The Thing (2011)
- High Priest Mikhal
- Evil Genius
- Posts: 1621
- Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2007 5:48 pm
- Gender: Male
- Location: It's dark and I hear laughing.
The Thing (2011)
The Thing (2011) is one third rethink of John Carpenter's 1982 classic, two-thirds prequel, all parts god-awful flop. The story takes place prior to Carpenter's movie with the Norweigan base that first unearthed the spaceship the Thing came in, following by the Thing encased in ice not far away. The problem is it over-explains things and thus ruins the mystery, the actors play total idiots, the plot is thin as water, and the action is plain lousy. The movie fell into the trap of "gore over horror" as well as one hollow character meant to be a sex object more than an actual personality. The only real homage to Carpenter's movie is in the credits where things lead up to the opening scenes of the original.
This is one I'd recommend skipping. Don't even rent it unless you have Netflix Online or some other flat-rate service and it's available there. This one ranks down there with Uwe Boll's efforts. Good idea, very poorly executed.
This is one I'd recommend skipping. Don't even rent it unless you have Netflix Online or some other flat-rate service and it's available there. This one ranks down there with Uwe Boll's efforts. Good idea, very poorly executed.
"Money is the root of all evil...I think I need more money."
- A G Thing
- Evil Genius
- Posts: 1205
- Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2008 5:41 pm
- Gender: Female
- Location: Currently the Frozen Wastes of Mount Pleasant Michigan
Re: The Thing (2011)
Wow... I am a huge fan of the Thing (both movies)... I have watched it and while expectations of the first one did cloud my judgement some before I could reflect I have to say that as a prequel it does great. Yes there are issues but I don't think it is as serious as you said from my perspective and some spotty CGI and Pacing issues aside the story was very solid and it highlighted all the main points of what the Americans from Outpost 31 saw when they investigated the Norwegian Thule Station. I could argue this a lot but it sounds like you have decided completely that it is not the original therefor it is modern and thus bad but maybe not and this is just a gut shot reaction to it not being the same movie as the 82 J.C. THING. Then again maybe you saw somethings that I did not and your opinion is based on sound logic. It is your opinion and even if I change your mind your opinion then was right for you and if I don't it is still right for you so I am not saying your opinion is wrong, I just am saying I have a different one, so I ask that you hear me out.
I just ask that anyone willing to go to the movie does what the audience and critics should have done for the first and not judge the motives, special effects and story based on preconceptions and such, especially those of us who cherish the classic and may be prone to Fanboy/girl Rage Syndrome. The first movie received a very similar reception when it first appeared so look deeper and take it in not as something you can just watch passively but something you have to actively think about. If you have not seen the first then for the record at first it was lambasted as a gore-fest with no plot or character and way too much emphasis on the monster with no rhyme or reason and a dark ending that ruined it. But over time it has been reevaluated and by many it was proven to be very deep in plot, character and even praised for the effects and eventually grasped as one of the best dark movies made. For those who watched and examined it from an unbiased lens they found more than what critics or even they saw perhaps the first time and it has influenced so much of modern horror that it became a cult classic with emphasis on the classic. Look at the first and this new films story and characters from the perspective of why people (and THINGS) do what they do and it becomes very much a deeper experience than originally perceived! A murder mystery horror sci-fi thriller that defies conventions of what makes a hero and even what makes us human.
That said I am more than willing to respond (Post or PM if desired to prevent possible flames or such!) if anyone has significant criticisms or problems with the movie and try to at least make it clear that while it can be mistaken as an imitation of a modern horror hack and slash, it is what lies beneath that counts!
