tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5110147752122772426.post2452379310347019703..comments2024-03-28T10:33:39.051-07:00Comments on Horror Movie A Day: The Thing (2011)BChttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06480847497966171794noreply@blogger.comBlogger25125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5110147752122772426.post-19466637615980781972015-01-30T03:54:14.635-08:002015-01-30T03:54:14.635-08:00As an audience identification character, Mary Eliz...As an audience identification character, Mary Elizabeth Winstead is a wash, playing her part as a monotone scientific explainer. She has no charisma to take over when things get crazy, and no shades of gray to make her intriguing. In other words, she’s no Kurt Russell.<br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08474551845661031816noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5110147752122772426.post-3023869945756984112013-08-24T18:41:30.001-07:002013-08-24T18:41:30.001-07:00Most enjoyable moments of the thing: rec room mayh...Most enjoyable moments of the thing: rec room mayhem and the joke Peter told to Lars in the beginning.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5110147752122772426.post-64924345397594746012013-07-24T06:01:39.385-07:002013-07-24T06:01:39.385-07:00It wasnt to bad what confused me and correct me if...It wasnt to bad what confused me and correct me if I missed something but didn't they sabotage the vehicles how did the thing drive one to the ship and them drive after itAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5110147752122772426.post-69571148709287238902013-05-18T22:04:35.310-07:002013-05-18T22:04:35.310-07:00I do not know if you guyz know that there are Vide...I do not know if you guyz know that there are Video Game called "The Thing" (2002) which takes place after "The Thing (1982)" movie happenings ??? Rescue mission is sent to save the survivors. I recommend to all fans of The Thing. My watching history was, first - "The Thing (1982)", than played video game from 2002. and watched "The Thing (2011)". My biggest surprise is when i watch version from 2011. that i didn't know that this is not a remake of old movie. lol. I found out that after half of movie watched approx. lol. I was so happy to know that this is prequel. Another great thing that i spotted is that many rooms and areas are same as on video game (i played several times i know every step). Especially the room with UFO space craft in ice. That was same as on the video game. Many other rooms are taken from the game which is brialiant for the movie if you ask me. I was full of adrenaline when watching this version, because i like a lot connections between video games and movies. I watched it with my girl, who didn't played and watched old version of movie, so i jumped off on every familiar room, object that are from video game or connection with old version movie. I was knew that she can not understand my happiness. :-)Top Newshttp://www.lingfit.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5110147752122772426.post-74601949983782597592012-10-22T22:36:47.798-07:002012-10-22T22:36:47.798-07:00This prequel version of 'The Thing' 2011 i...This prequel version of 'The Thing' 2011 is as good and creepy as the John Carpenter's 1982 version "THE THING." I think they should make another new good sequels... "The Thing 2" through "The Thing 6." And instead of them using the most cartoonish CGI fx the filmmakers should take a lot of time doing almost a hundred of many Puppetry fx, hundreds different types of Special Makeup Effects and Bladders fx.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5110147752122772426.post-39193280450838975932012-01-27T06:50:18.039-08:002012-01-27T06:50:18.039-08:00I'm a huge fan of the '82 The Thing. To th...I'm a huge fan of the '82 The Thing. To this day - when I'm alone with a new dog - I'm paranoid. The '11 The Thing could have been better. I think they had a solid idea wanting to tie things together with the Carpenter movie - but then again - it felt like they got really lazy about halfway through the film. The "Thing Out" on the helicopter - fine. Whatever - this may have been its first time around humans and wasn't sure what would have happened if they landed the helicopter back at the station. It makes sense because in the Carpenter version it was more cautious and careful about assimilating its prey - especially with the creepy ass acting dog surveying the camp. It wasn't until it was tested and proven that Palmer was the thing that it "Thinged Out" unlike the helicopter turn around. I like the idea that a previous poster suggested as a plot device regarding whether or not the Thing in all its different victims were part of a collective conscious and shared telepathic abilities. I was pissed at the lack of creativity when coming up with the "Final Thing". And how convenient that the head scientist be the "Final Thing". Why did he have to be the final mutation that is battled in the film? It had only four recognizable actors in the movie - the chick from Death Proof (another Kurt Russell movie, hmmm), Edgerton, the ever young Olsen (I hated his demise!!), and the dude from Lost. All in all - I will more than likely watch this movie again because I love horror movies and it makes for a good monster flick - but I definitely have to go into it with my common sense switch turned off. Unlike Carpenter's The Thing.Rob N Angel (see above)https://www.blogger.com/profile/17279532383306038376noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5110147752122772426.post-25639388424712871752011-12-09T22:46:31.960-08:002011-12-09T22:46:31.960-08:00I’m