Reviews: "Trespass" and "The Thing 2011"
First up, I check out the new Nic Cage home invasion movie "Trespass."
Then, Brian, Sarah and I talk about the prequel to "The Thing."
Then, Brian, Sarah and I talk about the prequel to "The Thing."
To Brad: Did you read the science fiction novella "Who Goes There?" by John W. Campbell Jr?
Reply to this
You do know John Carpenter's The Thing is a remake of The Thing from Another World, right?
Reply to this
Yes. I know that it's a remake of "The Thing From Another World." In fact, I'm rewatching it now. We didn't grow up sheltered.
Reply to this
Actually no. It's more of a sequel. This piece of shit is a remake of that.
Reply to this
I really wanted the Thing to be good. I had zero hope, but I wanted to so badly. Oh well, as long as they leave Big Trouble in Little China alone, I can live with it. Sidenote: I'm calling it right now, over half the comments will be about that second cat since I've only ever heard Lloyd mentioned.
Reply to this
I knew I saw another cat there before. I can't recall the name though...
Reply to this
To Brad, Brian and Sarah: The Thing from Another World is the original film! NOT John Carpenter's The Thing!!!!!!!!!!
You three are dumb asses.
Reply to this
I managed to (I think) always say John Carpenter's "The Thing" in this video. But this movie is not a prequel to the 1951 movie. It is a prequel to the 1982 version. When someone says "first one" they are referring tho those movies' continuity. You are a dumb ass for thinking I've never seen or heard of "Thing from Another World."
Reply to this
You've affirmed my assumption, pfft. After much contemplation, I've decided John Carpenter's The Thing is my favorite movie of all time, there literally isn't a single thing I don't like about it. When I saw a trailer for this, I pretty much had the same thought process as when the game came out. "God, I HOPE this is great, but I somehow already know it'll suck". I'll just pretend it doesn't exist.
Reply to this
I actually really like the credits scenes movies have had lately. It allows them to add a cliffhanger without it interrupting the movie's run. I LOVE The Incredible Hulk but the thing that really hurts that movie for me is that last scene with Tony Stark being there like that.
Also, I totally understand your love for practical effects but I have to say I don't understand your hate of CG effects. You make it sound like there's a war between which one to use but I don't see why they can't both be used. If you just mean you wish they'd stop relying on CG so much then yeah, I agree with that. It's lazy. Wow, I'm typing a lot more than I wanted to in this.
Reply to this
I'll agree with this, and that same thing hurt the Captain America movie as well, by placing the "after credits" bonus sequence beforehand, forcing it in as part of the main feature. I don't have an issue with these extra sequences being in the credits, so long as it is in fact extra, and not crucial to the movie.
Rise of the Planet of the Apes I thought was an effective use of this technique as well. The information we learned there honestly really was only extra. It wasn't crucial at all to the central story told in ROTPOTA, and really was just an added bonus for the idiots out there too stupid to pick up on the subtle hints leading to that conclusion anyways. So I thought it was fine adding it in during the credits sequence, and really would've just felt forced had they tried to shove it somewhere in the main feature.
Reply to this
To noj9: Brad Jones just pwnd you!
Reply to this
+1 for you sir. Not just a troll either, but an ignorant troll for assuming moviegoers as experienced as them would have never heard of the original 1951 version. What an ignorant troll noj9 is. Good going Brad!
Reply to this
I dunno, I liked the The Thing prequel movie myself, and I liked the John Carpenter's The Thing as well. I often find myself getting into movies, afterwards thinking about it, I can recognize aspects that made it good or bad, but I just find myself enjoying things. I actually liked the elements that tied it into the Carpenter film, though I do admit some of it did not really make sense. Me and Lil' Bro were discussing some the ending with the American and if he really was one of the Things or not.
Still, I honestly expected Lady (kate I think?) to have died in that fall, and I do agree most of the Norwegians were set-pieces. Would I watch it again? Maybe. Is it going to stay with me like the Carpenter film did? I don't think so.
Reply to this
1st off I never liked the home invasion movies gene really the only one I can think of I liked was the one with Bruce Willis. I can't recall the name but it was an okay movie. I'd like to see what ya'll's thought's on it are. It came out like 6-7 years ago I think!?
On the subject of the Thing I'm still going to go see it come Sunday. I've been fallowing the Sequel/Prequel/Remake/Reboot of it since the early 2000s.
I love the 82 movie it's one of my faves. So, that makes me a bad fan!?
Also, what's wrong with High Tension!? That was a pretty cewl French Slasher movie! I liked that wierd twist ending.
From what I've heard from fans and non-fans this Thing movie is just passable not great and I'm more leaning to their side and I haven't seen it yet.