I just ask that anyone willing to go to the movie does what the audience and critics should have done for the first and not judge the motives, special effects and story based on preconceptions and such, especially those of us who cherish the classic and may be prone to Fanboy/girl Rage Syndrome. The first movie received a very similar reception when it first appeared so look deeper and take it in not as something you can just watch passively but something you have to actively think about. If you have not seen the first then for the record at first it was lambasted as a gore-fest with no plot or character and way too much emphasis on the monster with no rhyme or reason and a dark ending that ruined it. But over time it has been reevaluated and by many it was proven to be very deep in plot, character and even praised for the effects and eventually grasped as one of the best dark movies made. For those who watched and examined it from an unbiased lens they found more than what critics or even they saw perhaps the first time and it has influenced so much of modern horror that it became a cult classic with emphasis on the classic. Look at the first and this new films story and characters from the perspective of why people (and THINGS) do what they do and it becomes very much a deeper experience than originally perceived! A murder mystery horror sci-fi thriller that defies conventions of what makes a hero and even what makes us human.
That said I am more than willing to respond (Post or PM if desired to prevent possible flames or such!) if anyone has significant criticisms or problems with the movie and try to at least make it clear that while it can be mistaken as an imitation of a modern horror hack and slash, it is what lies beneath that counts!
"There is only one true answer to any and every question. The rest are just vagaries and obfuscations."
- Zettaijin
- Evil Genius
- Posts: 667
- Joined: Fri Apr 11, 2008 2:30 am
- Gender: Male
- Location: Himeji, Japan
Re: The Thing (2011)
Did either of you see the original? The black and white flick from 1951? Saw it as young'un and I can't say I trust my memories alone on this one.
So here are some reviews of The Thing from Another World.
http://www.1000misspenthours.com/review ... ng1951.htm
http://www.aycyas.com/thing.htm
So here are some reviews of The Thing from Another World.
http://www.1000misspenthours.com/review ... ng1951.htm
http://www.aycyas.com/thing.htm
- Gonzoron of the FoS
- Evil Genius
- Posts: 7564
- Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2003 8:02 pm
- Gender: Male
- Location: New Jersey
- Contact:
Re: The Thing (2011)
Disappointing to hear. The original is a classic must-see, and the trailer for the new one intrigued me. oh well, thanks for saving me $12.
"We're realistic heroes. We're not here to save the world, just nudge the world into a better place."
- alhoon
- Invisible Menace
- Posts: 8853
- Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2003 6:46 pm
- Location: Chania or Athens // Greece
Re: The Thing (2011)
It costs 12$ to rent a movie?!?
"You truly see what a person is made of, when you begin to slice into them" - Semirhage
"I am not mad, no matter what you're implying." - Litalia
My DMGuild work!
"I am not mad, no matter what you're implying." - Litalia
My DMGuild work!
- Gonzoron of the FoS
- Evil Genius
- Posts: 7564
- Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2003 8:02 pm
- Gender: Male
- Location: New Jersey
- Contact:
Re: The Thing (2011)
No, I thought it was in theaters. Shows how out of the loop I am. Did it go straight to DVD or has it already come and gone from theaters?
"We're realistic heroes. We're not here to save the world, just nudge the world into a better place."
- A G Thing
- Evil Genius
- Posts: 1205
- Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2008 5:41 pm
- Gender: Female
- Location: Currently the Frozen Wastes of Mount Pleasant Michigan
Re: The Thing (2011)
Never saw the 1950's film adaptation... I am aware of it but I just have not had the time to look it up at the moment. Still I would like to see it eventually and hopfully I will soon. I heard it is vastly different then the more modern adaption and holds to a lot of movie making standards of the era rather than trying to adapt purely from the novel "Who Goes There!" which the Carpenter movie takes the majority of its inspiration from. Still I think I could enjoy it as well even if it is not as heavy as the newer ones and I do like when the Good Guys win and their is a happy ending!
Also... I guess either I just got ignored by Gonzoron for being too long winded or at least that I came off as kind of pushy... But to answer him, it is in the theaters still...
I guess if no one wants to read then oh well! But I stand by what I wrote above and I believe the THING 2011 is a good movie when tied to the 82 film and with the context and all that. I guess I am the minority though!
Also... I guess either I just got ignored by Gonzoron for being too long winded or at least that I came off as kind of pushy... But to answer him, it is in the theaters still...
