"Man if Chloe Grace Moretz was 18 years old she be a perfect Mary Jane Watson."
The Spill Movie Community
If it's crap ... We'll tell you
Follow Spill!
Latest Activity
English Motherfucker posted a status"RIP James Gandolfini from the biggest Sopranos fan on the planet."
Ha-Ra posted a status"Can't wait to hear Korey and Cyrus' take on The Lego Movie trailer...that shit charmed the pants off of me"
"Damn... RIP James Gandolfini, you're one of the greats, and had so much more to show us."
C.H. Gorog posted a status"If you want to see a great James Gandolfini role, check him out in True Romance."
Photos
Music
The Thing( 2011) Short Review/ Thoughts
So I just got back from "The Thing" a few minutes ago and I thought I'd share some of my thoughts and a very small review since it's completely fresh in my mind.
Bottom line for you people out there that were as nervous as me about seeing it...
IT DOESN'T SUCK.
Believe me, I was actually physically nervous when I was watching the previews, I have never been so agitated watching a movie. In case you haven't figured it out, I am a huge fan of Carpenter's "The Thing". I've watched it honestly nearly 100 times at this point..I just can't get enough of it. So when I heard that they were making a prequel..my heart sank. If Hollywood didn't keep fucking up horror remakes, and prequels in the past 10 years or so then maybe I wouldn't have had reason to be so damn nervous. Now..back to the movie..
There were several moments throughout the film that I actually smiled a big goofy smile, nostalgia flooded over me constantly in the first 30 minute of the movie. Everything was there, the husky, the helicopters, the fucking snow..but, still, I was skeptical. Okay sure, it's got all the elements of a "The Thing" movie so far but, where's the two most important elements?((Paranoia/The Thing itself)) Well, when the Thing finally appears, I again was surprised. Again, let's get something out of the way. There are very little practical effects in this movie, whenever you see the Thing, it's going to be CGI..but, for the most part, it's really really GOOD CGI. As for the paranoia? It's definetly there. See the problem for me after watching Carpenter's The Thing again before I watched the prequel is this..there is not a single character that I liked in Carpenter's film except for Kurt Russell's. They are all unlikeable in some way and it was really difficult for me to feel sympathy for them when they were offed. Here however, these jolly bearded norwegians are well..very likeable. I was constantly wondering whom would become the Thing because I really began to care about these people...and jesus..the Thing itself..I'm not going to spoil anything but, despite being CGI the creature effects are still just as creepy and disturbing as they were in the Carpenter film.
So I gave my brief thoughts on the Thing prequel..overall, if you're coming into it expecting a movie BETTER than the Carpenter film, you will be disappointed. However, this film still more than lives up to it's namesake, I came in expecting nothing and I got exactly what I was hoping for.
RATING:: Full Price
Views: 144
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Murad Adham on -
I heard the audio review on this site and wish to know something..
Is this a psychological thriller like the old one or a monster flick?
Just to prepare myself.
i skipped to the end of the review and some drooling guy gave it a good score and no surprise when the other followed.
So what is it?....i'm open minded to remake like i spit on your grave which is nice and the hills have eyes which i think was even better than the first one.
-
Permalink Reply by Bagface on -
I'd say it's much more of a monster movie than Carpenter's film. Don't get me wrong though, there are still ALOT of psychological moments in the film that kind of got to me for some reason. The paranoia aspect of Carpenter's is still there in full force and there are plenty of very tense moments between the cast(( including scenes about the language barrier between the americans and the norwegians was a nice touch on the director's part too))).
-
Permalink Reply by NotTheWhosTommy on -
I wouldn't got that far. I was plesantly supplied by the movie, but it still had some big problems (like that climax... pretty lame one). I'd give it a 3/5 (or low Matinee in Spill parlance). Nowhere near as fantastic as Carpenter's version, but still fun.
Yet, despite only finding it above average, I find myself defending it because of how many of these fanboys hate the movie just because it isn't exactly like the Carpenter version and because it exists at all. I've seen much worse in terms of modern Carpenter revamps (fuck Rob Zombie's Halloween movies) and I probably would have liked the film much less if it simply re-did the movie beat for beat (which many people are unjustly accusing it of doing).
-
Permalink Reply by Bagface on
-
I'm a bit surprised just how much the critics seem to be hating on this movie. Every other review I read on it seems to have been written by the exact same person. I think the critics expectations were just..far too high for this movie. I was expecting to be disappointed and thank god I wasn't. As far as the climax goes, I would agree that it got a bit..odd, it was like I was watching a completely different movie for a time there( though for me it's just a minor gripe). The ending was great though in my opinion.
-
Permalink Reply by SketchedLilly on -
You liked the CGI? I thought it was awful. I'm not a fan of CGI over practical effects in general, but I can pull myself back enough to take an objective view on the quality of these and the moving shots were mostly garbage. The creature looked like it was made out of pudding...and not in an oozy monster-effect way. I'm not saying that it was all bad, but what was bad was really bloody bad. That wouldn't be such a big deal if it wasn't directly linked to one of the most innovative and important creature effect movies made.
It flopped on the tension and interhuman drama that is supposed to be the driving force of this kind of story. They focus so much on the monster, that the people aren't allowed to go through their arcs. The creature is the looming threat in the background that causes the people to panic and turn on eachother. All they did was mirror the 'test' scene from 82 and then do a quick massacre so that you don't have to worry about characters having to grow anymore.
