THE THING (Prequel/Remake) Teaser Poster & Trailer (1 Viewer)

[dpippel]

"Things" aren't looking too good for The Thing over at Rotten Tomatoes. About what I expected. I'll wait for the Blu-ray so I don't feel like the good Lord gipped me.

 

[Johnny Angell]

I've read two poor reviews so far. Disappointing, but not surprising.

 

[cineMANIAC]

OK, I relented and read a review of the film from my local paper (NY Daily News) which gave the film 3 stars. I agree with their reviews 95% of the time so I feel somewhat better about it. They called the movie "old-fashioned", which is what I hoped it would be. I'm going into this thinking of the film as a companion piece to Carpenter's version, good or bad.

 

[Brett_M]

OK, I relented and read a review of the film from my local paper (NY Daily News) which gave the film 3 stars. I agree with their reviews 95% of the time so I feel somewhat better about it. They called the movie "old-fashioned", which is what I hoped it would be. I'm going into this thinking of the film as a companion piece to Carpenter's version, good or bad.

If "old fashioned" means bad, the review is right on the money. Carpenter's The Thing is one of my all-time faves and no one wanted this film to succeed more than me. The first 30 minutes are pretty good but the film deflates from there. No tension, no creepy atmosphere and no character development -- the main reason the 82 film works. It's obvious to this fan that the studio wanted schlocky cgi gore and that's what was delivered. The practical effects are by Woodruff and Gillis -- two hacks that haven't improved on any of Rob Bottin's work. Plus, the filmmakers ignore certain parts of the original for something new which I won't spoil. When it happened, all I could say was "the studio wanted it and original be damned." The film is nonsensical and any goodwill built during the first part is squandered as the movie barrels ahead into the gore. I will say that Winstead's performance stands out and it's too bad the movie didn't live up to her work. Not worth the $5 I paid to see it tonight. You've been warned.

 

[Patrick Sun]

I'll keep it short and sweet: This prequel to the original film "The Thing" is basically flaccid, and unnecessary. I give it 2 stars, or a grade of C (being generous).

 

[SWFF]

Loyal THING fans, read this and see what exactly went wrong with the prequel. VERY enlightening. BLOODY DISGUSTING did an interview with the screenwriter and he gets very candid. CLICK HERE.

 

[Brett_M]

Loyal THING fans, read this and see what exactly went wrong with the prequel. VERY enlightening. BLOODY DISGUSTING did an interview with the screenwriter and he gets very candid. CLICK HERE.

Interesting read but I say "BS." I am the average filmgoer and I hate movies made like The Thing 2011. Slow boil is the way to go with this property. Consider the success of Paranormal Activity. That movie is all slow boil and it was creepy as hell. I was looking over my shoulder in the theater. Studio meddling is the worst thing about movies today. What a shame.

 

[Johnny Angell]

Studios underestimating the audience is nothing new and it will always be part of the business. I also have a feeling (with no evidence to back it up) that part of the micro-management that studios do is just plain "I gotta justify my job." If the studios just said to the producer and and director "Here's a check for the budget. Go make your film and show it to us when your done." Well, there's be some suits who couldn't justify their jobs.

 

[Tony Whalen]

So, what we have in a nutshell is this: Studio wants a remake/sequel/prequel to a successful cult-hit. Writers & crew do their damndest to provide a worthy successor. Studio suits make/demand changes that remove character development, increase the pace, and put more CG in.. Thus pretty much removing everything that made the JC film special. Man, some studio-suits are really morons.

 

[WinstonCely]

Best Sinatra voice ever.Kudos for awesome lyrics. No drinking or eating while watching this as you may not recover. one of the comments, I saw Sinatra and Dean Martin perform this at the Desert Inn. It was magical. Dean was such a ham. He kept chasing Sinatra 'round the stage with a needle trying to prick his hand for a blood sample.

That video/song just made my day! Holy crap that was awesome!

 

[Michael Elliott]

I went to see this tonight after work and was the only one in the theater, which I'm always a fan of. As far as the film goes, I found it very disappointing. I love the Carpenter movie but I was really looking forward to this thing. Not for a second did I think or feel the movie should be as good as the first but there's just no atmosphere, no character development, no real style, no tension and the bloody LOUD monster just got annoying after a while.

 

[Rex Bachmann]

Tony Whalen wrote (post #49):

So, what we have in a nutshell is this: Studio wants a remake/sequel/prequel to a successful cult-hit.

"Successful"? Ummm, no, not in Universal's eyes. The 1982 movie was made for about $15,000,000, a sum considered phenomenal in those days for a science-fiction film. The "suits", as you call them, were deeply disappointed in the US box-office returns. The same deal as with, for example, Blade Runner and other "genre" films, which, nevertheless, became retrospective critical and fan favorites.

Studio suits make/demand changes that remove character development, increase the pace, and put more CG in.. Thus pretty much removing everything that made the JC film special.

As great a technical tour de force as Mr. Carpenter's film is/was, I don't remember much "character development" there either. Most of the characters started out screaming at and acting bastardly to one another and ended up that way (that is, till they were "eliminated"), as well.

Man, some studio-suits are really morons.

ahem! ". . . most studio-suits . . . ." Otherwise, I agree with you.