Ain't It Cool News (
Movie News

Turk February Checks In With An Early Review Of THE THING 2011!


Beaks here...

Whenever a film bounces around a studio's release slate, most of us assume the worst. But sometimes a movie is just difficult to schedule - especially when it's a prequel for a movie that, while beloved now, was a box-office flop twenty-nine years ago.

I have no idea what to expect from THE THING '11. Judging from the trailer, Matthijs van Heijiningen Jr.'s film looks like a straight-up replay of Carpenter's 1982 remake, which... okay. I've been hearing lots of chatter around town about THE THING '11 for months now, but nothing first-hand from someone who's actually seen the movie. This is why I was very interested to read the below review from Turk February (who last sent us an early look at BATTLE LOS ANGELES in July 2010 - he liked it). All rumors aside, is this THING any good?

It's important to remember that the film is still a couple of months away from release, so there might've been some unfinished elements. They also might have different endings they're testing. No idea. But for the most part, what Turk February saw last night is pretty much the movie we'll be seeing in theaters on October 14th. Let's see what he thought... 


Apparently 2011 is the year of the prequel. Both X-men First Class and Rise of the Planet of the Apes happened to be two of my favorite films this year and while The Thing (2011) is not going to share that title with X-men and Apes I am happy to report that it is, however, another well made, competent prequel.

There’s really no reason for me to go into too much plot detail as at this point as everyone know The Thing ’11 starts off days before the events of The Thing ’82 and we find out what exactly happened at the Norwegian research facility. We see the research team make the discovery of the alien ship and its former inhabitant. Mary Elizabeth Winstead is pretty much our lead brought in as a paleontologist to excavate the alien from the ice. Its once the frozen alien is brought back to the facility that all hell breaks loose and just as we saw in The Thing ’82 terror, suspicion and paranoia takes hold of the researchers at the base.

Perhaps that’s going to be some folks biggest gripe with The Thing ’11. Its basically a cover of one of your favorite songs from one of your favorite bands. It hits every beat and every note as it should but doesn’t really add anything new or different to deem it necessary or distinguishable. Yes we are seeing different characters at a different location but we’re essentially seeing the same events unfold not only that but events that we’re discovered and alluded to off screen in The Thing ’82. Part of what made Thing ’82 scary and enduring was the air of mystery surrounding the discovery of the charred Norwegian base and not knowing what exactly happened there. The Thing ’11 now gives us the horrifying details without stepping on the toes of the ’82 film. Even though we are finding out specifics, and lovers of Thing ‘82 film may not want to, its not taking away any of that air of mystery from Carpenters film.

With all that said The Thing ’11 works both on its own and as a prequel. It starts at a brisk pace and doesn’t let up. Like I said earlier it knows the notes and beats and hits them when its supposed to – the scares, the gore, tension, suspicion, paranoia – all there. The tone, look and feel is definitely Carpenter-esque. I don’t know if the score was finished but pieces of the 82 score bookended this one which lead perfectly into the end credits sequence tying the two films together.

Some of the effects work looked like they needed that final polish but the creature was as disgustingly terrifying as it was back in 82 only able to do more now, obviously, via CGI.

My only minor nitpicks would be the over explanation of some plot elements (the discovery that the creature replicates stands out – I realize that not everyone has seen the 82 film but I think enough people know of that part of the movie or could figure it out without it being spelled out) and something all prequels/reboots are guilty of – winks and nods to the original. The winks and nods in Thing ’11 weren’t over the top but we get it already, we’re seeing this incarnation because we appreciated the original. We don’t need to collectively say to ourselves “Oh that’s the dog”, etc.

Overall I would recommend Thing ’11 to newcomers and fans of the Carpenter film alike. The audience I saw it with certainly enjoyed it and jumped and cringed at all the right moments. To those doubting the necessity of taking this trip back to Antarctica I say take it, sure you’ll see some things you’ve seen before but you will still enjoy the ride.  

Readers Talkback
comments powered by Disqus
    + Expand All
  • Aug. 11, 2011, 3:46 p.m. CST

    I'm afraid to read this article.....

    by Quake II

    Carpenter's THE THING is one of my top 5 films. Period. This prequel could ruin the title "THE THING" for future generations....

  • Aug. 11, 2011, 3:46 p.m. CST

    Still a fan of the original

    by Damned if I can login

    Gotta say it, love the old one!

  • Aug. 11, 2011, 3:47 p.m. CST


    by irc-Hollywood

    And I'll say this aren't these reviews normally prefixed by the fact you know the film screened at some location? and that you've had other reviews in? This review really gives no details and could be made up on the spot, it certainty reads that way.

  • Aug. 11, 2011, 3:47 p.m. CST

    Does Winstead get nekkid?

    by TheMcflyFarm

  • Aug. 11, 2011, 3:49 p.m. CST

    After seeing Rise of PotA...

    by zombieslayer

    I'm just worried the nods to the original will be as clunky in this one. Shoehorning famous lines from Heston was the weakest part.

  • Aug. 11, 2011, 3:50 p.m. CST

    Read it. Extremely vague review. No details AT ALL.

    by Quake II

    There's nothing in this review that the trailer didn't show already. So I'll be awaiting a THING movie review that actually tells me details about THE THING and not a recap of the trailer and publicity stills.

  • Aug. 11, 2011, 3:51 p.m. CST

    Hawks' The Thing (1951) is pretty pimp

    by Motfilms

    Maybe I'll check out Carpenters'.

  • Aug. 11, 2011, 3:51 p.m. CST

    Prequel or Remake?

    by Bungion Boy

    I saw the trailer for this a few days ago and it looked like the exact same story as the original Carpenter film. Is the implication that this happened in Antarctica twice?

  • Aug. 11, 2011, 3:51 p.m. CST


    by Santiago Charboneau

    But I am thoroughly excited to see this movie!!!!

  • Aug. 11, 2011, 3:52 p.m. CST

    Oh lets guess. The scientist girl lives....

    by Knobules

    Along with standing smugly mugging the "I know everything" look in every room during every scene saying no to everything and just being a pain in the ass to the entire movie. I want my Wilford Brimley

  • Aug. 11, 2011, 3:52 p.m. CST

    What YEAR does this take place in?

    by Circean6

    Is this still supposed to be in 1981 Are these scientists using TRS-80 computers?

  • Aug. 11, 2011, 3:53 p.m. CST

    Cautiously optimistic

    by Jaster Mareel

    Sounds about like I expected, which is good overall. I don't know if I can go back to the person I was before I saw The Thing '82, but I sure would like to go on that ride again all over.

  • Aug. 11, 2011, 3:55 p.m. CST

    They must chase the dog in the chopper

    by Rob

    And then all get murked by the Americans.

  • Aug. 11, 2011, 3:56 p.m. CST

    From Kurt Russel to Mary Elizabeth Winstead

    by Volllllume3

    From bad-ass to girly faggotry. Fuck you Hollywood, fuck you with a rusty spoon

  • Aug. 11, 2011, 4:02 p.m. CST

    We should at least be grateful it's not a remake.

    by Grammaton Cleric Binks

    But we know how it ends. The last two left, not a woman, hunt the Thing dog, and crash and die. The end. sorry for the lack of spoiler warning.

  • Aug. 11, 2011, 4:03 p.m. CST

    They wanted to call it Rise of The Thing, but

    by Grammaton Cleric Binks

    it sounded like a porno.

