Ain't It Cool News (

Harry says THE THING prequel is the warmest load of shit on screen in ages!


There are times where I have to wear different hats.   I’m very definitely Harry Knowles, creator of AICN…  but I’m also the co-creator/founder/programmer of FANTASTIC FEST, I wear a producer hat on several projects and I’m beginning to get writer gigs for Comics & other industries, but…   Earlier this year, I sat for a screening of THE THING, the film opening today across the country.   Now, I wasn’t seeing the film as Harry Knowles – AICN, I was seeing it as Harry Knowles – Fantastic Fest, which means I couldn’t react to what I had seen for the outside world…   I couldn’t tweet.   I didn’t give hints.


As everyone else reacted to trailers and posters, I’ve had to bite my tongue and watch.   Watch and despise utterly that the trailers seemed to understand more about THE THING, than the movie it was advertising.   THE THING prequel is a well-intended load of shit!


I hate the film.  Hate it.   Absolutely loathe it.   It was my gut reaction the second it ended, but over the months I’ve had to consider the film – I’ve realized just how much I love John Carpenter’s original.   I’ve rewatched it a few times since seeing the remake, and it really is a little bit of a miracle just how perfect that film is.   Much the same way that BLUES BROTHERS and AN AMERICAN WEREWOLF IN LONDON happen to be exquisitely perfect works of cinema.


When I think about those films and that particular period of falling in love with cinema – I realize just exactly how lucky I was to grow up with parents that let me see those films, that gave me a knowledge of how films were made.   THE THING prequel now resides in my head right next to BLUES BROTHERS 2000 and AN AMERICAN WEREWOLF IN PARIS as some of the most incompetent work I’ve seen in ages.


Why?  How could this happen?   What makes the film such an unmitigated loaf of wet stinky shit?


Well…  Let me start at the beginning…


I was nervous about seeing THE THING prequel.   Quint had been on set, loved the practical visual fx that he saw.   I am really quite fond of both Mary Elizabeth Winstead and Joel Edgerton.   I’m even fon of Eric Christian Olsen…   and the casting of a bunch of Norwegians…  well that really thrilled me.   What gave me the nerves was that the director was a first timer, but I loved that he was Dutch…  and hoped he’d bring an authenticity to it all.


I was so excited to be seeing it early.   It was being screened with the notion of there being a huge Universal sponsored party, the entire cast would be flown in.   The mere fact that they were screening it for us so early – gave me an immense amount of confidence that perhaps it’d be great.


That’s THE THING.   It has to be GREAT.   Not alright.   Not ok.   Not passable.   It has to be GREAT.   Like the original THING FROM ANOTHER WORLD.   Like John Carpenter’s THE THING.


For what seemed like the first 40 minutes of the film, I was pretty pleased actually.   It was going pretty much exactly as I expected.  Most of this is about how they get an American Female Paleontologist to the Norwegian camp.   This is also where they discover the ship and the THING that was in the ice, some distance from the ship.   All of this was being done by the numbers though.   Nothing particularly surprising or revealing.   It’s essentially what we would expect.


Then THE THING busts out of the ice.   Next thing I know – the film is off and running as a slasher film that happens to follow, rather exactingly the beats of Carpenter’s THE THING.   For the first 40 minutes – you have a prequel, then for the rest of the film, it’s a remake.   A bad remake.   One where they’re checking teeth for fillings to find THE THING.   One where they give you incredible set-ups for action/suspense/horror…  only to just leave that situation to return to a mundane one.


The biggest problem is that…  You know how in Carpenter’s THE THING…  you kind of love every single character in the film.   How everybody is tired of this shit?   How everybody just wants to go home – and they’ve all buddied up and have relationships that have formed because these people have been living together forever up here and all their media is months old?   Throw all that out.   Starting with the great character actors.