I guess if no one wants to read then oh well! But I stand by what I wrote above and I believe the THING 2011 is a good movie when tied to the 82 film and with the context and all that. I guess I am the minority though!
"There is only one true answer to any and every question. The rest are just vagaries and obfuscations."
- Wiccy of the Fraternity
- Membre Retiré
- Posts: 3272
- Joined: Wed Dec 03, 2003 6:39 pm
- Location: Powys, Cymru (Wales)
Re: The Thing (2011)
The 1951 original and 1982 remake are both excellent, I'll see this one eventually, but only when I don't have to pay to see it (probably at a friends house them). In the meantime I have plenty of other things to keep me entertained that I know are much better and better ways to fill my time.
Swallow your soul!
- Gonzoron of the FoS
- Evil Genius
- Posts: 7564
- Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2003 8:02 pm
- Gender: Male
- Location: New Jersey
- Contact:
Re: The Thing (2011)
Neither, my friend. I wrote my post before you did, but had a problem with my network connection. This morning, I hit refresh and submitted again, after yours was there. The board warned me that there were new posts, but I didn't bother reading them at the time and just hit submit, figuring I'd catch up later.A G Thing wrote:Also... I guess either I just got ignored by Gonzoron for being too long winded or at least that I came off as kind of pushy... But to answer him, it is in the theaters still...
Well, now I've got a vote for and a vote against (unless I missed another post! ) Not sure what to do. Aww, who am I kidding. I have 2 kids under the age of 5. No way will I have a chance to see this in the theater anyway...
"We're realistic heroes. We're not here to save the world, just nudge the world into a better place."
- A G Thing
- Evil Genius
- Posts: 1205
- Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2008 5:41 pm
- Gender: Female
- Location: Currently the Frozen Wastes of Mount Pleasant Michigan
Re: The Thing (2011)
Well it is good to know I am not driving people away!
Still I can understand having kids that young restricting your movie choices.
I still recommend it if you can though!!! Even if I am a little biased!
Still I can understand having kids that young restricting your movie choices.
I still recommend it if you can though!!! Even if I am a little biased!
"There is only one true answer to any and every question. The rest are just vagaries and obfuscations."
- High Priest Mikhal
- Evil Genius
- Posts: 1621
- Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2007 5:48 pm
- Gender: Male
- Location: It's dark and I hear laughing.
Re: The Thing (2011)
We'll just have to agree to disagree, A G Thing. I tried--I really did try--to go into this with an open mind. I think it was how the protag (can't remember her name) took an hour to pick up that a flamethrower was the only way to fight this Thing. Come on! They knew they had to kill every cell and yet it took them that long to realize fire is the best way? Specifically, only she realized it? And these are supposed to be scientists...
I admit the '82 remake of The Thing From Another World (yes, I've seen it, and I like it) was fairly gory by that time's standards. But it wasn't as gratuitous or overdone. Take the scene where the Thing's head pulls itself off its burning body, sprouts eyestalks and legs, and crawls under the desk. Pretty gross, but it did serve to clue in MacReady (Kurt Russel's character) to the fact that each individual cell was an independent animal and that a simple hot wire in a blood sample could identify those infected. The scene in the dog pen is just disgusting (and infuriating for me since I hate seeing innocent animals hurt, even if it is just acting), but it also served the plot by showing that the Thing is protean and clued the characters into how it functions: by assimilating other organisms, it can mimic them perfectly. And it did explain the melted together bi-corpse thing found at the Norweigan base.
The 2011 "prequel" just made some very critical mistakes, like the Thing not being terribly subtle, the pointless and endless dialogue that explains things the audience could figure out on their own, and the emphasis on the grotesqueness of the Thing for horror value. Where is the human factor from the originals? The terror of not knowing who is the Thing? The subtlety the Thing showed in the previous movies whereas here it's picking off victims in its natural form? I'm biased, I admit, but for this movie's pedigree it feels like they didn't even try. Consider that it's by the same guy who directed the remake of A Nightmare On Elm Street. Admittedly I never saw that one because, in my mind, Freddy is and always will be Robert Englund, but I heard similar complaints about that movie. Considering Eric Heisserer wrote the script for both these movies, I'm seeing a pattern. He does great original movies, but his remakes are awful.
