All I can say is that I'm glad I didn't check the rating on here before I decided to rent/buy this DVD. I got lucky...which is more than I can say for a lot of the characters in this movie. "Man-Thing" was definitely enough of a scare to keep me away from swamps for a while.
This movie is a great addition to my collection. But unless you find a great deal like I did, I would rent this movie first...just to make sure you like it.
I rented about six or seven other movies that night, and when I got back to my dorm room, I immediately looked them up on IMDb. I must say, I was a little disappointed to see that "Man-Thing" was only given an average rating of 4.0 out of 10.0. Thinking that I might just have blown five dollars, I put the movie on my shelf and forgot about it.
A few nights later, I was having trouble sleeping, and decided to throw the movie in. The opening scene was like that out of any typical horror film, but after the first few minutes, I was hooked. The plot was well thought out, the characters were both interesting and relatable, and it kept showing you just enough of the monster to keep you watching. In fact, you don't see very much of it until the last fifteen minutes of the movie.
I'm not saying that "Man-Thing" was the best movie I've ever seen, but for putting a movie in at 3:30am, I wasn't tempted to go to sleep once. All I can say is that I'm glad I didn't check the rating on here before I decided to rent/buy this DVD. I got lucky...which is more than I can say for a lot of the characters in this movie. "Man-Thing" was definitely enough of a scare to keep me away from swamps for a while.
This movie is a great addition to my collection. But unless you find a great deal like I did, I would rent this movie first...just to make sure you like it.
Atmospheric and visually stunning horror movie.
misbegotten9 November 2005
Warning: Spoilers
This movie adaptation of Marvel Comics' 1970s comic book about a swamp-dwelling muck monster was originally supposed to receive a U.S. cinema release in late 2004. But this was pulled, and the film eventually debuted on the American Sci-Fi Channel the following year.
Initially it was intended for the movie to be filmed in Louisiana, the same setting as the comics, but production shifted to Australia due to budgetary reasons, and the cast was filled with local actors.
This is perhaps the main reason why Marvel had second thoughts about launching Man-Thing into cinemas: the lack of star power. Even low budget movies that are made for the direct-to-video or cable markets have at least a couple of familiar character actors or B list names amongst their casts, but the only recognisable face in Man-Thing is Aussie glamour model and lads mag favourite Imogen Bailey. She has a minor role, and provides the movie with it's skin quota by going topless in the first four minutes.
The most surprising and best thing about the film is that it avoids the approach previously taken by the two movies and TV series based on DC Comics' rival creature Swamp Thing, and doesn't portray it's title character as a monstrous but kindhearted do-gooder battling against bad guys. Instead, this film is an outright horror film, which boasts a fair amount of gore and some pretty gruesome deaths.
The story concerns a new sheriff arriving in a small town on the edge of the bayou, and immediately finding himself caught in the middle of a dispute between an oil company that's draining the swamp on one side, and environmental protesters (including the local Native American population) on the other. But he's more concerned about the large number of people going missing in the area, including the previous sheriff, especially when some of them start floating to the surface as extremely messed-up corpses.
It's not the most original plot in the world, and based on the brief summary I've just given, you can probably guess how it all turns out. There's also no prizes for the characterisations on display: the Native Americans are portrayed as noble and wise, most of the white locals are violent and racist rednecks, and the oil drilling villains are irredeemably evil (in one terribly misjudged scene, the two main bad guys discuss killing someone, then laugh for several seconds just to prove how evil they are).
Despite such unoriginality, it's a shame that Man-Thing got dumped straight to cable, for despite it's meagre budget, this is a film that would not have looked embarrassed on the big screen. The visuals are amazing. The bayou scenes are wonderfully lit in lush shades of green, and the swamp looks beautiful, fascinating, eerie and forbidding, often all at the same time. I'm assuming that the majority of filming took place on location, but even those scenes that logic dictates must have been shot on a set (such as the film's explosive climax at an oil drilling station) look just as real. It's impossible to tell the difference between the sets and the actual swamp.
Regarding the title character, the movie ignores his (it's?) origin as portrayed in the comics. But considering that Man-Thing's origin involved Marvel Comics mainstays such as the world-conquering covert organisation A.I.M. (Advanced Idea Mechanics, if you're wondering) and the secret serum that created the superheroic Captain America, it's a wise move. Trying to introduce such concepts into a stand-alone film that commerically must appeal to non-comic readers would have been too time-consuming and confusing. Instead, the Man-Thing is just vaguely referred to as being 'the guardian spirit' of the swamp, from Native American folklore.
That said, a handful of references to the original stories are littered throughout the film for fans to spot: Ted Sallis and the Nexus of Realities are both mentioned, plus a couple of supporting characters are named after writers and artists who worked on the comic book back in it's 70s heyday.