  • Aug. 11, 2011, 4:05 p.m. CST

    When you start with a rewind...

    by impossibledreamers

    It pretty much cripples you. The elements in Carpenter's movie pretty much frame what happens so, you know all the Swedes (they're Norwegian, McReady)... oh yeah Norwegians get iced - only not how - except for the last one or two guys (shot and blown up) We also know that the last guys don't speak English and won't be our major characters. So, the main characters will die before the dog runs off and the supporting (non-English speaker) tears off after it. Not saying it couldn't work... but I was more of a 'McReady and Childs get rescued' sequel - though it film's much better without any at all. Leave sleeping Carpenters lay. Remember Zombie?

  • Aug. 11, 2011, 4:08 p.m. CST

    In the Hawks original, the Thing is a PLANT.


    Hear that? PLANT.

  • Aug. 11, 2011, 4:09 p.m. CST

    Can't wait to watch this prequel to a remake!

    by Dapper Swindler

    Hope it gets a sequel and that gets remade too!

  • Aug. 11, 2011, 4:11 p.m. CST

    If the reviewer liked Battle: Los Angeles...


    ...that obviously disqualifies his reviews from ever getting the benefit of the doubt again. I saw the trailer for this remake/prequel and it looks like a carbon copy of the original (which is overrated anyway). But damn, did they do a good job of recreating the sets/environment of the 1982 version. However, I doubt I'll bother with it.

  • doggy's changing, head coming off... blah blah blah. Anyways... we already know the girl dies, and 1 pilot lives to chase monster-doggy to the American camp only to take a point-blank to the melon

  • Aug. 11, 2011, 4:24 p.m. CST


    by thommcg

    Wasn't it (The Thing) related to the Carrot in the 1951 film?

  • Aug. 11, 2011, 4:26 p.m. CST

    Best inside reference pseudonym EVER!

    by Jon

    actually if a Lyle Chipperson sent a review it'd be better tssst tssst

  • Aug. 11, 2011, 4:27 p.m. CST


    by thommcg

    Ahh, no wait, it was referred to as being mentally equivalent to a carrot, but was only described as being a form of plant life. Gotcha.

  • Aug. 11, 2011, 4:28 p.m. CST

    Does a character say "You got to be fuckin' kidding"?

    by openthepodbaydoorshal

    Cuz if not.....boy, what a vague "review". Might as well say, it's kinda like the '82 original but it's not. And he liked Battle Los Angeles??? Not a good sign.

  • Yup, thats what I was afraid of - a film that literally has a checklist of things to do and does them in a mediocr way... Wait for this to hit Sky Movies I guess.

  • Aug. 11, 2011, 4:32 p.m. CST

    Good point. I want to know if everyone is dead by the end

    by IWasInJuniorHighDickhead

    if they aren't, then I know to just knock this one on the head right now. Could the reviewer let me know? It's not a spoiler, considering that we have known the fate of the team since 1982. Does everyone categorically die in this?

  • Aug. 11, 2011, 4:34 p.m. CST

    we were promised little CGI?

    by Candy ass monkey suit

    Looks like they've fucked us over again here folks...indiana jones and the KOTCS anyone!

  • Aug. 11, 2011, 4:41 p.m. CST

    I'm super-psyched!

    by venvariants

    Seriously - it's dead out there for monster fans right now. All these stupid vampires and zombies. This is for monster fans - I'm all over it. This is a breath of fresh air for me.

  • Aug. 11, 2011, 4:54 p.m. CST

    Wilford Brimley is America's greatest actor

    by Domi'sInnerChild

    He craps bigger than this turd is going to be.

  • Aug. 11, 2011, 4:55 p.m. CST

    This is the cinematic equal to diabeetus.

    by NixEclips

    Still checking it out, though.

  • Aug. 11, 2011, 4:55 p.m. CST


    by CooGuy

  • Aug. 11, 2011, 4:58 p.m. CST

    And The Ward (or John Carpenter's The Ward) finally gets released

    by openthepodbaydoorshal

    on video next week, after a token theatrical release. Makes me sad, and makes me want to kick him in the ass at the same time.

  • Aug. 11, 2011, 5 p.m. CST

    I've NEVER said this before on this site but...

    by chronicallydepressedlemming

    its not taking away any of that air of mystery from Carpenters film.

  • Aug. 11, 2011, 5:01 p.m. CST

    GAh damn comments busted!

    by chronicallydepressedlemming

    I was trying to say PLANT! And as to it not taking away any of that air of mystery from Carpenters film, it makes the entire first act of his movie pointless! We now already know the dog is an alien.

  • Aug. 11, 2011, 5:02 p.m. CST


    by animatronicmojo

    Let's see, have we finished remaking each and every one of John Carpenter's movies into a lesser film? Nope, still plenty to go. Really, why would anyone care or be excited about this? "A breath of fresh air." Srsly? <br> "Eric Newman explained... 'But once we realized there was a new story to tell, with the same characters and the same world, but from a very different point of view, we took it as a challenge. It's the story about the guys who are just ghosts in Carpenter's movie - they're already dead. But having Universal give us a chance to tell their story was irresistible.'" Um... a "new story," but much, much, much like the old one, with the "same characters" (?) who we know will, in fact, all be dead by the end of the film. I'm sorry, and not to beat a dead horse, but there's just not a lot of suspense in that set-up, folks.

  • Aug. 11, 2011, 5:06 p.m. CST

    I'm There!

    by Warren

  • Aug. 11, 2011, 5:08 p.m. CST

    What is the dog wasn't the alien?

    by Domi'sInnerChild

    Maybe the helicopter was full of Things pretending ot be Norweigins. Maybe Norris touched the dead Norweigin and then infected the dog in that scene in shadows. What a twist! And we never would have known if we didn't see this movie.

  • Aug. 11, 2011, 5:10 p.m. CST


    by 7Cal

    Like the first poster, Carpenter's The Thing is in my top-5 all time. I thought the review was fairly even-handed and without seeing the movie, I can bet my final take will be pretty close to this reviewers. Good, not great. Don't know if I'll bother seeing it in the theater or not: I'm in the contingent of AICN readers with children and an actual busy work life so movie time, while still there, is harder to come by so I have to be a bit more picky and choosy.

  • that's my warning to the fans who are going to cinema to watch this pile of shit.this is not a THING movie,it is an imitation of the THING movie.

  • Aug. 11, 2011, 5:25 p.m. CST

    kid idioteque

    by Kelly Grimes

    The 80s version is overrated? You may leave, you're dismissed. I can see there is nothing we can do for you here.

  • Aug. 11, 2011, 5:29 p.m. CST

    This movie is the alien replication of the original.

    by Yelsaeb

    'Nuff said.

  • They did all the stunts, and that's what matters. No CG stunt doubles and only one green screen set! I think they did pretty good considering it was made in 2008.

  • Aug. 11, 2011, 5:35 p.m. CST


    by Jeff

    My impression is that the film looks and seems excellent, but the story is so SIMILAR to the original, that... WTF? I mean, dogs? Similar number of people on site? People getting paranoid? Alien striking in virtually the exact same ways as in Carpenter's original? Maybe I haven't seen enough from the trailer, but it just looks so goddamn similar. How about a radically different story from the original, huh? How about a vastly different platform, situation, and number of people and animals? How about something... FUCKING DIFFERENT! For fuck's sake. I can't believe the prequel looks like it will be doing the exact same things as the original. Makes me sad. I hope I'm wrong because -- goddamn! -- there was a whole lot of fucking room for wildly differentiated coolness! And it looks like they kept it frighteningly similar.

  • pretty rare these days.

  • Aug. 11, 2011, 5:41 p.m. CST


    by kwisatzhaderach

    Exactly. Anyone that thinks IJATKOTCS was all CGI needs to take a long hard look at the making of doc on the DVD (which is excellent btw).