Reply to this
there are some recent movies that are tolerable and okay, but The Thing 2011 was the first one to make me angry. what the hell man
Reply to this
I actually just finished watching Spoony's review of The Thing prequel before wondering if you (Brad) happened to post a vlog about it too. I figured you would. It's like I said in those comments: Remake. Prequel. Whatever. It's more than unnecessary, it's fucking pointless.
And really? People are actually getting uppity and insulting Brad because they assume he's never seen the original The Thing (From Another World)? Are you serious? This is Brad we're talking about. Of course he knows about the 1957 movie! People need to chill out. That's a bit presumptuous to think he doesn't know about the original. I know you don't need some stranger on the web sticking up for you Brad, but it's a bit odd that some of your fans would think you've never seen The Thing (From Another Planet).
Reply to this
Bummer about "Trespass", I saw a trailer and had semi-high hopes for it.
I remember defending "The Thing" when trailers for it would play and my friends would shake their heads in disgust. I get a lot of guff for being too hard on movies and expecting too much. So I tried to keep an open mind to this new one, and I'll admit, my love for John Carpenter's masterpiece may have played a part in that. Looks like I defended the wrong movie, huh?
Reply to this
This shit isn't stopping with The Thing either. The Escape From New York remake is still going ahead too. Sad times.
Reply to this
I saw The Thing & had similar expectations... but I ended up liking it. Sure, it has BIG problems (the spaceship climax in particular), but I liked more elements than I didn't. I thought the CG actually worked for the most part, though it did have some terrible stuff whenever it tried to recreate the more realistic elements like faces & limbs. What I liked about it was that it didn't try to copy the original's tension because it was clear that these filmmakers knew that they couldn't recreate that tension, so they went with a lesser but still admirable & decently done creature feature set up. I also liked the major cast members, though the douche scientist was a pretty 1 dimensional character.
I think you guys' hatred for this was at least more grounded than Spoony (who had this strange unrealistic standard that 'it wasn't as good as the other one'), but I think most critics are putting it up to that unrealistic standard that it will never and would never fulfill.
Reply to this
I honestly didn't notice there were two Lloyds until 10 minutes into the Trespass video.
Reply to this
Yeah, didn't know there were two of them...
Reply to this
I love how this is a prequal to the Carpenter's Movie yet they didnt even TRY to get some equipment from that era, so it would be more realistic lol
Reply to this
To Brad, Brian and Sarah That I want I did to I went home and watched the 1982 one.
Reply to this
I liked it.
Fuck ya'll niggaz
Reply to this
Hollywood here. I'd just like to thank you for your complete lack of taste in movies. People like you make my job so easy. I'll just keep cranking out crappy soulless remakes of good movies and you'll keep lapping them up like the brainless bottom-feeder that you are. Thanks for the money, sucker.
P.S. I've been getting your emails and don't worry, the Smurfs sequel is coming along nicely. See you at the theatre!
Reply to this
Wow, could you possibly be more of a dick??
The guy just said he liked the movie, he didn't say it was "T3hh b3st moivi3zzz ev3rzzz, john carpenter suxxxorz as5$h0l3s," so lay off.
Reply to this
See YOU at the theatre as well, my friend!
Reply to this
Dude. You're white-knighting someone who used the phrase "fuck y'all niggaz". I am embarrassed for you.
Reply to this
I loved the Thing review but the constant meowing in the background was REALLY annoying. My friends and I are going to be watching The Thing remaprequel either today or tomorrow. I keep warning them it looks pretty shitty but we'll just have to see ourselves.
Reply to this
Just got back from it. I don't think the movie is as bad as you make it out to be. On the negative side you don't really get to know any of the characters, they are mostly "Norwegian Man" followed by a number as far as the movie seems to care, so there's no suspense in finding out who it is. Also there's no really tension building scenes, the movie goes really fast and the Thing seems way too eager to pop out and attack people, making it so the movie is pretty much just jump scares. The effects aren't too good, especially when compared with the original, and when the Thing pops out in the light it's laughable. I felt like the Americans were really out of place, obviously just thrown in there for a western audience to identify with (then again I think most people would complain if the movie was in Norwegian, I woulda loved that though). Lastly the end is pretty stupid and there's a few mess ups from this one into the original (the Norwegians excavated the craft, they had pictures of it with no ice on top and there weren't two tractors in front of the craft in the original).
On the plus side, Lars is a bad ass, the creature designs can be pretty cool, the effects aren't so horrible that they always take you out (they do sometimes though), and there are worse movies you could see. So all in all I'd mostly agree with Brad's review but I'm not as angry with the issues, I think in all it's worth a watch whenever it gets on HBO, but I wouldn't recommend spending the cash to see it in theaters unless you can overlook the effects or haven't seen the original to compare it to.
Reply to this
I hoped The Thing would at least be OK, but ...