I admit the '82 remake of The Thing From Another World (yes, I've seen it, and I like it) was fairly gory by that time's standards. But it wasn't as gratuitous or overdone. Take the scene where the Thing's head pulls itself off its burning body, sprouts eyestalks and legs, and crawls under the desk. Pretty gross, but it did serve to clue in MacReady (Kurt Russel's character) to the fact that each individual cell was an independent animal and that a simple hot wire in a blood sample could identify those infected. The scene in the dog pen is just disgusting (and infuriating for me since I hate seeing innocent animals hurt, even if it is just acting), but it also served the plot by showing that the Thing is protean and clued the characters into how it functions: by assimilating other organisms, it can mimic them perfectly. And it did explain the melted together bi-corpse thing found at the Norweigan base.
The 2011 "prequel" just made some very critical mistakes, like the Thing not being terribly subtle, the pointless and endless dialogue that explains things the audience could figure out on their own, and the emphasis on the grotesqueness of the Thing for horror value. Where is the human factor from the originals? The terror of not knowing who is the Thing? The subtlety the Thing showed in the previous movies whereas here it's picking off victims in its natural form? I'm biased, I admit, but for this movie's pedigree it feels like they didn't even try. Consider that it's by the same guy who directed the remake of A Nightmare On Elm Street. Admittedly I never saw that one because, in my mind, Freddy is and always will be Robert Englund, but I heard similar complaints about that movie. Considering Eric Heisserer wrote the script for both these movies, I'm seeing a pattern. He does great original movies, but his remakes are awful.
"Money is the root of all evil...I think I need more money."
- A G Thing
- Evil Genius
- Posts: 1205
- Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2008 5:41 pm
- Gender: Female
- Location: Currently the Frozen Wastes of Mount Pleasant Michigan
Re: The Thing (2011)
Its fine if you want to disagree and as you have listed your points I will respond with what I noticed of the film if you want to read it!High Priest Mikhal wrote:We'll just have to agree to disagree, A G Thing. I tried--I really did try--to go into this with an open mind. I think it was how the protag (can't remember her name) took an hour to pick up that a flamethrower was the only way to fight this Thing. Come on! They knew they had to kill every cell and yet it took them that long to realize fire is the best way? Specifically, only she realized it? And these are supposed to be scientists...
I admit the '82 remake of The Thing From Another World (yes, I've seen it, and I like it) was fairly gory by that time's standards. But it wasn't as gratuitous or overdone. Take the scene where the Thing's head pulls itself off its burning body, sprouts eyestalks and legs, and crawls under the desk. Pretty gross, but it did serve to clue in MacReady (Kurt Russel's character) to the fact that each individual cell was an independent animal and that a simple hot wire in a blood sample could identify those infected. The scene in the dog pen is just disgusting (and infuriating for me since I hate seeing innocent animals hurt, even if it is just acting), but it also served the plot by showing that the Thing is protean and clued the characters into how it functions: by assimilating other organisms, it can mimic them perfectly. And it did explain the melted together bi-corpse thing found at the Norweigan base.
The 2011 "prequel" just made some very critical mistakes, like the Thing not being terribly subtle, the pointless and endless dialogue that explains things the audience could figure out on their own, and the emphasis on the grotesqueness of the Thing for horror value. Where is the human factor from the originals? The terror of not knowing who is the Thing? The subtlety the Thing showed in the previous movies whereas here it's picking off victims in its natural form? I'm biased, I admit, but for this movie's pedigree it feels like they didn't even try. Consider that it's by the same guy who directed the remake of A Nightmare On Elm Street. Admittedly I never saw that one because, in my mind, Freddy is and always will be Robert Englund, but I heard similar complaints about that movie. Considering Eric Heisserer wrote the script for both these movies, I'm seeing a pattern. He does great original movies, but his remakes are awful.