  • Aug. 11, 2011, 5:42 p.m. CST

    Why are Universal releasing this? They have no interest in the movie!!

    by david starling

    Think yourselves fucking lucky you're seeing it in October!! The utter cunts at Universal have pushed it back to December in the UK - and someone needs to be fired, for the most inaccurate timing EVER (like, people want to see horror movies at Christmas!! Are Universal totally fucking stupid?!!). I've heard that the CGI needed to be done, where it was, in places, and yes, the FX are stunning. I want the movie to be awesome for sure. And I still think Universal need a serious smack around the head for this amount of treatment to a potentially excellent movie. But then-again, they're probably trying to push some awful rom-com down everyone's throats!!

  • Aug. 11, 2011, 5:45 p.m. CST

    The preview looked like crap!

    by MaxDembo1

    I have no interest in this cynical studio cash-in.

  • Aug. 11, 2011, 5:51 p.m. CST


    by biscuithead

    Just as I suspected

  • Aug. 11, 2011, 5:59 p.m. CST

    velvet_sloane... December in the UK means that...

    by workshed the time we've read the shiddy reviews from the US opening we'll be able to download a screener, watch it once, and then delete it, thus saving hard-earned cash. Wtf happened to the horror genius that was JC..? I miss that guy.

  • Aug. 11, 2011, 6:05 p.m. CST

    Turk February, an answer if you don't mind?

    by IWasInJuniorHighDickhead

    I don't believe that someone who gets a review posted up here doesn't come back in from time to time to check what people are saying. I also don't believe that any geek that has seen this film early would have any problems with 'spoiling' an ending that - if the filmmakers have even attempted to keep the continuity - is already known to all of us here.<P> So could you answer the question I asked above, please bud? Silence would suggest that you would be in trouble if you did answer, which would in turn suggest that you're a shill, here to temper expectations for a huge piece-of-shit movie by subtly announcing that it's pretty good really and does what it says on the tin (but don't expect anything mindblowing, cause we didn't promise that. OK?).<P> I don't mean to accuse you of that if it's not the truth. If you are nervous about spoiling it (don't see how you could be but hey) then i'll give you my email address and you can tell me there. But either way, i'd appreciate hearing from you.

  • Aug. 11, 2011, 6:18 p.m. CST

    @ motfilms

    by 3774

    1951 'The Thing'? Do you mean The Thing From Another World? Based off of Who Goes There? Yes. It is indeed 'pimp', mister. What makes me chuckle is lurking on 50's Sci-Fi boards (my second fav genre to zombies) and watching really old guys bitch about how the Carpenter film took away from an ruined the original (i don't...i love them both). Then coming here and watching the same thing, but between this version and the remake. i make an effort to not be needlessly negative, but if it's one thing i can't stand, it's CGI replacing real effects in horror movies. i'm skeptical of this holding up to the Carpenter version.

  • Aug. 11, 2011, 6:18 p.m. CST

    Out in USA first

    by jinste

    Well,that sure is clever marketing you idiotic American buffoons-release it in the USA in October,then December in UK.Hello?By the time you twats have bothered to release it in the UK,we will have had it on pirate dvd for ages!Release it in UK Cinemas the same time as its released in US Cinemas you morons!Or lose millions in box office takings.Why cant you think?!!!!Believe me,thanx to the Internet,whats camcordered on Monday in the US is available in the UK on Tuesday.You will never stop that-until movies are released on the same day worldwide.

  • Aug. 11, 2011, 6:19 p.m. CST

    waltere.kurtz is a magical negro

    by DVaderRIP

  • Aug. 11, 2011, 6:31 p.m. CST

    That doesn't sound too bad.

    by Psyclops

    As long as they keep up the same level of tension and the effects work is just as good as Carpenter's, I'm all for it.

  • Nothing new under the sun and what little addition there is is utterly predictable and pedestrian.

  • Aug. 11, 2011, 6:39 p.m. CST

    Its official...

    by TopHat geeks will accept pretty much anything churned out by the studios. The "film geek" is our generation's ultra-conservative Christian Right; they praise the base material that supposedly made them followers to begin with, then, accept any bastardized version of said material made by modern corporations and individuals for the sole purpose of obtaining a profit. Whether that profit is literal currency or just the "profit" of agreed opinion. Every film geek wears their "love" of anything geeky like a badge. But, when its being remade or adapted, all practical reasoning goes out the window in favor of faithful cult worship and complacent positivity. Just as long as they feel "acknowledged" and, perhaps, "worshiped" themselves, then all accommodations are made. This movie won't come a peach fuzz hair close to Carpenter's or the original. Any rational person can see this. But, the excuses will come. Because its all about the "feeling" not the reality: The "feeling" of being back in the first time you've seen that original version of whatever's being remade or adapted, not ACTUALLY having the same revelation. CONAN will get the same reception. "Its harmless fun" "At least the filmakers took it seriously" "Fans of the original will like it and newcomers will have a great time!" "Come along..." " belong..." "...feel the fizz..."

  • Aug. 11, 2011, 6:42 p.m. CST

    I'd rather this than a straight up remake...

    by Andrew Coleman

    I'm looking at your shitty Amazing Spider-man... Yes this film will be better than basketball spider-man vs. Hulk Lizard.

  • Aug. 11, 2011, 6:51 p.m. CST

    Oh, and Mary Elizabeth Winstead is 27...

    by TopHat

    ...if you can make up any reasonable excuse why an American twenty-seven year-old paleontologist is sent to investigate the first appearance of alien life on the planet earth in a Norwegian research facility ...I'll fuck you up the ass without any lube.

  • Aug. 11, 2011, 7:46 p.m. CST

    They should have done the PS2 Video game

    by Geektard_Smasher

    which had US soldiers coming in to see what happened. You check out the ruined US base, go to the Norweeg base, then eventually discover a huge research facility over the mountain that was built and there all along to go get The Thing from the ice before the Norweeg's beat them to it. Then they just watched the events play out. Eventually you fight them, Things, and a giant Thing when MacReady shows up in a chopper to help in the boss fight (he was hiding out in the research base). Sorry, but Childs is just a body in the ground here (and sadly you cannot loot it).

  • Aug. 11, 2011, 8:04 p.m. CST

    Everyone better be dead at the end...

    by J43

    Except two dudes in a helicopter. If the "strong female lead" survives for a sequel, they can fuck right off.

  • Aug. 11, 2011, 8:07 p.m. CST

    Saw The Thing Last night...

    by El Vader

    and IF it can capture interest in Carpenter's 1982 film, that will be the ONLY good thing about it. Some minor spoilers: Winstead's character: completely unnecessary. NO single character is developed or even identifiable (most are indistinguishable bearded Norwegians) CGI Thing effects are too obvious and a paltry tribute to '82's great creature effects TWO endings to the film! Winstead's is contrived and out of tone/character for the film; the other ending that sets up the beginning of '82's film is forced and out of left field. If you liked the Star Wars prequels, then this film is just right for you. Otherwise, treat it like you treated the SW prequels. Bleh. Ban!!!!

  • Aug. 11, 2011, 8:07 p.m. CST

    Please donate...

    by 3774 the Ain't It Cool News Anger Management Charity Foundation. Every day, hyper-ventilating young men are in danger of stroking out over nothing more than a movie. Help them receive the counseling they need, to bring their emotions under control, and also articulate dissatisfaction without spittle flying from their figurative mouths with words like 'faggot', and 'bitch'. Save a life. Every penny helps.

  • Aug. 11, 2011, 8:11 p.m. CST

    straight-up replay-FUCKING DUH

    by AzzyAzzy

    It's in goddamn snowbound science station you dumbshit because that's the ONLY thing that exists there. You get a monster who assumes people's from by devouring them. Pretty sure that the *basic* elements are yeah, going to be the same. Kind of like any monster movie, monster + people = mayhem. What the hell did you think you were going to get, a romantic comedy? Too bad it doesn't have Nick Cage or John Travolta in it so you witless reviewers can say shit like "Looks good to me!".