Honestly. I don't want to sound like a grumpy old person. But CGI is awful in films like this. Here's what gets me, there are low budget films like Splinter , Laid to Rest and Altered that use practical effects with fairly good results. It at the very least looks like there actual actual real things on the screen and not some sort of cartoon scrawled on as an after thought. So a decently budgeted movie should be able to do it really well. The technology has improved on every level. from the fake skin to miniaturized electronics. Plainly, the ability to create something that looks real and the cost isn't the problem. So, I can only think of few reasons for CGI in major studio horror.
One is to lower the impact. CGI is used precisely because it looks fake and so won't upset toddlers too much. Secondly. because it's just become a habit, like jerky cam in battle scenes. I hate jerky cam nearly has much as CGI, it doesn't make me feel closer to the action, it just makes wish they would hold the fucking camera still so I could actually see the fucking action.
Reply to this
Wow Brad we have totally apposing views on this movie. Personally, I love it. Maybe its because I went into it not expecting anything. here is my extremely positive review. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yznRgVI_Xms&feature=channel_video_title
Reply to this
So there was nothing in Trespass that could compare to the heart wrenching "Captain Wubba scene" in Hostage, but than again, how could it?
Reply to this
It rip-off from both Carpenter and Howard Hawks' version of the chilling tale that started it all, John W. Campbell Jr.'s Who Goes There?"
Reply to this
The end credits thing is starting to piss me off too. It was great at first but now it's getting annoying. The biggest offender was the Wolverine movie where you go though what I swear is 15 minutes of credits and then it comes. It's Hugh Jackman drinking and that's it! At least Fast Five had the nerve to put it between the main credits and the actual credits.
As for The Thing itself, it was okay, Kate was the only character I gave a damn about, everyone else I didn't care because they had no time to develop them. The things they add to connect with the original was good and then it got annoying. And the ending...it just ends. The film taking place in 1982, yeah sure...
The special effect were descent, not good, just meh.
It's okay as a standalone film. As prequel/reboot connected to the '82 film, HELL FUCKING NO!
Everyone's anger is justified, this remake thing needs to stop! Not every movie needs a remake to add a fucking iPhone, modern music,or internet to "modernize" the story! STOP IT!
Reply to this
I was supposed to work on this and turned it down because I love the original so much. It wasn't a test of precognitive powers to figure out it was not going to be good. First thing that confirmed it- no Rob Bottin. I'll have to rent it eventually for educational purposes, but thanks for the review Brad. Always good to see your vids.
Reply to this
I did'nt watch the video yet.
I liked it. it was fine.
What I found odd,was that the lead scientist did'nt bring any engenieres.the found a full spaceship! and he think the biologie is more important that the technology?
Anniway.They should have said to watch the 80's movie to know the end.
What happened to Kate?And who was that,who looked like he killed himself and was frozen?
Reply to this
Saying John Carpenter's The Thing is a remake of The Thing from Another World (1951) is like saying Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings is a remake of the 70s animated movie by Ralph Bakshi. Both Carpenter's The Thing and Jackson's LOTR are simply closer adaptations of the original books. Carpenter's The Thing has a couple of nods to the 51 movie but to say its a remake is insane if you actually read the 1938 short story it is based on, "Who Goes There" by John W. Campbell Jr.
Reply to this
I can't believe they just called this movie "The Thing". John Carpenter's movie wasn't called "The Thing From Another World." Why the hell is this movie called "The Thing"?
On the subject of someone not liking the the original The Thing, here's the critic from the Chicago Tribune's review:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/entertainment/movies/sc-mov-1011-the-thing-20111013,0,7586035.column
Reply to this
I like Nightmare on Elm Street 4. Also, Sarah looks pretty hot with the new hair color.
Reply to this
Yep, a more critical version of my opinion.
I didn't expect this to be great, but I hoped that it would at least be good. Unfortunately, I found it, at best, mediocre.
All Thing reveals are obvious save one. The dude on the helicopter would have been surprising, as there's more foreshadowing to the OTHER guy there being the Thing, but that's ruined by the freakin' trailer.
It's funny you made a "Shining" reference, that's what I was thinking of when the black guy went to look at the frozen creature. There is NO reason for him to do that unless he 'felt' something might be wrong. I was surprised that he didn't die first as per the old horror movie cliche.(Actually, that gave me early hope that it might not suck. Sadly, I wasn't proven right.)
The subtlety and paranoia of the first film? Gone. The amazing special affects? The only time I was amazed was the autopsy scene. The scene where she goes to get the keys for the vehicles, while I expected the "surprise", was a bit effective in being suspenseful, but still. I can take CGI, but this was, for the most part, bad, obvious CGI. The original Dead Space game had better effects.
Also, are we told WHY they have flamethrowers? Or grenades? I know the first film had an explanation for having the former, though I can't remember what it was.
There are no character establishing moments. Remember the first scene in Carpenter's film that had Mac in it? His solution to the computer game? Said a lot about that character. No such moments for the new female lead, or anyone else for that matter.