The fact is – we don’t really get to know any of the Norwegian actors, they’re pretty much all redshirts or menacing.   Because they spend the lion’s share of the opening 40 minutes upon Winstead and Edgerton…   They give us no real time to establish what is going on at the Norwegian Camp.  


Once THE THING is out and loose, all suspense seems watered down to the bare minimum.   Let me give you an example…


Joel Edgerton – who has been basically been cast to be the Kurt Russell character for us.    There’s a moment where he and his buddy are going to fly an injured Norwegian back to the real world.   Now, we all know this character is a THING.   There’s never any real suspense or mystery about who the THING is for the film, because the actors all play it like they’re The THING.   Anyway, so they’re going up in the helicopter – and THE THING, who is a man.   And knows this helicopter is going to take it to a populated area…   well he decides to attack on the helicopter.   Nevermind that this pretty much makes the THING a really stupid creature that can’t help but attack any non-THING.   Something that the original THING would never have done.  


SO the Helicopter is taking off…  it’s up above the camp.   THING starts THINGing out.   And I’m thinking…  how the fuck is Joel Edgerton gonna survive this?   Then all of a sudden they show the Helicopter jetting way away from the camp, and an explosion on the otherside of some peaks.   And we stay with the CAMP – which feels like the last place in the world I as an audience member wanted to fucking be.   If anything, watching how Edgerton and his friend survived the THING attack in a flying vehicle… shit.   That sounds exciting.   Right?   I wanted to see how they managed to get back to camp – and then they being VERY MILITANTLY SUSPICIOUS of everyone.   But no.  


We stay with the camp.   We stay with Mary Elizabeth’s character – who slowly but surely gets turned into an Ellen Ripley-esque kind of character.   Which absolutely isn’t what I wanted to see.


They drop, early on, that there’s a Russian Research Facility somewhere nearby – and I was thinking how genius that is – but then they never really allow any thing to be done with that.   Instead, by the end of the film it’s a dog running to the American Facility and a helicopter headed there…   but of course the details are all fucked.   The guy isn’t wearing the whiteout polar glasses that he was wearing at the start of Carpenter’s original.    He doesn’t at all look anything like that character – even in an age range or facial hair way.   It kind of drives me nuts.


Now I get it.   I’m predisposed to love the original – because well…  it is seriously one of the greatest horror science fiction film ever made.  


There’s not a worthwhile written part in the entire film.   Edgerton and Winstead are watchable because they have inherent charisma that is not to be denied.   But they have shit to do in the film.   The parts are written to be paper thin.  


Now I know what you’re thinking.   Harry you saw the film months ago.   Isn’t there a chance that a lot has changed since then?   No.   There was only a single unfinished effects shot in the whole film.   I couldn’t tell you which shot it was, because all the CG for the whole of the film was fucking SHIT!  In fact it actually reminded me of the work from AN AMERICAN WEREWOLF IN PARIS.    There’s one Autopsy scene that is ok…  but because we’d been there with the other film – where the sculpture by Rob Bottin was just simply masterful.   This piece is an imitation of that. 


If you go into this film expecting a piece of shit, you’ll probably come out thinking…  “Well, shit, it wasn’t THAT bad.”   Well…  rewatch Carpenter’s original – and think about all the things that Carpenter’s eye caught that they didn’t here.


The comradery, little things – like how ice built up on their facial hair.   How COLD it was?   Remember that tagline, “Man is the warmest place to hide” ?  Here, what we have is a stupid boo-scare flick that never makes your skin crawl, never ever gets in your head, never gives you anyone to root for.   


The original film made me feel cold and scared.   Even if I saw it on a small screen tv by a fireplace.   


Director – Matthijs van Heijningen, Jr. comes out of the gate with a  film that absolutely does not work for me at all.   I’m sure I should give him a break since he’s a first time feature filmmaker…  and I would had it not been THE THING.   THE THING isn’t for half-assed first timers and a scared studio.    THE THING is for a  bold studio and a bold filmmaker.   Neither of which was involved here.