BY THE WAY IF YOU DON'T LIKE SPOILERS AND A TON OF READING THEN DON'T OPEN THE SPOILER TAG OBVIOUSLY!
VIEW CONTENT:
"There is only one true answer to any and every question. The rest are just vagaries and obfuscations."
- Wiccy of the Fraternity
- Membre Retiré
- Posts: 3272
- Joined: Wed Dec 03, 2003 6:39 pm
- Location: Powys, Cymru (Wales)
Re: The Thing (2011)
You missed nothing with ANoES except more overly explained plot devices and some of the best parts of the original cut to almost nothing.High Priest Mikhal wrote:Consider that it's by the same guy who directed the remake of A Nightmare On Elm Street. Admittedly I never saw that one because, in my mind, Freddy is and always will be Robert Englund, but I heard similar complaints about that movie.
This being directed by the same guy says it all for me.
Swallow your soul!
- High Priest Mikhal
- Evil Genius
- Posts: 1621
- Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2007 5:48 pm
- Gender: Male
- Location: It's dark and I hear laughing.
Re: The Thing (2011)
Yikes! This guy sounds like the Uwe Boll of remakes. And looking just at Wikipedia on Boll, that's no minor insult.Wiccy of the Fraternity wrote:You missed nothing with ANoES except more overly explained plot devices and some of the best parts of the original cut to almost nothing.High Priest Mikhal wrote:Consider that it's by the same guy who directed the remake of A Nightmare On Elm Street. Admittedly I never saw that one because, in my mind, Freddy is and always will be Robert Englund, but I heard similar complaints about that movie.
This being directed by the same guy says it all for me.
"Money is the root of all evil...I think I need more money."
- ScS of the Fraternity
- Moderator
- Posts: 2409
- Joined: Fri Nov 28, 2003 10:46 pm
- Location: Toronto
- Contact:
Re: The Thing (2011)
I went to great lengths to avoid reading any commentary on this remake, and avoided watching the traillers for one reason:
I knew it was going to suck.
I love John Carpenter's The Thing, and it may very well be my favorite movie of all time. So, there was no way that this movie could really live up to that standard. But still, I knew from what glimpses I saw of it that it was bad.
Still, I was reserved to see this movie because of loyalty. So, I have no regrets.
I only wish that this film had been made by someone who loved The Thing. This new film has no love for the original - it has only a disdain for the original. We see this in the painfully pathetic methods it uses to connect to the original.
The most beautiful thing about Carpenter's The Thing was its stillness. Carpenter was able to show scenes without any characters even in the shot - just the hallways as his signature pulse-like music played. Those moments allowed the audience to think, to contemplate this dreadful situation, to let the audience's imaginations work. It was brilliant! The audience became as fearful and paranoid as the characters.
This film, by comparison, is a jolting ride in a bumper car. The audience watches a nonstop rampage of terrible CGI effects and flamethrowers.
My final thought:
I knew it was going to suck.
I love John Carpenter's The Thing, and it may very well be my favorite movie of all time. So, there was no way that this movie could really live up to that standard. But still, I knew from what glimpses I saw of it that it was bad.
Still, I was reserved to see this movie because of loyalty. So, I have no regrets.
I only wish that this film had been made by someone who loved The Thing. This new film has no love for the original - it has only a disdain for the original. We see this in the painfully pathetic methods it uses to connect to the original.
The most beautiful thing about Carpenter's The Thing was its stillness. Carpenter was able to show scenes without any characters even in the shot - just the hallways as his signature pulse-like music played. Those moments allowed the audience to think, to contemplate this dreadful situation, to let the audience's imaginations work. It was brilliant! The audience became as fearful and paranoid as the characters.
This film, by comparison, is a jolting ride in a bumper car. The audience watches a nonstop rampage of terrible CGI effects and flamethrowers.
My final thought:
VIEW CONTENT:
Evil Reigns!!!!