My one area where I can't complain? The design of the Thing. The CGI did suck, but the monster designs were still pretty good.
Ultimately, not completely worth it. But I caught it at a seven dollar matinee viewing, so I'm not TOO pissed off. I just wish it would have held up to the legacy of the original film.
Reply to this
just one question is it more or less ridiculous than 2003's "Dreamcatcher"
Reply to this
Argh! England gets "The Thing" in December! With our distribution, we'll still be watching animations on the Zoetrope. But it's disappointing to hear about the CGI though.
Reply to this
So, I can see how bad you all thought it was, but I still ave to go see it. And I have disagreed with Brad before, so despite what they say, I can at least hope I might like it. And if I don't, I can just go back to Universal Studios to see the awesome haunted house based on the movie, and just pretend that that's what the film was like.
Reply to this
Brad, I feel you're off in this one. I watch it and loved the movie. And I think you're a bit overboard on not liking CGI effects. I mean, you have to accept that's part of today's world Instead of judging a movie based on whether it has CGI or practical effects how about to decide if the CGI effects are good or well used? I mean, cripes, man.
Reply to this
No. When something was done perfect nearly 30 years ago, and today's standards of effects work are terrible, weightless, and fake; I don't have to (and will never) accept that.
Reply to this
Ahh! You cloned Lloyd! Do you owe Dr. Insano money or something that you let him tinker with your cat?
Seriously though, they're both gorgeous. What's the name of the second one and which is which? And how do you tell them apart?
Oh, and great reviews as always...
Reply to this
Im with Brad on this one, i went to attempt to see the movie and actually walked out on it. Its because The Thing '82 was a movie I hold as one of my favorite movies of all time (number 4 actually) and as one of the movies that still makes me feel uneasy and a little scared of the dark after i watch it. I have soooo many memories attached to that movie, some of the first being me at the age of 8 seeing it and covering my face so many time from being like genuinely terrified. I watched the 80's slashers such as Nightmare on Elm Street and you know the horrible Halloween squeals, but they never made me feel genuine fear or made me afraid like Carpenters movie did.
The other thing is that the movie looked so real to me as when i was younger, as as teenager and adult the movie holds up as having some of the best damn effects ive seen ever. It beats out CGI, i dont care what anyone says, The Things effects beat out that fake computer shit of today. Go watch the dog scene from the 82 movie, then go watch something like Transformers or hell like Splice (which is a movie i like and complemented the effects one) and tell me which one do you think you would have a stronger reaction to, or think could exist in the real world. If you say the computer robots that transform, please let me examine your delusional mind filled with denial.
Lastly this movie just fails at every level of being scary or building tension. In the 82 movie tension was built up by the isolation, the everyday stuff continuing when you dreaded that just something bad was going to happen to these guys, the constant build up that not only was a alien creature in the base, but so where men so paranoid they would kill each other with very little reason. Further dwindling there chances of help and resources, out of there own fear. It was so suspenseful even with out 8 or so aliens running around on screen. But my god did the alien make a impact on screen (in the 82 version) when it appeared.
This movie was just noise, and A.D.D. attention grabbing jump scare nonsense with so many continuity errors to the 82 version, and a lead that was a terribly miscast, cause apparently in today's world you cant have 8 guys in a base clinging to survival with out 5000 frat dude bro douche bags on the internet claiming the movie is a "sausage fest" or "gay". Fuck this movie!
By the way, don't take this the wrong way Brad (or do, i dont care im gay anyways lol), but you look kinda cute in the "Tespass" screen capture with Lloyd on your lap and looking like you just got home from the movies.
Reply to this
You guys are coming down on the thing because it's not like the original, it doesn't have the music, you're comparing effects, you're also allowing your anger to cloud a few things since you all said you were RAGING mad so I don't expect you to remember facts. And I don't remember an alien ship in the original thing.
Also the thing(Pun not intended), you were expecting this to be a similar movie in almost every respect not just similar story. I'm sorry but I got to say this is something of a rental as this is another story of people(who might not be interesting but still that isn't the point as you know all or almost all are going to die) who find this thing and just because you know doesn't mean they'll know.
Reply to this
Also with the thing you got to remember, in the John Carptner's thing IT DOSE do something similar to the this one where it publicly freaks out. In the JC thing it was when it attacking the dogs. It's basically a story of progression of the monsters thought process since it got unfrozen.
Reply to this
dude i love ur cats
Reply to this
I decided to post a comment here because the thing review had me thinking, thinking about a certain nitpick I had developed over the time watching online reviewers and I decided to finally shed my thoughts on it... and that is the use of CGI.
While I'll say that I respect your opinions and the fact there are a TON of bad movies with CGI in them... I actually love cgi, but not because it looks cool or because I see it as an effect... but because I feel its a great story-telling device. There are a lot of things practical effects can't do that CGI does, and I respect it for that.
