Generate a number from 1 to 2999 via:
You can skip movies 10 times but never go back.
When paleontologist Kate Lloyd travels to an isolated outpost in Antarctica for the expedition of a lifetime, she joins an international team that unearths a remarkable discovery. Their elation quickly turns to fear as they realize that their experiment has freed a mysterious being from its frozen prison. Paranoia spreads like an epidemic as a creature that can mimic anything it touches will pit human against human as it tries to survive and flourish in this spine-tingling thriller.
Hi, my name is Screening Notes, and I'm... a remake apologist.
Hi Screening Notes.
It's been three and a half weeks since my last remake, but last night... last night I watched the remake of The Thing, and I don't mean John Carpenter's 1982 masterpiece, I mean the new 2011 one... and I liked it. I mean, I didn't just think it wasn't bad, I actively enjoyed watching it. The effects are nothing compared to Carpenter's and the ending has some issues (although the way the credits sequence sets up the 1982 version is nice), but I genuinely loved the introduction of the language barrier to heighten tension and play on the question of who's a Thing, and I thought…
Although an entirely redundant remake masquerading as a prequel, The Thing, when taken at face value is competent enough. For those few who have yet to experience the delights of Carpenter’s film they may well enjoy this superfluous retread. But for those who remember the ‘82 original then this film may be harder to swallow.
John Carpenter’s film is one of my all time favourite horror films (as this list attests). It is brilliant for many reasons but the three main areas for me are in its characterisation, paranoia and groundbreaking special effects. Coincidentally these are the key areas where the prequel most struggles. I defy anybody to remember more than two of the character’s names this time around. Where…
Taking a leaflet out of one of the segments that John Carpenter's 1982 horror classic of the same name only glanced through and creating an entire feature-length narrative around it by reverse engineering the aforementioned event, The Thing is presented to the viewers as a prequel to its source material yet bears more characteristics of a remake.
Set in 1982, the story of The Thing unfolds at the Norwegian research site in Antarctica and concerns a team of different nationalities who are investigating the discovery of an alien spaceship that was found buried beneath the ice along with the remains of one of its occupants frozen nearby, which they bring back to their base. But as the ice melts, the…
I’ve recently noticed this trend in crappy horror films where characters unveil something and stand back with a look of complete and utter shock on their faces. They then all start shouting “Oh God!” before the specimen is finally shown to the audience. But the majority of the time you can’t even make out what the damn object is. The camera pans back and it’s just a patch of ice or something metallic. Is it a weapon? A body part? Some kind of vehicle? I don’t think even the filmmakers know most of the time.
Screenwriter Eric Heisserer is such a noob when it comes to rebooting classic horror franchises and he displays practically zero awareness of what The Thing…
John Carpenter's 1982 cult classic, The Thing, is rightly regarded as just that, a cult classic. When Dutch filmmaker Matthijs van Heijningen talked of a remake, the wagons were circling. This film however is not a remake, but a prequel, and it's rather good.
This may have did little at the box office, but whether it was bad marketing or simply apathy towards yet another "re-imagining", this deserved to be seen by a bigger audience. The story begins in the ice of Antarctica and a spaceship that's been buried for 100,000 years. Close by is what appears to be an alien body frozen under the surface. These Norwegians are intent on keeping their discovery secret, but call in American Paleontologist…
I have to give props to the director and crew for faithfully recreating the scenes shown at the beginning of John Carpenter's The Thing when Kurt Russell goes to the other outpost. Everything was placed exactly where it should have been and the sets looked the exact same. Unfortunately, that was about the only good thing I found about this completely unnecessary and painful prequel. Well, that and the recreating of the opening segment from the original film during the end credits. It was kind of cool to see that tie in with the original, complete with Carpenter's original score. It's just too bad that the rest of the film really didn't match up for me.
The 2011 version of…
Watched as part of Scavenger Hunt 21 December 2016/Task 6 -A Film made post 1994 with a character that made It's on screen debut prior to 1964/Film 2
So 'The Thing' originated as a short novella in a 1930's publication that was then first made in to a movie 'The Thing From Another World' in 1951 which was then adapted by John Carpenter and turned in to a masterpiece of suspense and horror in 1982's 'The Thing'. This task on the scavenger hunt made it a nice easy decision to visit 2011's prequel which has been on my watchlist for some time.
It's a slow burner to start with and the into teases for something big to happen but it's…
(An old style of horror with some new added concepts)
Honestly, I tried to compare this film to the original to get a side by side of what I thought. Although very few scenes were similar, it still manages to turn a whole new direction. I didn't like the fact that some scenes felt rushed in the beginning. The effects were definitely improved, especially how they made the parasite cells look when attaching to human cells and thus recopying. Not to mention how awesome the thing looked. I also like the fact that they carried a different concept of a way to tell if a person was human. Involving a theory of inorganic matter that doesn't get transferred when recopying. The ending is definitely a twist. There's also an after credit scene that is similar to the beginning of the original.
I didn't know it was a prequel until I watched the 1982 thing the next day and realized this was not that bad
I completely ignored this movie when it first came out for one simple reason, I thought it was a remake of the Carpenter's movie, that I love and for me is a classic, and it was not.
Who in his right mind give a movie that is a prequel the same title? and to make matters worse a similar poster? I don't remember seeing trailers that would have told me otherwise.
This is the story of the other Polar station that we saw burned in the beginning of Carpenter's "The Thing", and there is no much of a surprise in terms of what happened there because it follows a very similar story line. Main differences, the way they detect who…
It'd be so easy to throw this movie under the bus and trash it like everyone wants to trash remakes — “oh when will Hollywood get some new ideas?!”, etc.
But that's tricky here. Because it does do all those things you don't want a horror remake to do — the scary practical effects are similar but with a slight CGI weightlessness, delivers flat-pack characters where the original had personality oozing out of it, shooting the whole thing on digital with blue/gray grading rather than evocative lighting on film.
And yet it's not a remake, it's a meticulously crafted prequel. Desperate to slot neatly alongside it, not supplant it. What's the story behind the axe in the door that Kurt…
This review may contain spoilers. I can handle the truth.
Whilst it's not a perfect film, I thoroughly enjoyed this. And I think it's highly underrated.
Unfortunately the thing most will do is compare it to Mr Carpenter's version, which based on how amazing it is, was always going to be an uphill battle for this.
I think this film acts as both prequel and remake as they are almost one in the same. With it's remote setting I guess there's limitations as to how different the stories can actually be.
This one is set just before the events of MacReady and his crew.
Mary Elizabeth Winstead plays Kate Lloyd, a paleontologist who is approached by scientist Dr Sander Halvorsen (Ulrich Thomson) to visit a Norwegian base situated in Antartctica…
It's biggest failure is that it tries to be a prequel to John Carpenter's thing. And most of its plot hole come from that fact.
Besides that everything else is just meh. Sometimes it steals scenes right from Carpenter's while not being aware of what made it good.
So yeah I didn't care for the thing. Like that time when that one thing did that thing to that other thing. Wasn't that something?
sure it was good but it was no The X Files (1993) Season 1 Episode 8
a list that is trying to contain every horror film made that is not lost and is found on the…