  • Aug. 11, 2011, 9:04 p.m. CST

    el vader

    by J43

    Please tell me it's not Star Wars prequel bad.

  • Aug. 11, 2011, 9:41 p.m. CST

    Yeah this really didn't need to be made.

    by Josh

    But I'm going to see it anyways

  • Aug. 11, 2011, 9:42 p.m. CST

    People complaining about the new movie being too close to the original...remake

    by Nasty In The Pasty much "new" material could they get into this? It's set in Antarctica, the dogs start freaking out, paranoia sets it, ect. Unless they did a sequel, this is pretty much the only way to do the story. As long as the tension and special effects hold up, I don't care if the overall plot structure is very similar to the Carpenter film (which it HAS to be).

  • Aug. 11, 2011, 9:43 p.m. CST, a "Rescue Rangers" reference!

    by Nasty In The Pasty

    That's awesome.

  • Aug. 11, 2011, 9:47 p.m. CST


    by MooseMalloy

    Not Interested In Reading This Shit

  • Aug. 11, 2011, 9:56 p.m. CST

    He liked Battle: Los Angeles and this?

    by CountOrlok

    Best he can hope for is 50% accuracy.

  • Aug. 11, 2011, 9:57 p.m. CST

    Battle LA was...

    by BeatsMe

    one of the worst things i've ever seen. Turned it off, just so bad. So, yeah, disqualified.

  • Aug. 11, 2011, 9:58 p.m. CST

    Du må være jævla spøk.

    by vulturess

    carpenters thing is the best prequel to carpenters thing. early word on this new movie was that it was a remake. then it was changed and called a prequel. now its both.

  • Same basic plot, same basic scares -- just not as good. That about wraps it up.

  • Seriously. Kurt Russell doesn't show up in Rom Coms, right? Show some respect, ladies.

  • Aug. 11, 2011, 10:31 p.m. CST

    Details are bad

    by happybunni

    I enjoyed this review, really how it should be. Too much detail ruins everything. Most people here will hate the new Batman movie because information is being way way way over-saturated, definitely takes away from the "holy shit" moments and makes the movies boring.

  • Aug. 11, 2011, 10:36 p.m. CST

    Also, never trust trailers

    by happybunni

    I always feel like I'm lied to with trailers. It's pretty easy to create an amazing trailer, but difficult to create an amazing movie. Clash of the Titans specifically, along with Iron Man 2 and Alice in Wonderland. All three of those trailers were released on the same dayish, and all three looked fantastic... and all three movies were "eh".

  • Aug. 11, 2011, 11:41 p.m. CST

    So it's basically '82 The Thing with a vagina present?

    by conspiracy

    And I have to agree with the poster who complained about a 27yr old (who would be fresh out of her PH.D, probably not even tenured anywhere yet...probably shacked up with her Doctorate Mentor just so she would not starve in fact) being sent on such a task. It really is just fucking silly.

  • Aug. 11, 2011, 11:45 p.m. CST

    Have at it, Onin.

    by 3774

    Having something swallow my life, right down to possessing my body and eating everything about me alive, until i was a shell of my former self? If i wanted that i'd just find a possessive, controlling asshole to date. Nah, dude. Nah.

  • Aug. 11, 2011, 11:51 p.m. CST


    by uberman

    Groan. Sigh. Predictable and, well, lets not try and polish a turd, O.K? As for the APES flick, I have not seen it but would like to, and X MEN prequel...I just cant get into the whole Marvel X men unbiverse. THOR...Rental. New SPIDERMAN? Yeah, that looks good...didnt like the first one, second was pretty good, third was a major turd.

  • Aug. 12, 2011, 12:47 a.m. CST

    A prequel to The Thing...

    by Agent_Snake_Mcready

    Called the Thing. I think that says it all. Zero imagination involved.

  • Aug. 12, 2011, 12:56 a.m. CST

    Hi..I am new, but gimme this...

    by barry_lyndon

    A CRITTERS prequel or a remake...I just saw The Thing and it should've been left alone. I need some time to get back into my talkback Mojo. I've frequented AOL's Movie Talk Back in the late 90s. I was 17 back then. But yea, give me a CRITTERS film in a new take and I will be happy. Other than that, The Shadow needs another comeback..

  • Aug. 12, 2011, 1:08 a.m. CST

    I thought that they were going practical for most of the FX??

    by Ecto-1

    I thought ADI were doing all of the FX with some CGI enhancements here and there. Now it sounds like it's all CGI and no practical FX. I must admit, I'm not really all that excited about this remake/prequel. And that guys review doesn't make any difference. X-Men 4 didn't do anything for me, and Battle LA was average at best. The trailer that is online is nothing special either.

  • Aug. 12, 2011, 1:22 a.m. CST

    Hope it'll be a box office success, so...

    by Minstrel

    ... the powers that be decide to give us another bigger and scarier tentpole horror movie set in the Arctic Ice - you know what I'm talkin about, right? WE. WANT. GUILLERMO DEL TORO. AT. THE. MOUNTAINS. OF. MADNESS.!!!!!!

  • Aug. 12, 2011, 1:43 a.m. CST

    @ velvet_sloane

    by The Kusabi

    Shit you weren't kidding! Ah well, will have to think about how to see this when it should have been released. It won't involve seeing it in a cinema I can tell you that much. Universal you fucking fools.

  • Aug. 12, 2011, 3:03 a.m. CST

    So how does the practical stuff look?

    by BenBraddock

    That's what we all really want to know, c'mon!

  • Aug. 12, 2011, 3:41 a.m. CST

    yeah, plant

    by IWasInJuniorHighDickhead

    a reviewer doesn't check back once on his piece? Even the old plants knew enough to try putting up at least a token defence when they were called out. A talkbacker who doesn't like seeing his name up in lights? Bullshit.<P>

  • Aug. 12, 2011, 3:47 a.m. CST

    viggeo_morgenstein, HOW DO YOU TYPE WITH YOUR COCK IN YOUR MOUTH?!?

    by CreepyThinMan

  • Aug. 12, 2011, 3:57 a.m. CST

    so it's not great


    It's gonna get bashed to shit here.

  • Aug. 12, 2011, 6:57 a.m. CST

    In other words, it sucks (as expected)

    by Suskis

    They should simply re-release the old movies, with polished images, dolby 3d sound and, maybe, some extra footage in the end credits. It worked flawlessly for ages with disney classics. Making a remake and pretending it's a prequel it is insulting. We all knew all the above stuff just looking at the trailer. Milking dead cows: that's what Hollywood has been doing in the last year. and, btw: X-Men prequel sucked HARD.

  • Aug. 12, 2011, 7:27 a.m. CST

    Kurt Russell not in a rom-com?

    by Literarywanderer

    Obviously you missed Overboard.

  • Aug. 12, 2011, 8:47 a.m. CST

    The Thing on DVD, 2003

    by Autodidact

    I rented The Thing one quiet summer night in 2003 and watched it by myself with a joint. Still one of the best movie-watching experiences ever.

  • Aug. 12, 2011, 9:40 a.m. CST

    Does anyone here believe Winstead's character actually dies?

    by spacehog

    I'd bet anything she's last seen on a snowmobile heading in the opposite direction of the dog/helicopter, or gets the spaceship working or some equally implausible bullshit thing. ... Oh goddamnit, now I'm going to be angry all day about this hypothetical situation I've imagined. Prove me wrong, movie!