I don’t want to beat up Heijninegen too much, as there were a lot of reshoots, complete changing of visual fx themes…  reshooting for CG, but then not really giving the CG people the time necessary to really do the best possible job…  OR the person that was overseeing the visual effects – just happened to have missed every eyeglass appointment for the last decade and couldn’t actually see the shitty fx.   More likely, UNIVERSAL got tired of throwing money at this money pit of a film.  


THE THING is the exact kind of soulless bullshit that is meant to capitalize on our nostalgia – while really having no notion of how to really deliver on that.   I know personally about a dozen horror filmmakers that would’ve given their last tooth to make a great THING prequel.   THE THING is a marquee HORROR film to play with – and you went with a first timer that was grotesquely out of his league.  




There’s nothing original or refreshing.   By the time they’re running around on a fully working THING ship…  I just wanted to yell at the screen.   Instead, I saved that for now.  


If you’re going to see it to support R-rated horror, I can’t blame you.  I admire your dedication and I feel for the wasted time you have in your future.   I wanted this to be a triumph too.   For horror.   For all of us fans.   And mostly because it would have meant we had a new young filmmaker to look forward to seeing evolve.   That still might happen, but I can’t imagine it at this stage.   But then after THE CELL, I never would’ve foreseen a time when I was drooling for a  Tarsem flick, yet here I am.  


I recommend staying home and watching the original with friends.  Use your theater money wisely.

Readers Talkback
comments powered by Disqus
    + Expand All
  • Oct. 13, 2011, 8:13 p.m. CST

    by ultragoregrind

    that was one of the harshest reviews i've read form Harry in a long time...

  • Oct. 13, 2011, 8:19 p.m. CST


    by PorkChopXpress

    Anyone who thought it would be good in the first place doesn't understand very much about how Hollywood works. You included, Harry.

  • Oct. 13, 2011, 8:19 p.m. CST

    ...but you liked the remake of A NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET...?

    by la_sith

  • Oct. 13, 2011, 8:20 p.m. CST

    Alamo Village @ 9:50 tonight!

    by Jim Bivins

    The original is playing. This will be the first time I have seen it in a theater.

  • Oct. 13, 2011, 8:21 p.m. CST

    I just want to know one thing...

    by Sick Fixx

    Does Mary Elizabeth Winstead get tied up?

  • Oct. 13, 2011, 8:22 p.m. CST

    didn't like the cell either

    by mr. smith

    this being bad = no surprise.

  • Oct. 13, 2011, 8:24 p.m. CST


    by BoggyCreekBeast

    But still going to see it. Hey, better than Paranormal Activity 3! Seriously. ANYTHING is better than that garbage.

  • Oct. 13, 2011, 8:24 p.m. CST

    Mathijs is Dutch, not Norwegian!

    by octagon71

    and his dad is a douche bag!

  • Oct. 13, 2011, 8:26 p.m. CST

    Of course it was going to suck.

    by Yelsaeb

    Really, who didn't expect that? They could've made a nice little prequel but instead they made a horrible little remake. That's just the way it goes. This couldn't have ended any other way.

  • Oct. 13, 2011, 8:26 p.m. CST

    More Importantly...

    by Brian

    how was Brian Cox in this? Better than in the original?? . . . . . . . . ....coxxed!!!!!!

  • Oct. 13, 2011, 8:32 p.m. CST

    good to see the old Harry Knowles back

    by Titus05

    the one who can say with confidence that he hates a movie and not worry about what the studios might think or how he will be denied access to the next movie shoot etc...good job Harry...looking forward to your thrashing of the Avengers movie

  • Oct. 13, 2011, 8:33 p.m. CST

    High Praise Indeed!

    by Jerry Danzig

    This is just what I was hoping Harry would say. Ever since he gave his fat thumbs up on the new Star Wars movies, I have used him as a perfect counter-indicator. If he likes a film, it's probably going to suck, and if he hates it -- I am SO in there to see the new Thing tomorrow! Now I'm getting nervous about Puss in Boots, which he gave a warm bowl of milk...

