"So, I'm gonna die because I floss?"
2011's The Thing prequel, The Thing, isn't a bad movie, by any means. I actually rather enjoy it. Mary Elizabeth Winstead was a nice choice for the lead and carries the picture well. The film's biggest issue is being a prequel to one of the best horror movies of all time and the sometimes really shitty CGI.
And that title.
I consider John Carpenter's 1982 original The Thing one of my favorite films of all time, so I was worried about how the 2011 remake of it would be, especially considering the mixed reception it seemed to have.
Having now watched it for myself, I'm torn on what to think about this remake/prequel. Setting itself in the Norwegian camp from the first film was a smart idea, and gave the film some jumping off points for what it could do.…
I was debating giving this a 2 1/2 but I appreciate the fact that instead of just remaking Carpenter's classic, they chose to expand the story and did a prequel. However, one of the key pieces to why Carpenter's film is very much the superior is lacking greatly in this: the special effects. The over abundance of CGI just ruins this movie for me. I liked getting to see the alien more in this one, but we also may have…
Interesante prequemake lleno de horror digital, pero horror al fin y al cabo. Matthijs van Heijningen merecía mejor suerte, porque la operación era complicada y el paciente salió caminando por su propio pie apoyado en sus ocho patas.
Insisto en la importancia del látex: si aquí llegan a currarse a mano todo lo que aparece en pantalla estaríamos ante una digna heredera de los horrores cárnicos de Re-Sonator y cosas por el estilo.
A godawful unnecessary prequel that recycles ideas from the original movie, with special effects incapable of reaching Rob Bottin's genius and replacing intelligent characters with sheer stupidity. I simply don't know why they made a prequel to a 30-year old classic.
But I guess not all of the acting is bad.
This review may contain spoilers. I can handle the truth.
I didn't like it in theatres, and a rewatch didn't really help things.
It's not that it's the worst movie, it's just so uninteresting in so many ways, and completely fails as a follow-up/prequel to John Carpenter's The Thing.
The cgi and effects are boring, the story literally follows the same beats as the '82 sequel, the characters aren't complex or relatable, there's very little in way of intellectualism, and the lore of the creature isn't expanded or developed in…
"I never believed in this shit."
In The Thing, everything that happened in The Thing happens pretty much the same way but more bland and less suspenseful. It's a prequel of an untouchable classic that was a remake of an adaptation of a book so it immediately has no chance of surpassing the original or doing anything wholly unique. Grading on a scale though, it really isn't awful.
Not to say The Thing is all that good either. It's very…
Repeated viewings have changed my opinions of this one.
Legitimately terrifying horror flick, most importantly Mary Elizabeth Winstead in the snow is still adorable.
Not nearly as bad as I expected, but not nearly as good as the original.
+ Ending linking into original
+ Good actors
+ Attempts to recreate the atmosphere but create it's own along the way
+ High production value
- Despite the actors trying, the plot forgot most of them along the way
- Jump scares galore
- The Thing is revealed too fast and kills off everyone too quickly
- Cast is…
I really only had interest in seeing this quasi-remake/prequel because I finally found out it starred the burgeoning scifi warrior queen Mary Elizabeth Winstead (y'all already know I'm a sucker for strong women). All other impressions I had of the film were that it was a watered down remake of Carpenter's original (which is true); however, I do think it was underestimated at its release.
The CGI is, unfortunately, not the only issue in this 2011 take. In fact, at…
Rewatch cos I couldn't watch JCs AGAIN! Not as good as I remembered, but I wasn't paying too much attention.