  • Aug. 12, 2011, 9:55 a.m. CST

    spacehog, I don't believe it either

    by IWasInJuniorHighDickhead

    and i've never yelled 'PLANT' before, but I really believe we had one today. He wasn't hyping the film, he was trying to manage expectations/gently let us down whilst still asking us to see it. She'll be kept alive for the Carpenter-raping sequels that would have rained down upon us had the film actually been any good. <P>

  • Aug. 12, 2011, 10:02 a.m. CST

    Sounds like it's goona be "meh"

    by ATARI

    So on the Netflix queue it goes, for curiosity sake only.

  • Aug. 12, 2011, 10:47 a.m. CST

    Time Machine early review

    by mcgoocain

    I just saw an early screening of "2001: A Space Odyssey." Boy does this turkey suck. It's slow and nothing happens - and when something does happen - you just sit there thinking- "what just happened?" This will do nothing at the box office, and history will bear me out - this is one of the worst films of all time. Stanley - you wasted my time. Next time don't forget to tell a story. The internet is making all of us a bunch of pre-programmed knee jerk response idiots. Enjoy. Discuss.

  • Aug. 12, 2011, 10:48 a.m. CST


    by Darth Macchio

    ..don't bother trying to get people here to disassociate "The Thing from another world" and Carpenter's "The Thing" as not being a remake of the Hawke's film. Having read Campbell's work and having seen both films and then plainly seeing how Carpenter's film is the one that's actually based on that story and that the Hawke's film is actually only similar in setting/location and the most basic theme (alien invades remote base and people get killed), after that there are practically no similarities at all. In fact, you could argue that this new "The Thing" (The Thing '11?) is more a remake of the Hawke's film as there was a woman (or women) on the base in "Thing from another world" where the only woman in Carpenter's film was the voice of the computer chess game Mac played (voiced by Adrienne Barbeau) The biggest theme of the story, trust, is basically nowhere to be found in the Hawke's film but is the primary thematic element of Carpenter's film. Source materials and remakes are apparently a subjective thing on this and many sites. No one considers 'The Amazing Spider-Man" as a remake of Raimi's work as both are from the comic source but yet the same exact set of events occurs with "Who goes there?" (brilliant title) and Hawke's "The Thing from Another World" and Carpenter's "The Thing" and everybody calls Carpenter's film a remake. I think the problem is this view of ours is far too insignificant and punitive for the masses - but I cannot help it, I'm a pure 80's Carpenter fanboi thru and thru and as good as Hawke's film is, I simply cannot stomach it being considered "the original" when it had dramatically different story elements than the actual original: the short story written by Campbell.

  • Aug. 12, 2011, 11:08 a.m. CST


    by mcgoocain

    Yeah, I hate the overuse of monochromatic CGI bullshit just as much as you do, if not more, and shakycam is a plague. Cranky old men - UNITE!!!!!

  • Aug. 12, 2011, 11:56 a.m. CST

    No MYSTERY to anything anymore!


    I hate this idea that everything has to be explained in films and tv now. They're possibly doing the same thing with Alien too and explaining where the space jockey came from. Some things are best left unexplained.

  • Aug. 12, 2011, 12:03 p.m. CST

    one film that will forever be unexplainable: Fire Walk With Me

    by IWasInJuniorHighDickhead

    not really, but it is beautifully ambiguous

  • Aug. 12, 2011, 12:07 p.m. CST

    Yeah if you're a geek, you shouldn't want Promethus spoiled at all

    by happybunni

    I thought this site would actually institute a no-spoilers policy on it.

  • Aug. 12, 2011, 12:30 p.m. CST

    Notes from the reviewer

    by Lando Griffin

    To get a few things out of the way -</p> I see how some folks think the review is vague to the point of possibly being planty but as a few of the smarter talkbackers already pointed out how specific could I possibly be? As my reiview pointed out you're getting essentially the same events - the thing terrorizing and replicating, causing suspicion and paranoia - just with different people at a different base with things inferred from the '82 film thrown in - discovery of the ship/alien, base burning down, dog, etc. </p> Personally I dislike reviews which pretty much breakdown the film as "the movie starts out with...., then this happens, then that happens, it ends like this." Which is why I didn't it write it that way, also I am too lazy to do that. If I did do it that way I would've had complaints that I gave away too much. There's just no winning with typical asshole talkbacker. In the last few years I have kept myself spoiler free with movies I know I am going to see that happened to carry over to the review. I can acknowledge that not everyone subscribes to that but just in general know that there are no huge spoilers to give away with this one. If you've seen Thing '82 you know where the story goes but for the few of you that do want to know Ramona Flowers does not die.</p> Yes I had checked in on the talkback but did not respond right away for a few reasons the first being that I actually have work and a family some things that may be foreign to a typical asshole talkbacker. The second being something that I mentioned earlier - there's no winning over asshole talkbackers. I used to slum it in here a lot back in the early to mid 00's, now I just don't have the patience for it. As I get older I find myself to be out of touch with traditional geek sensibilities and I have discovered that I am more than ok with that. Asshole talkback rules have a foundation in hyperbole. Asshole talkbackers dictate that 9 out of 10 movies released are the BIGGEST PIECE OF SHIT EVER! It is rare that a consensus can be reached that something is actually *gasp* good. Even then there is no inbetween. After I sent in my Battle Los Angeles review I had to "defend" it against one of the more infamous assholes around here and I just can't bring myself to care to do it with this one. I stand by that review. I liked Battle Los Angeles and I am not ashamed to admit it nor should I have to be because asshole talkbackers didn't like it. I didn't say it was revolutionary filmmaking, original or it was the greatest movie ever but for the hour and 45 that I spent in the theater I liked it. Guess what - there are probably other movies I liked that you didn't and just as many that we both liked. Somehow asshole talkbacker logic twists that if I like X then Y must be the biggest piece of shit ever. For your sake, asshole talkbacker, I hope this logic doesn't carry over into your real life. </p> For those asking the practical creature effects were only in shots where the alien was still, dead, being inspected but for those scenes the effects were good and brought lots of "ewws" and cringing from the audience.

  • Aug. 12, 2011, 12:45 p.m. CST

    The Turd

    by angry_spacboy

  • It's just a ripoff of the original pretending to not just be a ripoff of the original. But not trying hard enough to actually come up with something creative and different to say - it just says that pretty much the exact same things that happened in '82 film happened a few days earlier to some different people. That's the worst kind of "explaining away the mystery". It's not even ambitious enough to come up with some crazy, ludicrous, different scenario. It doesn't defalte the mystery of the '82 story, it does something even worse - makes the '82 story come across as *just another repetition of a story that already happened.* It's like this "prequel" is trying to retroactively make the '82 film the unoriginal knockoff. It's like if Lucas made a prequel to Star Wars where, a few weeks prior to the '77 film, some *other* kid from Tatooine defeated Darth Vader in an epic battle. Lame, lazy, and should not be encouraged.

  • Aug. 12, 2011, 1:16 p.m. CST

    Since I have been alive,

    by mcgoocain

    The last few years have been the worst for creative, artistic films . Or am I just getting too old for all this shit? hmmmm.... no, just lousy movies lately, lousy technique, only money matters. Too be swure, fine films arer still being made- but it just seems as if the whole world is having a midlife crisis and just doesnt give a fuck anymore..... To infinity.... and beyond!!!!!!

  • Aug. 12, 2011, 1:27 p.m. CST

    @mcgoocain, I hear you, man.

    by kevred

    I feel the same way, a lot of days. I'm very grateful I was around to see the amazing days of the late 70s through mid 80s, when more crazy, creative stuff was allowed to happen in imaginative/fantasy films than it ever has since.