pretty mixed on this film. On one hand it has ...I’m pretty mixed on this film. On one hand it has many, many faults. Its lacks character development (and with 15 or so character’s that a pretty big problem). It has too much fucking CGI. It's got plot holes and logic faults galore and other random stupidness (The UFO still worked? Did The Thing just go outside to take a piss and get frozen then?). As a paranoid whodunit, it fails utterly. <br /><br />But having said all of that, I still enjoyed it. It’s not a pube on the perfect ballsack of the original, but it works as a trashy monster movie. There are a couple of tense scenes and it has some neat ideas (the fillings thing is pretty clever). It has some good jokes (the opening gag is fantastic). The violence is pretty nasty, such as the creation of “split face”. And it has a lead female character that has no love interests, no saucy underwear /shower scene and comes across as capable and smart. And she never needs to be rescued, which is a nice touch. So yeah, it has some merits.PADDY_C00Lhttp://twitter.com/#!/PADDY_C00Lnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5110147752122772426.post-64066994529622271852011-11-10T13:17:48.766-08:002011-11-10T13:17:48.766-08:00The reviewer missed some things here. The helicopt...The reviewer missed some things here. The helicopter wasn't taking the thing to the mainland, it was taking it to the McMurdo base which is IN ANTARCTICA. Also, the thing only attacked inside the chopper when it realized the chopper was about to land again, as in TURNING BACK.<br /><br />Also, this isn't a remake (even though it copies some ideas of the 1982-version), it is a prequel.<br /><br />Third, how can you not remember LARS, the big bearded Norwegian who didn't speak English, he was the coolest character in this entire film!<br /><br />All that said, I don't believe this reviewer has even seen Carpenter's 1982-classic. Based on the stuff he writes, and the questions he raises it feels like he never watched the old one, and if that is true he should have been disqualified from reviewing this film!<br /><br />Do I think the 2011-movie is very good? No, it is just okay, but it does a couple of things to tie in nicely with its 1982-"sequel".Thomas K. Nilsenhttp://www.imdb.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5110147752122772426.post-83918028544008827772011-10-27T15:37:10.764-07:002011-10-27T15:37:10.764-07:00The suicide guy slitting his throat should've ...The suicide guy slitting his throat should've been on-screen. For some reason I thought it would be. Just a good gore moment and a character taking his own life, something we haven't really seen anyone do when dealing with the Thing.<br /><br />It should've been explained too. Was he infected? Was he just scared? Unexplained, it's just a moment to tie up loose ends. <br /><br />At least those people that went thru The Thing: Assimilation maze at Universal's Horror Nights get to see this play out, which I saw before the film so I really expected it to be in the film that much more.<br /><br />The axe moment creates a nice little pay off when rewatching the '82 film after this film. And the set from where the Thing escaped the block of ice was pretty awesomely recreated. <br /><br />Sadly the film doesn't really offer anything new other than a glimpse of the alien in it's original form. They should've introduced some new ideas, like maybe the notion that someone could be a Thing and not realize it, not sure if that would make sense though.<br /><br />They should've established whether there was some connection between multiple things, whether it be telepathic or not. This would've really assisted that helicopter moment whereas Griggs Thinging out would've made much more sense if he knew that Thing-Juliettte was still down there and will survive him should he die in a helicopter crash. And who knows if he actually did. If two humans can survive that crash, why can't a Thing? It's probably frozen in the ice somewhere close to the wreck. Pretty sure the only death that is certain is Olav's, who we were led to believe was an imitation up until Griggs thinged out on him.<br /><br />The mouth inspection scene, although I was fine with the idea behind it, I don't like the way it ended. The film just changed the subject when the helicopter crash survivors broke back into the base. It should've ended with Kate about to look into someone's mouth who's willing to show it to her and have the Thing just basically have a chest burster moment out the person's mouth. Maybe in the sequel if she ever makes it to the Russian base and/or the McMurdle base.<br /><br />Also, as it was in the original film, I don't think it's really clear if the Thing is host based or 100% imitation like a pod person. The computer and microscope scenes from the first and this film show us the alien cells overtaking the human cells and becoming human, so I guess that's what actually happens but then if it's host based, I'm not sure why assimilated characters were losing their clothes in the first film and titanium joints and fillings in this one.