Actual appearances by the title character are kept to a minimum, but instead of making the viewer feel short-changed, it just means that the Man-Thing's scenes have all the more impact when they occur. I mentioned earlier that this movie looks amazing, and that extends to the Man-Thing itself, a wonderful special effects creation that combines a man-in-a-costume with overladen CGI. Despite the low budget, it's one of the most impressive monsters I've even seen on screen, and possesses a subtle Lovecraftian quality. Full marks to all involved.
In conclusion, I rate Man-Thing as one of my favourite Marvel movie adaptations, second only to the under-rated Daredevil (2003).
Initially it was intended for the movie to be filmed in Louisiana, the same setting as the comics, but production shifted to Australia due to budgetary reasons, and the cast was filled with local actors.
This is perhaps the main reason why Marvel had second thoughts about launching Man-Thing into cinemas: the lack of star power. Even low budget movies that are made for the direct-to-video or cable markets have at least a couple of familiar character actors or B list names amongst their casts, but the only recognisable face in Man-Thing is Aussie glamour model and lads mag favourite Imogen Bailey. She has a minor role, and provides the movie with it's skin quota by going topless in the first four minutes.
The most surprising and best thing about the film is that it avoids the approach previously taken by the two movies and TV series based on DC Comics' rival creature Swamp Thing, and doesn't portray it's title character as a monstrous but kindhearted do-gooder battling against bad guys. Instead, this film is an outright horror film, which boasts a fair amount of gore and some pretty gruesome deaths.
The story concerns a new sheriff arriving in a small town on the edge of the bayou, and immediately finding himself caught in the middle of a dispute between an oil company that's draining the swamp on one side, and environmental protesters (including the local Native American population) on the other. But he's more concerned about the large number of people going missing in the area, including the previous sheriff, especially when some of them start floating to the surface as extremely messed-up corpses.
It's not the most original plot in the world, and based on the brief summary I've just given, you can probably guess how it all turns out. There's also no prizes for the characterisations on display: the Native Americans are portrayed as noble and wise, most of the white locals are violent and racist rednecks, and the oil drilling villains are irredeemably evil (in one terribly misjudged scene, the two main bad guys discuss killing someone, then laugh for several seconds just to prove how evil they are).
Despite such unoriginality, it's a shame that Man-Thing got dumped straight to cable, for despite it's meagre budget, this is a film that would not have looked embarrassed on the big screen. The visuals are amazing. The bayou scenes are wonderfully lit in lush shades of green, and the swamp looks beautiful, fascinating, eerie and forbidding, often all at the same time. I'm assuming that the majority of filming took place on location, but even those scenes that logic dictates must have been shot on a set (such as the film's explosive climax at an oil drilling station) look just as real. It's impossible to tell the difference between the sets and the actual swamp.
Regarding the title character, the movie ignores his (it's?) origin as portrayed in the comics. But considering that Man-Thing's origin involved Marvel Comics mainstays such as the world-conquering covert organisation A.I.M. (Advanced Idea Mechanics, if you're wondering) and the secret serum that created the superheroic Captain America, it's a wise move. Trying to introduce such concepts into a stand-alone film that commerically must appeal to non-comic readers would have been too time-consuming and confusing. Instead, the Man-Thing is just vaguely referred to as being 'the guardian spirit' of the swamp, from Native American folklore.
That said, a handful of references to the original stories are littered throughout the film for fans to spot: Ted Sallis and the Nexus of Realities are both mentioned, plus a couple of supporting characters are named after writers and artists who worked on the comic book back in it's 70s heyday.
Actual appearances by the title character are kept to a minimum, but instead of making the viewer feel short-changed, it just means that the Man-Thing's scenes have all the more impact when they occur. I mentioned earlier that this movie looks amazing, and that extends to the Man-Thing itself, a wonderful special effects creation that combines a man-in-a-costume with overladen CGI. Despite the low budget, it's one of the most impressive monsters I've even seen on screen, and possesses a subtle Lovecraftian quality. Full marks to all involved.
In conclusion, I rate Man-Thing as one of my favourite Marvel movie adaptations, second only to the under-rated Daredevil (2003).
The Wrong Way to Adapt Marvel
Virgil21276 May 2005
Warning: Spoilers
"Man-Thing" isn't a bad movie in the way that most Sci-Fi Pictures Original are. I know this because one of my favorite movies, "Dog Soldiers", suffered from the label of "Sci-Fi Pictures Original". Like "Dog Soldiers", "Man-Thing" is more than meets the eye - a slick Lion Gates film meant for theatrical release and dropped into the straight-to-video stack. Unlike "Dog Soldiers", "Man-Thing" really isn't that good.
"Man-Thing" is based on a Marvel comic book. The character was pretty much the precursor to DC Comics' hit "Swamp Thing" . . . the two are actually almost entirely identical. The difference is "Swamp Thing" eventually boasted the writing of Alan Moore and went on to make comic book history, leaving "Man-Thing" in the mothballs of comic book obscurity . . . until now . . . where its been resigned to the mothballs of movie history.
The problem is that "Man-Thing" isn't as much as movie about the Man-Thing as "Blade" is a movie about Blade. Instead, "Man-Thing" is about a bunch of flat stock characters who stumble around the grotesque swamp denzien for the duration of the movie.