  • Aug. 12, 2011, 1:32 p.m. CST


    by mcgoocain

    Right. It seems like huge piles of misspent cash are being spent on hollow movies that have no story, no resonance- no reason for being, except to rake in cash from kids who are always disappointed but keep coming back for more, hoping that something will be good. Sad fucking state of current artistic affairs. When something is great, I embrace it - but great films are about as rare as an honest politician.

  • Aug. 12, 2011, 1:37 p.m. CST

    There is one thing I'd like to see...

    by Darth Macchio pun intended... And that's the form of the Thing when it's first brought out of the ice. Even when I first saw Carpenter's Thing decades ago, I wanted to see that scene from the Noweigian perspective as it would either be the "true form" of the Thing, if such a thing even exists, or, potentially at the very least, the last alien life form it had replicated giving us an idea of what at least one of the forms it had encountered looked like (along with its biology, etc). I so very LOVED Brimley's logs that mention "It could have copied a million organisms on a million worlds and could become any of them" (paraphrased). The ship as well - I love how Carpenter made the saucer out of control and spiraling down to earth and actually crashing. It brings up all sorts of conceptual ideas of what happened, an alien crew being invaded/infiltrated by the Thing and eventually loosing control of the ship or maybe after it killed and absorbed all the alien life on the ship, it resorts back to it's original form which was oblivious to the more sentient stuff of vehicles and travel, etc. In fact, we should probably be happy that this 'premake' (great word by the way, whomever said it) is what it is instead of someone having the idea or showing what happened on that spiraling alien craft. And, of course, somehow managing to get an American scientist/soldier on the alien craft and yet still somehow managing to survive the crash (conveniently forgetting the notion from Carpenter's film that the ship was encased in the ice for thousands of years or using some dumbass trek time-travel bullshit), etc, etc...and it just goes downhill from there...

  • Aug. 12, 2011, 1:41 p.m. CST

    @ happibuni

    by xphyle

    exactly. thats why i have not even clicked on one link regarding the new batman flick. the only thing i know is bane and catwoman is in it. i know nothing else and dont want to know anything else about it. What happened to being surprised and entertained? why must we have everything spoiled for us?

  • Aug. 12, 2011, 1:55 p.m. CST


    by mcgoocain

    You say "What happened to being surprised and entertained? why must we have everything spoiled for us? " The internet needs to be fed, and information seems to be the new form of cash- bad info- that is. THe whole world is just a figment of our individual imaginations- and people imagine thay are smarter, somehow, after they see a photo from the Batman set. This internet-centric world of ours is fucked, and people are burning out on the tempo of the times- and we are all suckers. Technology is the panacea of the have-nots, while the haves use the tech to keep the poor/middle stupid and distracted- The world is just a shell game now- welcome to Videodrome.

  • Aug. 12, 2011, 2:12 p.m. CST


    by xphyle

    I have a similar conversations when i see lemmings with some new electronic gadget with absolutely clue how to use it. they have an evo 3d or photon or iphone just essentially because they were told to buy it.

  • Aug. 12, 2011, 2:14 p.m. CST


    by IWasInJuniorHighDickhead

    thanks for elaborating on that, and I take back everything I implied regarding your plantness. Agreed that there is a lot of hating going on, but we're in the death throes of the film era so we're to expect some frustration and shitty behaviour.<P> That said, i'm waiting for the 82 Thing reissue where they retcon Winstead into some plot. Unbelievable. The fact that they even thought they could try shows just how much of a shit they give. Looking forward to the Aliens spinoff where Danny Dyer tucks whats left of his dick between his legs and runs round dressed as Vasquez in a bunch of shitty movies filmed in Romania for the mouthbreathing masses who will perpetuate yet more shit like this. Sod this film.<P> Please note that in 'real life' I am a relatively repectable wage-earning soul. The anger is because it would just have been so easy to have made this film - even though it was a relatively poor idea and not needed - into a pretty decent film. It can't be that audiences are squeamish about seeing females die - name any exploitation film you like - so it was obviously about spinning the franchise on and nothing about telling a story that would be cool to see.

  • Aug. 12, 2011, 2:27 p.m. CST

    @ owasinjuniorhighdickhead

    by xphyle

    dumping on a movie that you havent seen is ridiculous. crap on it for the reasons it was made (cash grab) but if the reason for all of this vitriol is based on the trailer and a awfully suspicious review then i'm sorry thats weak. the bottom line is that we arent surpised any more if we were ever? in watching 24 did you not ever think somehow Bauer was going to save the day? Of course the ending really is NEVER in doubt. Neo, Superman, et all are always going to save the day. the journey is in the how. Remember from ninth grade english kiddies? What are the trypes of literary conflict? I guess i am assuming that people here all made it past ninth grade because they all seem to act like primadonna film jerks who think a b/w film of a man staring at a camera and yelling why for 22 minutes is "art" and therefore more of a film then this remake.

  • Aug. 12, 2011, 2:32 p.m. CST

    Agree with MD

    by IWasInJuniorHighDickhead

    Films do mostly suck! We've seen the 'golden age' pass by and films these days are mostly greenlit by committee, costed by spreadsheet and filmed under the watchful eye of some bean-counter.<P> Yes, I understand. It is the movie 'business', etc, films need to make money etc etc. Well, these days, the money is in lowest common denominator trash, so rather than gnashing our teeth as Rome burns, we'd do well to just bail out of being film nerds and save our aneurysms for when society itself breaks down sometime in the next decade.<P> Best to look at the golden age (whichever period it was for you) as some blessed anomalistic era where the moneymen had not yet calibrated their machinery or got their act together, and some visionaries found a narrow window in which they could make films that connected with people irrespective of target audiences, product placement or tie-ins. <P>This era is gone. We can all jump over to the long-form TV show to enjoy its brief renaissance but the moneymen will be falling on that very shortly (or right now, see The Walking Dead).

  • Aug. 12, 2011, 2:42 p.m. CST

    Of all the hack-job skull-fuckeries!!!

    by animatronicmojo

    But on a different point, I'm pretty sure that the basic premise Carpenter laid out in his masterpiece "They Live!" ... is real. It would explain a lot. I mean, have you all ever been in a Safeway after midnight? The place is crawling with weirdness- people acting strange, weird blue gelatinous "food" you don't see anywhere else... clearly that giant wall of glowing plastic gallon milk jugs is some kind space portal.

  • Aug. 12, 2011, 2:46 p.m. CST

    by xphyle

    the long form tv show is already dead. along with the serialized drama. because we are the microwave generation. unless something has record breaking numbers immediately its a bust ; a failure...if seinfeld came out today it would be cancelled in a month. rare are the movies that survive long in the box office. movies like insidious and fast five being the exception this year. tv showes are seemingly cancelled over night whose fault is this? hollywoods, network execs? or is it the people?

  • Aug. 12, 2011, 2:47 p.m. CST

    Another pointless movie by a braindead hollywood

    by Arkhaminmate001

    If you can't wait to see this i advise you to seek out the original. It will be far more interesting than this lazy copy and the acting is top notch, Has Kurt Russell been better? Not for me. This bland prequel/rip off is just another indication of the lack of imagination in hollywood today. Carpenters movie was itself a remake, but it leapt far away from its 50's source. This new movie has a similar time scale between remakes - 30 years - yet it has no originality, no style of its own in the way Carpenters version had. All 21st century movie makers can do is copy,copy,copy.