It was sort of fun, but it was a pale shadow of it's 82 counterpart and added nothing to the story as a whole. There was really no reason for it to be made at all. Two things about the movie irk me in particular....
Spoilers ahead.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
1. Flamethrowers are brought out. Somehow, bits of hallway and slective portions of rooms are able to burn for 20-30 minutes without spreading. Characters seem completely oblivious and unconcered that the building they occupy is on fire. The magic shanty buildings also burn without smoke, because no one is having trouble breathing.
2. How is it that a parasitic flesh-absorbing creature that seems to have the sole trait of mindlessly devouring whatever it finds with no real concern for it's physical well being or presence of mind to formulate any stragegy besides "smashy tenticles" has the ability to pilot an interstellar craft? I had assumed that the craft belonged to an intelligent alien species that had come across the Thing and the infection and mayhem had caused the crash. That made sense until the gyropulse pudding sack on steroids popped the hatch and stuck the keys in the ignition.
-
Permalink Reply by SweepyJPN on -
Wow really, you liked the regurgitated garbage of your youth? You sat through the lazy reinventing of one of your favorite movies? You actually like the usage of unloving CGI over the heartfelt efforts of amazing practical effects? Did you enjoy seeing a crappy movie with the name of one of your favorite movies slapped on to it so it would sell to fans of the old movie like you? Honestly i could not sit through this arrogant recycled movie without the anger of Asura's Wrath about to explode into burst mode.
-
Permalink Reply by Bagface on
-
I liked it because it was a genuinely decent film. I'm not gonna throw a hissy fit over the use of CGI considering work goes into that too. You act like anyone can just flip on a computer and create decent CGI. I enjoyed it because I KNEW it wasn't going to compare to Carpenter's film, my expectations were exactly where they needed to be and the movie managed to surprise me. It's unfortunate you didn't enjoy it as much as I did but, you're entitled to your opinion.
-
Permalink Reply by Kenneth Svenning on -
There were parts that reminded me so much of John Carpenters, and to my understanding this was supposed to act as some sort of a prequel. They nailed the ending, but some parts I felt was taken right out of the Carpenter one.
-
Permalink Reply by Stephen Quentin Easton on -
I enjoyed this movie which was a relief, I thought it was a well made monster movie which showed respect for John Carpenter's movie. And on the whole I found the CGI OK.
However it doesn't compare favorably with the 1982 version. The major element missing is the tension, it becomes a standard chick fights monsters movie too soon.
*** SPOILERS ***
The Thing in this movie is much more inclined to reveal itself. Perhaps it had learned better by the time it met Kurt Russell, but I didn't find it's actions as intelligent or satisfying.
It seems extremely unlikely the pilots in the helicopter crash near the start could have survived, let alone be uninfected.
In this movie it used a spiked tentacle to very effectively kill/capture humans. Seems it forgot that trick for John Carpenter's version.
The characters are less well defined and interesting.
It has a few comical lines but they just don't compare with "I know you gentlemen have been through a lot, but if you don't mind I'd rather not spend the rest of this winter tied to this FUCKING COUCH".
I enjoyed this movie for what it was, but I give it a score of RENTAL.
-
Permalink Reply by Artie Fufkin on -
you're head must be on backwards if you give this full price but slated the woman in black, but then there is a reason i don't usually venture into the movie review part of this site and you sir have justified that with these 2 reviews. thanks for that \../
-
Permalink Reply by Bagface on
-
I disliked the Woman in Black because it's a bad movie in nearly ever way. I've seen the same story time and time again, the performances were for the most part over the top or lacking in genuine reaction to the events transpiring. The first half was sluggish as all hell and nearly bored me to tears. If you think the Woman in Black is better than the Thing prequel than YOUR head must be on backwards. At least I was thoroughly entertained by The Thing, Woman in Black is a cliche ridden bore-fest.
-
Permalink Reply by NeonKazma on -
Sorry to burst your bubbles, but Woman In Black was better than The Thing remake. Woman In Black was a very well made and atmospheric piece of work. While the pace can be slow at times and there are some characters that were kinda mediocre, it pays off thanks to a chilling performance by Daniel Radcliffe, stunning set designs, very predictable but surprisingly scary moments and it had that old-school horror atmosphere that Hammer Productions always put effort in their movies. As for The Thing remake, here's why It sucked like a bitch:
The film was already done with all the gory practical effects on both the creature transformations and the alien, so they can please the fans and the story prequel was also made (I read it and it was damn good one). Unfortunately, when it was about to be released in April 2011, Universal Pictures made a half-ass decision to push the film into an October 2011 release date, claiming that "they want to have more time to polish the creature effects for the film", in which I call bullshit. Instead, Universal told the producers and the writer to rewrite and reshoot the film with fucking CGi. As much as I love both CG and practical effects, the move that Universal made was offensive, because the producers worked so fucking hard on the effects and story and if you want to see this never seen practical effects images, then you're out of luck: It seems that the article that Bloody-Disgusting wrote with the images has been deleted and I can't find them anywhere on the Internet (even Google doesn't help much either).
But despite my problems with it, I still like it and defend the movie, because at least it had some strong effort on recreating the atmosphere that the original remake was so good at creating. BTW, good review.
© 2013 Created by The Spill Crew.