For me, its not a matter of convincing me that what I see on the screen is real, but that I believe it exists in THEIR world, and after all in the end, all movies are, are stories, stories with moving pictures.
If CGI is done well, then I can suspend my disbelief and believe that what I am seeing on the screen actually exists in the movie's FICTIONAL setting, and to me, that only let's get involved more into the movie's world.
I do agree that hollywood practically shoves most movies with a lot of it but I don't blame the CGI for making the movie itself terrible, and I am happy to know that you guys don't think so either, but I don't think that the overuse of CGI is a bad thing if done right, because all in all, its just a tool like I said, and it doesn't matter if it makes the world seem more fake or unrealistic because... well... its not, all of it is not real and it supposed to be based in its own fictional setting, even if its toted as being set in a world much like ours, its still fictional, so, for me anyways, practical or CGI are both excellent storytelling devices and neither of them are better then one another since they both do their jobs in enhancing the story.
If had to put a defense on CGI in terms of it being convincing, I can think of movies like Inception (which you have talked about) which had amazing CGI that really did look real.
For me, the most convincing CGI effect I had ever seen in my life was actually a marriage between itself and practical effects... and that was in Jurassic Park. The T-Rex scene in particular scared me shitless as a child when I first saw it in theatres, the use of both CGI and a huge animatraonic model made me believe that what I saw on the screen was nothing less but an actual living, breathing T-Rex... And to this day, I still hold that scene in my heart to be the most convincing use of special effects in any movie I have seen thus far.
Anyways, I am sorry for rambling, but I thought I would put in my two cents on the matter and I don't mean any ill-will, just thought it would be okay to share my thoughts on CGI.
Reply to this
The problem, and it's the same problem Brad has with it, is that filmmakers abuse CGI by using it for things that practical effects can not only do, but they do it better.
Reply to this
Yea, I understand that, but I am just saying, at least in my opinion, it doesn't really matter as long as its good enough. That being said, practical effects should be used more often in movies nowadays, and movies like Cowboys and Aliens that has a lot of those did manage to impress me a lot with how much work they put into those practical effects.
Reply to this
I keep saying I hate CGI, but you're right. You could not make Inception without it and the T-Rex scene in Jurassic Park is close to flawless. But it's the use of CGI where practical effects would work better that annoys some of us.
I can't think of a single instance where CGI looks better than American Werewolf in London, or even going back further, Alien. The egg opening scene and the face hugger autopsy look organic because they are organic. The alien itself is such a great design that it doesn't matter that it's a man in a suite.
Personally, what I find galling is that practical effects have advanced massively. You could easily make The Thing 2011 look more convincing than the Carpenter film. A marriage between practical effects and CGI could be made to work flawlessly. And arguably, it could be done cheaper than this film. Mainstream Hollywood has just got incredibly unadventurous and the bad CGI is a symptom of a wider contempt for audiences. They are basically making The Asylums mock busters on a bigger budget. The difference being that The Asylum churns out cheap cheerful tat that everyone knows is tat and Hollywood is churning out expensive tat that demands that we see it as a serious prospect.
The whole remake conveyor-belt mentality is just beyond sad. Does the world really need Videodrome remade by a hack or Scarface redone again for gormless people?
Anyway. I'm begining to rant.
Reply to this
I object to your assumption that Roger Ebert hates all horror movies. Observe:
Halloween (4 Stars); The Cell (4 Stars); Se7en (among his list of Great Movies);Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer (3 1/2 Stars); The Devil's Rejects (3 Stars); Final Destination (3 Stars); etc. I'm just saying.
Reply to this
Do you actually think they meant that literally? Brad has talked several times about horror movies Roger Ebert has liked vs ones he didn't. Also, Brian is right in the stereotype that Ebert doesn't like a lot of horror movies, because he doesn't. I'm just SAYIN.
Reply to this
since when did brad and jillian have two cats?
Reply to this
I would not be surprised if this movie had a really good script originally, but Univeral fucked it up to try and modernize it.
Reply to this
There might be spoilers here...The one aspect that I think was missed in this that drove me up a wall was the issue of how the spaceship got uncovered. In the 1982 version, they make it clear that the spaceship was blown out of the ice. So for all of their (frankly forced) attempts to connect this movie to Carpenter's version, this one aspect completely undermines it. And for what? So that we could see that the 100,000 year old spaceship was still usable? If that were the case, why didn't the alien just leave when it crash landed in the beginning?
Reply to this
So, it appears that Real Steel was number one at the box office for the second week in a row. The Thing came in third. Small victory?
Reply to this
You know who could have directed a prequel to The Thing and have it feel like a John Carpenter film? Robert Rodriguez.