  • Aug. 12, 2011, 2:49 p.m. CST

    sorry, but no

    by IWasInJuniorHighDickhead

    you want the kudos and built in audience acquired when you 'reimagine' The Thing, fine. You get the second just by getting the rights to make the sequel. You get the first by pulling your play off and making a good film. You want to go off and do an origin story of it? Good luck. Risky but that's how great films sometimes get made. This? No way. They want the kudos (and the fact that they don't have to be imaginative) of setting it in an Antarctic base, yet they want to change the rules and make their own fucking Ripley. We all know it comes down to the fact that they wouldn't want the plucky female lead that they're relying on 'for the numbers' to die (as the fucking canon dictates she must) because it would hurt 'the numbers'. It just shows us that the film is about some plucky hot woman who makes it through adversity or some bullshit, and that's not what the original was about. Watch Pursuit of Happ*ness if that's what you want, why encroach on this end of the market? Because it sells, that's why.<P> OK, this is fast becoming a filibuster, so i'll end it. No, I haven't seen the film yet, but I make a promise that if it is even halfway decent I will pull a Herzog and eat a piece of footwear of an opponent's choosing (NB I have to own the footwear, and most of the year I just wear reefs).

  • Aug. 12, 2011, 2:56 p.m. CST

    xphyle, like I said, it's obviously the fault of all three

    by IWasInJuniorHighDickhead

    people want shite cause they're fed shite and for the most part nothing but. It's a vicious circle. If some benevolent alien dictator (or David Lynch) flew down now and we were privy to nothing but awesome, artistically valid shows and films of every colour and variety for years, do you think we'd put up with the shit we're served now for even a day? No. They'd give us what we want. They're the tastemakers (in the long term) and the taskmasters. They shouldn't be allowed both jobs.<P> It's a stale example, but Idiocracy was very funny. Now it is starting to get less funny whilst becoming disturbingly prescient.

  • Aug. 12, 2011, 3:14 p.m. CST

    @animatronicmojo, I laughed at your Safeway reference

    by kevred

    Because I have been to a Safeway after midnight, and it is exactly as you describe. Right down to the alien chill of the dairy section. Well done.

  • Aug. 12, 2011, 3:20 p.m. CST

    @iwasinjuniorhighdickhead, very well said.

    by kevred

    "the moneymen had not yet calibrated their machinery or got their act together, and some visionaries found a narrow window in which they could make films that connected with people irrespective of target audiences, product placement or tie-ins" A brilliant summation of what truly is looking like the 'golden years'. Even the best-of-breed, superstar stuff like Empire Strikes Back, if you really look at it, was astounding. So radically different from the first film in every way, more ambitious in every way, more complicated in every way. Looking at it in a detached way, it was crazy. You want to follow the biggest film of all time with snow, swamps, and a muppet as the star? What? And yet - genius. And that type of creativity carried on down the ranks. How could a film like, say, Neverending Story, or Krull, or Big Trouble in Little China, or The Road Warrior, get made today? All are products of an industry, but all have a kind of purity and freedom and *distinctiveness* about their expression that is essentially gone today.

  • Aug. 12, 2011, 3:25 p.m. CST

    arkhaminmate001, good point on 30 years

    by kevred

    While it's true that technology helped make the leap between the 50s film and Carpenter's greater in some ways, I agree with you that it's perfectly fair to look at this new film and say: In 30 years, this is all you've been able to come up with? 30 years to think about this concept, to break down the earlier films, and all you can come up with is a female lead and CG letting the creature do a few different things? Apart from that, it's essentially a straight copy, right down to the look and music? You can see the same thing in most areas of creativity. What has the last 30 years done for pop music? Essentially nothing, and arguably it's gotten a lot worse. Let this be a lesson: technology isn't going to save us. It will let us do things, but it won't make those things better.

  • Aug. 12, 2011, 3:51 p.m. CST

    Mixed feelings

    by flax

    On the one hand, it's sort of sad to see that they're copying scenes and storylines directly from the original. This is a film that was made without imagination. However, I'm very thankful that the filmmakers chose to approach it as a prequel rather than a remake. They're embracing the original version of THE THING. They don't want us to forget it. They're not trying to supplant it (no pun intended). They actually want their new film to inspire people to watch the original. I think that's pretty cool. Expanding the mythology – even if it's a half-hearted and repetitive expansion – is still a lot better than completely trashing it and trying to do better yourself.

  • Aug. 12, 2011, 4:33 p.m. CST

    Carpenter's film is not a remake...

    by Darth Macchio

    Seriously. It's not. Not a remake of "The Thing from another world". It even says as much in the credits for Carpenter's film. And there's a good point about subjective opinion and quality film being empirically quantifiable or not. I didn't read Eberts review of Battle:LA but I think I get the gist of what's implied...I would argue the same thing for Transformers but at the end of the day, no matter how hard you try or wish it wasn't the case... Opinion is still king and you cannot dictate someone's opinion as being "good" or "bad". Believe it or not, there are people who will watch "Phantom Menace" and call it better than Star Wars, Empire, and Jedi put together. Probably none of us on AICN, in it's entire history, would agree with that opinion and even write up manifestos about how it cannot be valid empirically but that's still through your perspective. Perspective being a facet of...wait for it...opinion. I sometimes wish it wasn't the case myself even if I'd argue in favor of subjectivity. I would love it if we never got ridiculous shit like Bay's Transformers and actually got Del Torro financial backing for Mountains instead or some other beloved property but apparently quite a few people disagreed with this notion of "empirical suckyness" and paid to see the movie in the theater anyway. Many paid extra for 3d! I don't know...I know country music is popular and millions of people love it. But if they decided that they were right and convinced the entire worldwide music industry of this (humor me here) and the only available music from now on was country music - call me and I'll bring the pitchforks and happily participate in the anti-country music revolution but until then, we'll just have to deal with the opinions of assholes and all that...

  • Aug. 12, 2011, 4:48 p.m. CST

    my fears have been confirmed

    by Billy_D_Williams

    soulless cash grab, nothing more...move along, move along

  • Aug. 12, 2011, 4:58 p.m. CST

    Whether the film is any good or not, based upon opinion.......

    by david starling

    .......What hurts most is Universal's complete rejection of the film. They moved it largely because they felt unsure what to do with it (forget the 'reshoots' angle, I've heard elsewhere it was because they hadn't anything else to release at Halloween!!), and they seem to be taking the angle that they're releasing it in a territory at a time - hence, they'll take damage from one quarter, then thrust the movie in another area, sump the damage from that, and so forth. But, they'll minimize it by sneaking the film here and there. They spent the money on it, why don't they do us a damned favour and get it out there? If it flops this time, Universal have only themselves to blame. And I truly hope it hurts them bad (it won't, trust me).

  • Aug. 12, 2011, 5:19 p.m. CST

    =Ramona Flowers does not die. =

    by KilliK

    no shit. and here i thought, from the moment that this remake,sorry prequel,was announced and that it would have a female as the hero,that she was going to die by the end of the movie.silly me. come on now,this is HW were are talking about.they are remaking a classic horror of masterpiece with new cgi,fresh faces and a bit of stylistic direction in order to sell it to the young audience which mostly have no clue about the original. and if the remake,sorry prequel,turns out to be a decent hit,then they will move on with its inevitable sequel with the same female hero and eventually they will turn the whole THING story into a new horror franchise ,with or without the same hero,as long as it lasts. Hollywood wants to play it safe and keep milking the already established franchises.and since the THING failed the first time,but it managed to achieve a cult classic status and is now a recognized property,they are giving a second chance to this concept in the hope that they will make a new franchise out of it. They did the same with TRON,they will do the same with other half-forgotten,half-successful properties of the past.