<br /><br />That was still a bit unclear but maybe it's just me.Mikehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11853452979249847588noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5110147752122772426.post-66694305967002339572011-10-24T08:45:15.872-07:002011-10-24T08:45:15.872-07:00John Carpenter's The Thing opened with Norwegi...John Carpenter's The Thing opened with Norwegians in a helicopter chasing a dog.... so what happened here?tymrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11436178573443302811noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5110147752122772426.post-28241016384623709422011-10-19T10:15:46.706-07:002011-10-19T10:15:46.706-07:00Speaking of paying attention, why not address my f...Speaking of paying attention, why not address my further explanation of why it made no sense, then? Did you just read the other comments and skip mine?BChttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06480847497966171794noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5110147752122772426.post-20165088786526735692011-10-19T10:13:41.475-07:002011-10-19T10:13:41.475-07:00I agree with those that NOTICED that the thing cam...I agree with those that NOTICED that the thing came out on the helecopter because it knew that they were landing. Makes more sense when you PAY ATTENTION.keishanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5110147752122772426.post-64815851225011860052011-10-17T20:23:20.214-07:002011-10-17T20:23:20.214-07:00One thing I thought they should have done was not ...One thing I thought they should have done was not subtitle the Norwegians when the Americans were around. Even though technically the characters don't know what is being said, it adds a level of confusion/paranoia, for the audience. <br /><br />I thought it was an okay movie, it was what I expected, no more no less.Mikenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5110147752122772426.post-76906074719880358482011-10-17T16:02:19.334-07:002011-10-17T16:02:19.334-07:00Yeah, to its credit, a lot of the things about the...Yeah, to its credit, a lot of the things about the Norwegian base are explained. The axe is actually one of the better ones (the suicide guy, not so much).BChttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06480847497966171794noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5110147752122772426.post-67168804660229295132011-10-17T15:54:00.006-07:002011-10-17T15:54:00.006-07:00Does the film explain how the axe got stuck in the...Does the film explain how the axe got stuck in the door? Because that is essential information.PADDY_C00Lhttp://twitter.com/#!/PADDY_C00Lnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5110147752122772426.post-15867633968243634632011-10-17T08:30:19.509-07:002011-10-17T08:30:19.509-07:00How do you know crashing wasn't the best plan?...How do you know crashing wasn't the best plan? We have no evidence it didn't survive, just like the human pilots. If it did, it would be closer to freedom than if it had landed "safely" amid a swarm of people who might already know its secret. Nothing wrong with questioning holes - there were certainly a few in this movie. The helicopter crash just wasn't one of them.<br /><br />And Mike, are you sure Carter was a thing in the end? The scream he lets out sounds awful thingish, but why doesn't he transform? I kinda lean toward him being human. It certainly explains the very human brain fart of grabbing the wrong ear, as well as Kate's moment of doubt at the end.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5110147752122772426.post-87518189454043972732011-10-16T17:31:17.862-07:002011-10-16T17:31:17.862-07:00"Maybe you just don't want to imagine rea..."Maybe you just don't want to imagine reasonable explanations for a movie you didn't like."<br /><br />Maybe you're just willing to accept huge logic holes because you want to like the movie.<br /><br />There's nothing wrong with it, just please don't pretend that accepting holes is somehow better than questioning them.Garthnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5110147752122772426.post-67626419342310568122011-10-16T13:47:23.213-07:002011-10-16T13:47:23.213-07:00SPOILERS AHEAD
Good points re: the helicopter, th...SPOILERS AHEAD<br /><br />Good points re: the helicopter, the Thing should've allowed for a safer landing then Thung out at that point.<br /><br />Clearly the chopper crash plot point was given more weight than the film's internal logic, so that plot point was carried out at the expense of the Thing's intelligence.<br /><br />The Thing clearly isn't the sharpest tool in the shed. My biggest issue with one of the mistakes it makes is that gotcha moment where Kate observes Carter-Thing checking the wrong ear. While I accept that the Thing doesn't always make the wisest choices in this film and the last, I still do accept all of them except for that wrong ear bit. That was clearly a contrived gotcha moment that would make more sense in a scene between two humans playing cat and mouse but not Human vs. Thing.<br /><br />The Thing just wouldn't make that mistake. It's impressive that though it's an animalistic monster when it's not assimilated, once assimilated it can behave, think, maintain the memories and personalities of the person it copied. That is pretty established in this movie and the last, which is why that wrong ear bit has no place in the film. Carter-Thing wouldn't make that mistake just like he wouldn't mistakenly call Kate by a different name.<br /><br />As for the helicopter crash, BC's right, the Thing should've waited to land safely. That would've been the better strategy but in this film and the last, the Thing seems to usually reveal itself at the most dramatic moments and not the most strategic, which is why I swallow that helicopter crash a lot easier than I do the wrong ear moment. <br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Original scrutinyMikehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11853452979249847588noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5110147752122772426.post-71317251488363647912011-10-16T06:42:22.584-07:002011-10-16T06:42:22.584-07:00I have no trouble believing the monster wouldn'...I have no trouble believing the monster wouldn't always make the perfect strategic decision. This was its first contact with humans. Maybe it overestimated the crew's ability to sniff it out when it landed. Maybe that's why later versions were more subtle. Maybe you just don't want to imagine reasonable explanations for a movie you didn't like.