Reply to this
Hey, Brad, just to let you know, TRESPASS looks suspiciously similar in both subject and denouement to a Spanish flick titled SECUESTRADOS ("Kidnapped") - 'http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1629377/'
Reply to this
Ugh, I HATE this movie and I haven't even seen it. I will never go see it, because this movie shouldn't even exist.
Everyone knew it was gonna be CGI, and that fact alone ruins The Thing. It absolutely ruins it. But you know what it also ruins? The mystery.
That particular scene in Carpenter's version with the Norwegian camp was one of the most effective at setting the mood for that whole film, and it was awesomely creepy. And now some pretentious fuckholes come and think they should make a movie about it.
This movie just...it's existence alone is an insult, both to me and to Carpenter's film. I would have been perfectly fine with this if they tried to put their own unique spin to The Thing From Another World, which is exactly what Carpenter did and to GREAT effect.
But no, they HAD to make this piece of shit and connect it directly with the 1982 film and do their absolute best to do their worst. Fuck these people for making this movie. I do not want filmmakers like this in the industry. Stop trying to cash in on others' success and make your own fucking movie.
Reply to this
a home invasion movie starring Harrison ford...wasn't that a movie? oh yeah Firewall not a great movie but hilarious w/Rifftrax
Nic Cage's next film looks like a rather slandered revenge flick called 'Justice'. the trailer looks a tad generic but the only thing resembling a poster I found is pretty amusing http://media.avclub.com/images/articles/article/62/62172/283035_256496647712993_118519574844035_994471_2174104_n_jpg_140x202_crop_q85.jpg
an indifferent Nic cage wearing a mask probably sad about selling that castle
Reply to this
a home invasion movie starring Harrison ford...wasn't that a movie? oh yeah Firewall not a great movie but hilarious w/Rifftrax
Nic Cage's next film looks like a rather slandered revenge flick called 'Justice'. the trailer looks a tad generic but the only thing resembling a poster I found is pretty amusing http://media.avclub.com/images/articles/article/62/62172/283035_256496647712993_118519574844035_994471_2174104_n_jpg_140x202_crop_q85.jpg
an indifferent Nic cage wearing a mask probably sad about selling that castle
Reply to this
Do as I do; buy a ticket for a good movie in the same theatre, and sneak into The Thing after/instead. Give your money to something that really deserves it!
Reply to this
I'll agree with you that this is not a good movie. But I still enjoyed it.
I actually liked that the thing was more aggressive. Granted, it looked terrible, and 8 things attacking at once at the same time probably was a bad way to go about it. But let's look at both films together. At first the thing is aggressive, it attacks and is trying to get away to either its spaceship or civilization at all costs. Its so aggressive because it hasn't learned to be stealthy yet. It won't learn that until becoming the dog, and even then it sprung out around other dogs. Being stealthy is a strategy it quickly develops.
At first, it flat out attacks, but gets burned. Then it tries to fool... Ramona, whoever the fuck that girl was by cornering her alone. Then it tries to outnumber and overpower them. When that fails, it tries to retreat to its ship. By the time it gets to the John Carpenter camp, It tells itself "I've been in this situation before; it didn't work they were on to me. I need a new angle."
Now, a few other things: the axe and the flame thrower. The axe was left there because Ramona knew even a single blood cell could spread like a virus, and the axe was covered in blood. To avoid infection they left it behind. As for the flame-thrower, yeah, they probably don't have those in Antarctica. But seing as how it's -50(Celsius) without windchill, the less time you spend outside de-icing shit, the better. I can suspend my sdisbelief and accept that maybe, MAYBE they really do have flame throwers.
But again, I agree this was a bad movie. Too many characters, Too many inconsistencies (How did she make it into the control room if she fell in the engine? Is that why the ship crashed, it flies around in the universe with open windows?) And bad CGI(Why were they looking at a screen saver through a microscope?). Still, I found it entertaining.
Reply to this
Well, I liked it. But you made some good points.
I know the flaws are pretty major, but I thought it was decent.
It's a simple monster chase movie. And that was refreshing...in a sense.
Makes for one bizarro reverse double feature though.
Reply to this
As bad this prequel/remake was the newest entry in to the hellraiser franchise is far, far worse. Hellraiser Revelations makes The Thing seems like The Exorcist in comparison. It features one of the worst casts on film. Anyone could have filled these rolls. At least the thing had Ramona Flowers. Revelations has dick in the eye.
Reply to this
Don't listen to em people. They are full of shit. This movie was pretty good. Not as good as the 82 version, but decent in its own right. Nice way they brought it full circle at the end. They are just being overly cynical. Trust your own judgement.
Reply to this
Usually I agree with you guys, But the hatred you guys had for the Thing surprised me. It's not great to be sure, And doesn't hold a candle to John Carpenter's film. But, hate me if you like, but I don't think it's that bad either. Knowing the shit that Hollywood normally puts out, this is not a bad effort at all, it's heart is in the right place. Could the film have been better? Oh hell yes, there was so much that could be improved.
