The Thing (2011)

[oshii]

Some friends saw a preview of it last week (again all big fans of the Carpenter).  General conseus was that it was alright.  Not great but not rubbish, with a few nice homages to bits of Carpenters.  They were a bit disappointed by the amount of cgi, but said when it was used it was done well.

[locustsofdeath!]

"It's brilliant! yes, there's some cgi, but it's ALL in the Bottin style, and it really works as a prequel and not just another remake. Against all odds it's a beautifully crafted homage to the carpenter film, and possibly my favourite film of the year."

Not this. I was it the day after I returned to the States, and let me tell you the film is okay on the border of stupid. The alien behaves in no way like the creature we see in Carpenter's film. Rather than rely on stealth it actually [spoiler]clears out a room full of people in one fell swoop[/spoiler]. I felt like I was watching a Resident Evil movie (one based more closely on the game. The funniest part is the end, where the [spoiler]Huskie shows up almost out of nowhere - just to link the two films - but looks NOTHING like the dog we see in the Carpenter film!!! I suppose Huskie dogs are in short supply in Hollywood these days.[/spoiler] Anyway, go see it if you must - but please don't go in expecting "a beautifully crafted homage to the carpenter film" (with all due respect to that particular reviewer, of course).

[Satanist]

This is on Youtube rught now 

[brendan1]

Fuck, it's had the smallbluething seal of approval, so it's almost certainly going to be shit.

[Spaceghost]

Fuck, it's had the smallbluething seal of approval, so it's almost certainly going to be shit.

With all due respect to the lovely SBT who is a jolly nice chap, I have to say, previous experience with his opinions on various films, the above statement is likely to be accurate.

[SmallBlueThing]

I would like to point out (for those who obviously cant read) that ive not seen it. Im waiting for a chance!
However, i trust my mate- whose tastes are roughly equal to my own (except he has an unfathomable liking for james bond movies and fucking christopher nolan) so am eager to watch. To be honest, whatever it's like, it's not going to ruin carp's version, so even if terrible it'll be forgotten in an instant and carp's will still be there.

SBT

[Matt Timson]

Ah, internetz, how I love you. If I'd been responsible for either of the previous two posts, I would've been told to fuck off and been reported to a mod by now...

[brendan1]

Ah, internetz, how I love you. If I'd been responsible for either of the previous two posts, I would've been told to fuck off and been reported to a mod by now...

I'm pretty sure SBT has reported me to the Mods a few times

[Mangamax]

I'm with Locust on this one - a Resident Evil clone that uses Bottin's designs badly in some awful, cheap shoddy, CGI.
Are we supposed to believe this blundering, stupid beast of an alien could pilot the starship?
No wonder it crashed.
Every cliche is ham-fistedly bunged in there and every "shock" is telegraphed miles in advance.
Its not a tenth of the magnificence of Carpenters, and the bloke wot played the young Owen Lars doesn't even come close to a Macready, although that's clearly what he's there for.
Biggest crime though is what they do with the alien ship. Why go to all the bother of recreating sets and, especially, having the very end through the end credits exactly like what's been seen in Carpenters, only to piss over what's previously been established in that one?
Oh, and the British guy is the worst actor i've shared an auditorium with since Jake Lloyd.

[COMMANDO FORCES]

As a film in it's own right it was mediocre but add the absolutely atrocious cgi and it just pisses you off every time something happens. If you hadn't seen the sequel from 29 years earlier, with its far superior effects and claustrophobic set up then this would be passable but because of that excellent film this is just a wind up. Nearly every time the cgi kicked in it reminded me of the scene at the end of 'The Mummy Returns' when the Scorpion King appears 

Why spend a load of money on an effects driven film and then let someone like Buttonman do all those effects 

[Emperor]

R rated in the states, and receiving fairly good reviews it seems.

No it isn't.

Rotten Tomatoes has the aggregated reviews from professional critics running at 35%:
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/the_thing_2011/

Metacritic has it at 49%:
http://www.metacritic.com/movie/the-thing

Although it is worth noting the fan reception is running at 10-20% higher than that and has a 6.5/10 at IMDB (somewhere between the fan reaction on RT and MC):
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0905372/

But reading reviews like this doesn't fill me with hope:

Whatever good intentions were behind this prequel to John Carpenter's 1982 classic, the sloppy execution renders them moot. Residual goodwill from the, ahem, original remake rapidly dissipates as this degenerates into a slack bug hunt, the characters differentiated only by how poorly written or acted they are. Added to which, it's a riot of badly designed cartoonish digital FX. Even for empty calorie thrills, this is not up to scratch.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2011/dec/01/the-thing-review

Although I prefer the review from The Observer:

Not bad, but what Cole Porter might dismiss as just one of those things.

There has to be potential for a Cole Porter/Thing mash-up video.

Soooo I'm not going to be rushing to the cinema to watch this but if a friend phones up and suggests it I'd probably go along.

Ah, internetz, how I love you. If I'd been responsible for either of the previous two posts, I would've been told to fuck off and been reported to a mod by now...

Own up - who was tempted to report this post just for old time's sake?

[Steve Green]

OK, I'll set myself up for a kicking, but as much as I am a fan of practical effects, and how much I love the Thing, I'd be the first to say that some of the original looks a bit shonky these days...

e.g.

[Beeks]

OK, I'll set myself up for a kicking, but as much as I am a fan of practical effects, and how much I love the Thing, I'd be the first to say that some of the original looks a bit shonky these days...

e.g.

It was 1982!!!

To put it in perspective..the birth year of the CD Player

[locustsofdeath!]

Forgive me, but...I don't see how that effect is 'shonky'.

[Hoagy]

The Abyss practically modelled it's key features on this head!