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5110147752122772426.post-23071818305398478972011-10-16T01:15:57.852-07:002011-10-16T01:15:57.852-07:00Re: helicopter - why not allow it to safely land t...Re: helicopter - why not allow it to safely land then? She didn't know WHO it was, and as its goal was to escape, it would have known that it was making its job harder by causing it to crash.BChttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06480847497966171794noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5110147752122772426.post-20387205759996678982011-10-15T18:59:34.264-07:002011-10-15T18:59:34.264-07:00I just figured The Thing freaked out and caused th...I just figured The Thing freaked out and caused the helicopter to crash because that chick was waving her hands around warning them and they were about to land it - so it knew the gig was up. I thought it was decent - not as good as the original film of course - but it was a fun prequel.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5110147752122772426.post-27098724152526176772011-10-15T14:33:08.266-07:002011-10-15T14:33:08.266-07:00So much anger! What people are failing to notice i...So much anger! What people are failing to notice is this is a companion piece to the original. On its own it's nothing special, but viewed as a big budget piece of fan fiction, serving only to enhance and expand the mythology of the first one, it's really quite brilliant. It was a labor of love, made for fans by a fan.<br /><br />(FYI - the helicopter was turning around to land, that's why it thinged out.)<br /><br />I loved it. Stop by <a href="http://31flavorsofterror.wordpress.com" rel="nofollow">31flavorsofterror.wordpress.com</a> to see why.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5110147752122772426.post-46910939218780349472011-10-15T00:11:53.045-07:002011-10-15T00:11:53.045-07:00I agree that the movie had a few problems, but one...I agree that the movie had a few problems, but one thing I notice that people use to condemn the movie is that it's a remake. It's not a remake, it's a prequel. (Not that that saves it). The biggest dilemma is that John Carpenters movie stuck the closest to the story, with a few minor exceptions, (They American's didn't discover the creature in the ice, the Norwegians did.) So if John Carpenter cut out that part, the new movie really didn't have a lot to go on and clearly they tried to do too much and the script got muddled because they couldn't just do what Carpenter did. (People might have been annoyed at that, but if they had stuck to a structure like the 1980 version it would have been stronger).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5110147752122772426.post-18158016340772511712011-10-14T19:56:20.686-07:002011-10-14T19:56:20.686-07:00The inconsistency is easier to take if you presume...The inconsistency is easier to take if you presume that the Thing can't hide in one form for long periods and/or that it shifts back under stress/injury. If you can let go I think was a pretty good ride for what it was. <br /><br />But the last act is still awkward, the cgi was unfortunate and if anything my main qualm is that it's too predictable even if we hadn't known how it was going to end. I'm glad I saw it in theaters, and it could have been much worse, but it's not stellar either.Mollyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07208271728243639881noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5110147752122772426.post-58200257486269566732011-10-14T19:25:46.872-07:002011-10-14T19:25:46.872-07:00Caught some good logic issues, the Thing's ult...Caught some good logic issues, the Thing's ultimate plan or lack thereof, how it could've gotten to the real world by just not revealing itself at all instead of Thinging out.<br /><br /><br />SPOILERS AHEAD<br /><br />Despite liking the flick, the major gap of logic that bugs me is that given the Thing can imitate it's prey's brain and maintain its victim's memories, personalities and other brain functions, I do not buy that the Thing would make such a human mistake and check the wrong ear for the earring. It already demonstrated that it can remember things it's victim does, it wouldn't forget that the earring is on the wrong ear.<br /><br />That seems like just a little character bit dropped into the climax to AVOID ambiguity of whether Kate torched a human or an alien. WTF, the movie would've been 50% better WITH that ambiguity, ending on an awesome note. We've already seen a film that ends on a perfectly ambiguous note of "is he or isn't he?" and cutting to end credits before either character takes action. This movie would've rocked if the ambiguity was still there but had the heroine still taken action.<br /><br />Missed opportunity, but it probably would've left general audiences on an uneasy note that some exec probably feared would get them to not recommend the film as much.<br /><br />A shame.<br /><br />Nice write up and I do appreciate you doing the impossible up until that PS ; )Mikehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11853452979249847588noreply@blogger.com