My biggest complaint about the film is the behavior of the thing, which alot of it contradicts it's behaviour in JC's film. Alot of filmmakers today can't seem to avoid the trap of showing more with the advent of CGI at the expense of consistency.. And I agree the CGI is shoddy, But I don't really care, Bad CGI never bothered me probably because I can visualize what's missing with my imagination.
I went to this film with 0 expectations, So I was surprised that the film was actually ok. None of the characters were really irritating, infact they were quite sympathetic. There was quite abit of fan service and really at least an effort was made to show what did happen that leads up to the next film. There were moments that were quite good, for example the 'test' scene, I was fearful they were going to do a shot by shot copy of the famous test scene in JC's film but no they went in a unique direction with it. When we do see the creature, even with the shoddy CGI, it is disturbing.
And I disagree with you guys that the film is pretty much a remake of JC's film, they're in similiar circumstances so some similiarity will happen. It has enough of the old and enough new in it it achieved that balance. Where the film drops the ball is it falls into the trap of the ADD generation, an overreliance on jump scares, showing everything up front and really a lack of tension, the paranoia was at best basic.
It's WAY inferior to JC's film, no argument there, But it's a worthy companion peace I find, it was entertaining and it was nice to see some of the questions in JC's film answered. It just feels rather lazy and it could have been SOOOOOO much better. But, especially considering the slop that passes for movies these days, this isn't a bad effort. Oh well, at least you guys were pissed off at Transformers 3... Except Brian X(
Reply to this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N_nXG8-yLbc
Can't believe nobody linked to this yet. Pokemon and the Thing together in The Ditto. Brad, which had better effects?
Reply to this
Brad, you make this mistake very often: John Carpenter wasn't the author of The Thing's music score. It was Ennio Morricone.
Reply to this
The Thing: Quest For More Money
Reply to this
Brad, did you just say that someone spoke "american"..
Reply to this
-Sigh- I was holding off watching this review till I saw it myself. I have I have to say while it isn't as good as the John Carpenter's film its much better than you guys are complaining.
Yes the CGI is pretty bad, but if it was perfect I would have hated it. I watched the original about week before the new one. And guess what THE EFFECTS ARE CHEESY. Sure they look cool but they're so goofy looking I laugh whenever I see one of the creatures.
Same thing here in the new one.
As for Sarah's complained about the creature being so open about it being the creature. In John Carpenter's the creature only had a colony to form a dog. So it had to subtle and sly to grow in power.
This creature in the new one was BIGGER, and could risk getting "caught". It like an army going against a swat team. Who do you think is going expose themselves more?
As for leaving the axe, if you remember correct ANY DROP of BLOOD will infect YOU. Touching a bloody axe with clearly THING blood on isn't the best idea.
Were there faults yes. But the movie was enjoyable if you remember this is a low budget movie made by fans of the original.
No matter what you say it seems you just hate it because of too much CGI, and the fact its not the John Carpneter movie. But I respect your opinion even though I don't agree with what your saying.
Reply to this
Wow Thank Chirst For You Guys!
I Had Lost All Hope That Our Race Wasn't Full Of ADD Riddled Tweens/Hipsters, Who Think That Because A Recent Installment To Horror Flim Series, Vomits Tons Of Shoddy CGI & Jump Scares At You. Then Adds The Bare Minimum Amount Of Continuity To Satisfy The Conditions Of Being A Prequel/Sequel That It's Now A Decent/Good Adaptation/Flim. Seriously? Any Person Claiming That This Movie Is Somehow Different Than The Rest Of Hollywood Shit Fest (See The Smurfs). Is Lobotomized. Honestly... The CGI In This Movie Made Me Look Back Fondly On The Shit Tier CGI Of Starship Troopers Marauder (How Fucking Sad Is That?). Even The Fucking Fires In That Movie Were CGI! And About This Movie Having Anything Resembling Or Capturing That Tense/Uneasy Atmosphere Of The 1982 Flim. Bullshit! The Fucking Video Game Did A Better Job Of That. Nevermind It Being More Fucking Scary To Boot. And Managing To Do A Better Job Of Of Continuing/Expanding The Story. And This Isn't Even Taking The Huge Fucking Plot Holes Of This Movie Into Account. Like The Jarring One Of The Thing's Functional Ship, And Obvious Question That Arises Of "WHY THE FUCK IS IT EVEN STAYING IN THE CAMP ONCE IT'S THAWED OUT IN THE FIRST PLACE?" And While Some Of The "Fans" Of The 1982 Flim. Might Not Recall The Fact That The Blair/Thing Monster Was Building His Own Ship Underneath His Cabin For The Clear Intent To Escape! At The Very Least The Camp. So Now We're Supposed To Believe At This Point That The Thing Just Wants To Hang Around The Very Eniviroment It Was Unwilligly Forced Into? (As Evidenced In BOTH Movies As Being The Result Of A Crash, Ie Not Voluntary And Futher Evidenced Being That The Ship Is Buried Under The Ice!)