In the comic book, Ted Sallis is a scientist-turned-monster who was transformed into a green pile of gobley-gook while trying to recreate the serum that first produced Captain America. The Man-Thing is a tragic figure who protects his swamp with a vague grasp of semi-intelligence. Unfortunately, all those who "fear" burn at the touch of the Man-Thing.
The problem with "Man-Thing" is that Ted Sallis' transformation is hardly addressed. We don't get a feel for the tragic soul at the heart of the material, and the very heart of most Marvel pictures. Instead, we just get a bumbling booger-covered Spawn who kills all people, innocent or not, when they enter the swamp at night. While never as poignant as Moore's Swamp Thing, the Man-Thing has been sadly reduced to the level of slasher horror.
The CGI looks very good, in comparison with the rest of Sci-Fi's latest offerings. The movie I watched with intercut with commercials of Sci-Fi's "The Fallen Ones", which showed poorly animated 42-foot mummies lumbering around, so I could see the difference rather easily. The Man-Thing looks particularly good in comparison. It is comforting to see that, at least on an aethetic sense, the filmmakers have stayed true to the look of the character, but not the spirit.
Over all, it was probably a good thing "Man-Thing" wasn't released to theaters. The only thing was would burn as a result of the Man-Thing's touch there would be eight bucks for a ticket, not the audience's fear.
"Man-Thing" is based on a Marvel comic book. The character was pretty much the precursor to DC Comics' hit "Swamp Thing" . . . the two are actually almost entirely identical. The difference is "Swamp Thing" eventually boasted the writing of Alan Moore and went on to make comic book history, leaving "Man-Thing" in the mothballs of comic book obscurity . . . until now . . . where its been resigned to the mothballs of movie history.
The problem is that "Man-Thing" isn't as much as movie about the Man-Thing as "Blade" is a movie about Blade. Instead, "Man-Thing" is about a bunch of flat stock characters who stumble around the grotesque swamp denzien for the duration of the movie.
In the comic book, Ted Sallis is a scientist-turned-monster who was transformed into a green pile of gobley-gook while trying to recreate the serum that first produced Captain America. The Man-Thing is a tragic figure who protects his swamp with a vague grasp of semi-intelligence. Unfortunately, all those who "fear" burn at the touch of the Man-Thing.
The problem with "Man-Thing" is that Ted Sallis' transformation is hardly addressed. We don't get a feel for the tragic soul at the heart of the material, and the very heart of most Marvel pictures. Instead, we just get a bumbling booger-covered Spawn who kills all people, innocent or not, when they enter the swamp at night. While never as poignant as Moore's Swamp Thing, the Man-Thing has been sadly reduced to the level of slasher horror.
The CGI looks very good, in comparison with the rest of Sci-Fi's latest offerings. The movie I watched with intercut with commercials of Sci-Fi's "The Fallen Ones", which showed poorly animated 42-foot mummies lumbering around, so I could see the difference rather easily. The Man-Thing looks particularly good in comparison. It is comforting to see that, at least on an aethetic sense, the filmmakers have stayed true to the look of the character, but not the spirit.
Over all, it was probably a good thing "Man-Thing" wasn't released to theaters. The only thing was would burn as a result of the Man-Thing's touch there would be eight bucks for a ticket, not the audience's fear.
Far from the worst monster movie
bus78211 May 2005
The range of scores on this movie is hard to understand. I haven't seen all of the Marvel adaptations, so I have no opinion on whether this is the worst of those. But anyone who thinks this movie is the worst of anything else must have been living in a cave ... a cave that isn't wired for cable. By monster movie standards this is probably a bit better than average. Even if one isn't grading on the curve, and even if you knock off an entire star for the bad accents this deserves at least a couple of stars just to separate it from movies like "Skeleton Man" and "Plan 9 from Outer Space". From the previews I was expecting this to at least surpass "Flying Virus" as the "Reefer Madness" of anti oil company movies, but it wasn't even that. Relax, people. On the other hand, this surely should be separated by at least half the spectrum from a genuinely good monster movie like "Alien", so a score over five is hard to understand. Hence, two stars.
It was bad before it even began
sadfaery30 April 2005
Okay, may I just say that the location of this film, which is fictional but highly suggestive of the bayous of Louisiana, judging from the "Seminole Legend" aspect, the prolific use of alligator imagery, the mangrove swamps, the place names and people's names, and the Southern accents, is really not done justice by its having been filmed in Australia with an Australian cast. Five minutes into the film, I realized from the fake Southern accents with the heavy Australian flavor that it was made in Australia (further confirmed by a trip to IMDb and a look at the countries of origin and the number of Australian actors in the cast). I'm from the South. I know a fake Southern accent when I hear one. Then I discovered that the Native American character was actually played by a Maori actor from New Zealand. Talk about your creative license. There are oh so very many other things wrong with this film, but the horrible fake accents and use of a Maori actor to play a Native American character overshadow them all.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