  • Aug. 12, 2011, 5:40 p.m. CST


    by Lando Griffin

    thank you for reinforcing my point. As other posters have since pointed out a review is an opinion. Just as many of the words you threw up against a wall - shit, gold, right, sucks, bad, wothy, etc - are subjective so is a review. There is not, nor has there ever been, a right or wrong opinion. There may be a common concensus but there has never been a universally shared opinion on anything....ever. You cannot prove Movie X is FACTUALLY bad. You may not like it but that is only YOUR opinion which may or may not be shared by others. </p> Lets employ your "logic" for a minute. Because I liked Battle Los Angeles my taste, in your opinion, must be for shit and The Thing must, therefore, obviously suck. So give me a list of five of your all time favorite movies. I'll let you know which of those I liked. Once you know my answers you can not only disown and disavow these, now, shitty movies but burn out your retinas with an acid soaked cigar for having ever sinned and happened to have liked the same movies some random guy on the internet did.

  • Aug. 12, 2011, 6:06 p.m. CST

    Kevred, I think the time will come around again

    by IWasInJuniorHighDickhead

    where there are interesting and meaningful films. It sounds cliched and awfully fucking trite, but art will find a way. It'll grow out of stagnation, and years of shite films where you'll be able to read the spreadsheet/nielsen/review numbers like code in the matrix. Years of being savvy to marketing strategy means that many people can see it already, and they'll be the first in the long and hard backlash against all this. Hope lies in the proles, but the ignition will be withn independently wealthy peoplpe/organisations that are willing to fund productions irrespective of their supposed commercial worth.<P If someone with a few billion dollars is willing to bankroll something honest-to-goodness good, with the knowledge that they may not see a return on their investment until people realize that something is good and worth buying, then we may begin to see a turnaround on the state of film (and tv) today. The problem is that it will be a good few lean years in this turnaround, and who wants to bear the brunt of that? Better to charge along the route of diminishing returns along with everyone else and share the collective fate.

  • Aug. 12, 2011, 6:12 p.m. CST

    actually you can prove that a movie is factually bad.

    by KilliK

    otherwise there is no need to go to film schools or to study by yourself other movies in order to learn how to make good movies. even the use of the word -learn- expresses that truth: movies,and art generally,is not only about subjective opinions,but it also involves objective criticism because there are some established,core rules that must be followed. ie yes you can like B:LA as much as you want,but if i point out that there is zero character development in the story,dont tell me that this is only my opinion.a character development is something that either exists or not inside the movie,if the director hasnt put it then you cant see it,if he has then you will see it.nothing more or less than that.

  • Aug. 12, 2011, 6:34 p.m. CST


    by Lando Griffin

    I'm really not trying to be argumentative but you're never going to get a universal consensus on something as subjective as what is and what makes a bad movie. Plenty of directors who have gone to film school have gone on to make, in peoples opinions, shitty movies just as directors who have not gone to film school have gone on to make good movies. Going to film school may make a director more competent in the craft of making a movie but does not guarantee that director can make what a viewer will subjectively determine a good or bad movie</p> And fucking christ - enough with the hang up on Battle Los Angeles. I liked it, other people didn't. I never declared my undying love for Battle LA or said it was the greatest movie ever produced. When I watched it, I enjoyed it and really haven't thought about it since. It is not the standard to which I compare every movie I've seen since.

  • Aug. 12, 2011, 6:42 p.m. CST

    you'll never get a film like

    by IWasInJuniorHighDickhead

  • Aug. 12, 2011, 6:44 p.m. CST


    by IWasInJuniorHighDickhead

    you'd never get a film like The Road Warrior made today. The prospective writers wouldn't even bother sketching their idea out to their friends in the bar. That's how bad it has become.

  • Aug. 12, 2011, 10:38 p.m. CST


    by animatronicmojo

    I know, and it doesn't even matter what town we're talking about... EVERY single Safeway after midnight is like this. I need to get some of those shades and do an exposé! "I have come here to chew bubblegum and kick ass... and I'm all out of bubblegum." (FACT: There will be no greater line than this one in this thing they're calling The Thing.)

  • Aug. 13, 2011, 1:22 a.m. CST


    by ThatEndDown

    ...and anyone else for the golden age (whichever age that might be for any given person) of film, I am with you on that. It has never become more blatantly obvious for me how few films of any worth are being released nowadays -- or, at least, are getting recognition -- than the last few weeks. Originally, I decided to have a quick Terrence Malick film festival (consisting of every film he has made). I started with Badlands, and about halfway through the film I had decided that instead of doing a Malick festival, I would put together a month-long 1970s film festival. Over the last twenty nights I have watched films from the 1970s, and every single night with every single film I have been struck with the realization that we do not see films like this being made anymore. It really is a shame.

  • Aug. 13, 2011, 9:42 a.m. CST


    by mcgoocain

    Indeed. Some of the best directors did their best work in that decade.

  • Aug. 13, 2011, 2:32 p.m. CST thanks

    by WizardandGlass

    I'm a little concerned that this review doesn't once mention the PG-13 rating, yet claims that the movie is gory. I pretty much lost all interest in this once I hear about the rating...I mean how can neuter a horror movie like The Thing? I remember when I heard that Die Hard 4 and AVP were gonna be just knew that no matter what, the movies were never going to be great because they weren't even respecting the originals. The Thing is one of my top 5 all-time favorite horror movies...but that rating KILLED my confidence in this one.

  • Aug. 13, 2011, 4:16 p.m. CST

    Maybe I'll check out Carpenters'.

    by Keith

    Jesus H. Christ. What next? "Hey, I kinda liked that one movie about the spaceship. Maybe I'll check out Star Wars."

  • Aug. 13, 2011, 4:19 p.m. CST

    Killik re: Battle: LA

    by Keith

    There is also zero character development in "Alien", and that film is fucking magnificent. (Unfortunately, Battle: LA is a prize turd of a movie...shockingly boring for a movie about an extraterrestrial army fighting US marines.)

  • Aug. 14, 2011, 11:19 a.m. CST

    Is the rating for the new film a PG-13?

    by david starling

    The equivalent here in the UK is either a 12/12A, or a 15? And anyway, go to the MPAA website, where the film is rated an R, for, and I quote: "Strong creature violence and gore, disturbing images, and language". I think that wraps that up - it is not a PG-13, and the reviewer did see gore of a (pretty bad) kind.

  • Aug. 14, 2011, 5:32 p.m. CST

    Feel the fizz

    by Subtitles_Off

    That's fooking brilliant.

  • Aug. 15, 2011, 10:58 a.m. CST

    Opinions are paramount in the overall sense...not in specifics

    by Darth Macchio

    Of course an opinion about specifics within a film are empirically capable of being disproved but we're actually talking about overall opinion of an entire film. Do you seriously think that someone who likes Bay's Transformers is breaking down the film to individual elements like character development or cinematography? That they think the characters are being developed in a logical arc? Or that the film's technical aspects are considered beyond the most rudimentary concepts? Nonsense. For the most part, these are not critical movie viewers and their opinions demonstrate that. But it is precisely THAT opinion that you cannot do a damn thing about. What do you think it means when you go on a rant about how bad a particular movie, with endless specific measurable examples, and yet people will call you all sorts of witty insulting names to justify, or defend, their opinion? You see, this isn't about objective fact whatsoever. Even though there are objective aspects of any movie that can justify the overall view that a film is garbage, unwatchable hyper-editing, utterly stupid and profoundly illogical scripts with massive plot holes, canned/crappy acting or even poor direction or production all might be objective things that can be validated beyond subjective opinion but the overall view of the film? Well...think of it more like "faith" and try to accept you will never ever changes someone's faith in their own subjective opinion. The tragic thing is since these people are the ones that drop the most coin on films, we of the more discerning viewers (for lack of better words) will just have to deal with yet another Transformers, yet another Austin Powers, yet another George Lucas pile of slop posing as Star Wars but yet they do not stop the District 9's, the Hobbit, some of the great Dreamworks animated films, and all the great directors and storytellers we are blessed with as cinema lovers. It would certainly be nice if that's all there was but is that true or even possible in any entertainment medium?