I Mean Cmon, Thats A Strech. At The Very Least One Of The Thing's Survival Instinct. Im Sure Some Of You "Fans" Are More Than Happy To Come Up With Some Extracanonical Justification Of This. So Go Ahead... And If Your Wondering Why Im Refrencing These Fans Using Quotations, Is Simply Because Being Fan Of The Thing & Saying That This Movie Cannonicity Withstanding. Is A Good Flim In The Thing Series Itself Or A Good "Companion Piece" To The 1982 One. Means Your A Fan In The Vein Of Someone Who Watches The Newer Entries Of The "Dead Series" & Claims They're A George A Romero Fan. Or Likewise Considering The Star Wars Prequels To Be On Par With If Not Better Than The Orignal Trilogy And Boasts About Being A "True" Star Wars Fan Over Those Fans Who Despise Said Prequels. And As Such Newer Doesn't Necessarily Mean Better. And Likewise "Tie In/Prequel Doesn't Automatically Equate To Being Faithful... So I Apologize For The Ranting, But This Is One Of Those Prequels That Manages To Cheapen The Creativity & Concepts Behind The Original Work And Turns Them Into Typical Hollywood Cannon Fodder.
And To Those With A Problem Regarding My Comments. Why Aren't You Busy Justifying Why Remaking & Rebooting Movies, The Likes Of Blade Runner Is A Good Thing?
Reply to this
You suck... I liked this movie...
Reply to this
I just watched the thing...
I hate is as much as I expected...
for the first. This was a Norwegian station, but there were a danish and a brit there. wtf!? The Monster was shown too much and not finished at all, The Norwegians was the effin bi-characters!
If Sigourney weaver or a Norwegian(yes, we DO have and have had a lot of scientists since that time)had been there, it would have been epic, and not her from Scott pilgrim. Her face just asked for punching. So much copy+paste from John Carpenters movie, Monster going against every fysical law and NEVER getting to copy exact of someone and keeps it for long. Also Monster looked like something from Resident Evil 5. The screams on it was NOT good at all but too human. Camera from 2009 as well as the flamethrowers we had was not models like that. our was most green and had only 2 tanks.
Norwegians being darn many, but suddenly everyone just dissappears!
just some of my venting of this movie.
It was good the first 15 minutes, and the last 1 minute. but I hope hollywood will never do this again. never. and not making fun of us norwegians ever again like that. damn. we DO have equipment for everything. aaaah *rant done*
Reply to this
I agree with every last word you said about the thing but one little mistake you kept making Carpenters Thing was NOT The origonal
Reply to this
I didn't read through all the previous comments, so maybe I'm repeating what somebody said before me: The guy with the slit throat was the "red hering"-guy who always acted suspicious and never looked anybody in the eyes. When the Norwegian woman talked to the heroine about who cleaned the blood from the shower before turning into the monster, she says she saw him (I think his name was Bjorn or something like that) leaving the shower after the helicopter crash and both look at him while he packs a bag with a suspicious seeming glance at them. Also he is one of the guys who gets singled out during the "teeth-test", the only black haired one.
Reply to this
So it's been a while since the movie came out. I will say that I hated it just as much as everybody else, but is there anybody else who feels weird after they suddenly realize the special effects team wasn't really using shoddy CGI and really using practical animatronic effects for the most part? Like what Carpenter did? I know that still doesn't mean the movie sucked less, but it seems to me we are really in the age where there are times where we really can't tell what is animatronic and what is CGI. We expect it to be all CGI in general.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-2bsXC-uhXQ&feature=youtu.be
Reply to this
That's incredibly misleading. In our review we mention the scenes shown in that video clip, and we were well aware that they were practical (because they were the only moments that didn't look like a cartoon). But CGI was heavily heavily used to either "enhance" The Thing effects (ie make them shitty looking) or were just CGI all together (the chest bursting scenes and the laughable helicopter scene). This video clip does nothing but show us scenes that were already addressed as being practical in the review, and does not mean that there was no CGI used in the movie at all.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YRfgOB8GxJ8 Yeah, this scene is about as practical of an effect as Roger Rabbit.
Reply to this
Lol. It was just a thought. Like I said. I hated the movie just as much as you did and I still prefer the original. I did enjoy your response. I mean, the behind the scenes special effects clip I included is one of the only interesting elements that has anything to do with the movie.
Reply to this
Also, I barely remember what happened in the movie since it was so forgettable and I don't really care to remember, so yeah. Lol. -_-
Reply to this