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.
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…
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…
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…
With a title as lazy as the movie it belongs to, The Thing (2011) is a forgettable if mildly entertaining horror film. It tries, but can't quite capture the masterful tension building or terrifying creature effects of The original John Carpenter masterpiece, The Thing (1982).
This isn't a terrible movie, as there are some aspects that work. Mary Elizabeth Winstead and Joel Edgerton are good, and work well together. It acts as a prequel, and nicely ties together some aspects of Carpenter's classic with this new story. It's never boring, as there is always something happening.
The way the film ends is well done, and there is some genuinely creepy imagery, especially the origins of the splitface alien from the…
Clearly hampered by John Carpenter's 1982 interpretation, The Thing sadly isn't too special on its own terms either.
The visual effects are largely uninteresting and well overplayed; the cinematography is totally uninspired (a messy smear of anamorphic lens flare and constant rotation around characters while they just say hello to each other); and the story, which is at its most interesting when the monster is unseen and the characters are overcome by paranoia and confusion, skips past these moments to get to chase scenes. Also, spaceship.
It's weak in areas where John Carpentier's film excelled, only heightening the disappointment. The effort put into tying it into a prequel is at least fun but the need to call in American assistance is totally jarring.
No es lo mejor que he visto y más por la presión que debio ser el hacer la precuela de una de las películas de Carpenter. Los efectos estuvieron geniales pero hay ciertas fallas en el argumento y en la forma en la que debió envolverse el misterio.
The polar landscape is haunting, as well as the shadowy figure imprisioned in it's craddle of ice. But just like it's monster, it takes little time for the movie to show it's intentions and priorities, none of which contribute to a good horror film, specially one that promisses to tell the unknown story of the original "The Thing", the greatest monster movie of all time.
Some tales should remain unspoken, some visions unseen; and some things should remain unknown.
I'd almost have preferred if this sucked all the way through instead of showing occasional flashes of a great movie. I appreciate that they dedicated so much time and effort to making things work with the original logistically, I just wish they had understood the spirit of the original. Not everyone was possessed, and we didn't see it every time it happened. The monster doesn't just pop out of somebody for the sake of popping out and giving an FX shot, it's smart and patient (much like the original movie.) I could complain about the CG too, but the filmmakers apparently would share my opinion after studio interference and reshoots. However, when your ending devolves into monster chases person down dark hallway, you know you've gone down the wrong path completely anyway. Still a bummer.
Atmosphärisches Prequel zu Carpenters Klassiker, der das Rad zwar nicht neu erfindet, aber zumindest für Fans unterhaltsames Beiwerk bietet.
Doesn't hold a candle to Carpenter's original film, but does have enough merit to hold its own.
The CGI is a bit distracting but only because the original's puppetry is the quintessential practical effect.
One thing I don't give enough credit to when reviewing movies is sound design. The sounds the creatures make here are truly horrific and mildly make up for the CGI.
The acting is fine and everyone does a good job conveying the sense of dread and paranoia that the first film had.
I think my biggest issue with this film is the last 20mins. The film takes a hard left turn and goes from being suspenseful sci-fi horror (like the original) and turns into a big budget, sci-fi/fantasy spectacle.
Overall, I find that, as a fan of Carpenter's film, this has enough fan service and qualities of its own that it makes for a good companion piece with the original 80s film.
Kate and Carter me on the edge of my seat with the "Will they? Won't they?" of it all. Let's just say, the ending is really hot.
"Any of us could be the thing."
Horrorctober 2016 - Film #11
Es ist ewig her, dass ich den 82er Film von John Carpenter gesehen habe, aber was ich noch aus meiner Erinnerung weiß, passt sehr gut zu dieser Neuinterpretation von van Heijningen Jr.. Die Geschichte ist grundsätzlich dieselbe und Ausstattung und Effekte sind über jeden Zweifel erhaben. Aber für meinen Geschmack wurde zu viel erklärt, wurde zu sehr versucht das Unerklärliche zu beschreiben. Mir blieb ein wirklich guter Monsterfilm, der mir noch mal Lust auf das Remake von John Carpenter gemacht hat. Das Original habe ich leider nie gesehen.
a list that is trying to contain every horror film made that is not lost and is found on the…
The 2016 (2nd) edition of the list. You can see the original and more info here.
With a list of…