  • Oct. 13, 2011, 8:34 p.m. CST

    We call called it months ago

    by Wookie_Weed

    The Thing is a soulless remake, not a prequel. Winstead's character is just a cardboard Ripley ripoff because you know, you can't have a movie with only men in it no one would want to see that. There is fuck all continuity with Carpenter's Thing (afterall, they did call this new Thing a PREQUEL). The FX are cheap. Yadda yadda yadda. Harry just confirmed what we've all suspected.

  • Oct. 13, 2011, 8:34 p.m. CST

    Carpenter's The Thing, as pointed out, is movie perfection so

    by Grammaton Cleric Binks

    how can a prequel hope to compare? This was Carpenter in his prime with back to back Escape From New York, and The Thing. It doesn't get any better.

  • I know it's a video game but I bet it will be a hell of a lot more enjoyable as a sequel to ALIENS than ALIEN 3: Student Filmmaking at work at 20th Century Fox. Even before the facts are in about ALIENS COLONIAL MARINES the story of Ellen Ripley ended with ALIENS. If you're offended please leave your complaints with my secretary. I'll be out of the office until Monday.

  • Oct. 13, 2011, 8:39 p.m. CST

    Lets be honest.. who DIDN'T think this was going to be shit?

    by LargoJr

    I keep telling people... you don't have to hang your dick in a campfire to know the experience is going to suck!

  • So he made one of the best action films of all time in Aliens. Why would they attempt to go the shitty remake route on a classic that a first time filmmaker could NEVER improve on? It boggles the mind.

  • Oct. 13, 2011, 8:41 p.m. CST

    I always figured that it'd suck...

    by veebeeyes

    but I'm wondering if Harry's exaggerating. None of the other reviews I've seen have been anywhere near this harsh.

  • Oct. 13, 2011, 8:43 p.m. CST

    What makes me roll my eyes like a disdainful Tyrion...

    by Wookie_Weed

    ... is the fact everyone in The Thing bows to Winstead's knowledge and wisdom. "Let's listen to her, she's a post-grad paleontologist!" Yeah, right, because inexperienced post-grad students who study dinosaur fossils are experts on how to survive motherfucking aliens! The premise is just so fucking ridiculous, I couldn't take it seriously. This is why I loved Carpenter's The Thing -- it's just a bunch of dudes trying to survive the best they can. No expert bullshit, no pretenses. This is what made Alien a classic as well, Ripley isn't an expert, she's just a junior officer of a mining transport. Winstead's character is just one reason why The Thing prequel/sequel is such an uninspired pile of shit. But take her out of the movie, amp up Edgerton's role more like Russells, and it improves slightly. But not by much. It's the insistence that the movie needs a "strong female lead" (fucking hell, if I had a dollar every time I saw that on a casting sheet)... half the shit in the movie feels like it was shoehorned in. So glad I saw a preview for free.

  • Oct. 13, 2011, 8:46 p.m. CST

    No money, set visits or pwesents, Harry?

    by lock67ca

    Given your glowing reviews for some REAL pieces of shit recently, your review means this is movie is probably pretty good at best.

  • Oct. 13, 2011, 8:50 p.m. CST

    Guess that means the movie fucking rocked!

    by AllPowerfulWizardOfOz

    Can't wait to see it :)

  • Oct. 13, 2011, 8:54 p.m. CST



    Dude. I haven't been on ANY set visits this year. But AICN did have a set visit. Quint had great access and since this is MY site - his access is MY access to me. Grow up. I've never been bought, here I could have had a crazy ass expensive party for my film festival and went the other way because that was the truth. Which is ALWAYS how I am. I genuinely love the movies I love and hate the movies I hate - and always have.

  • Oct. 13, 2011, 8:58 p.m. CST

    You had me till you ragged on The Cell

    by Clockwork Taxi

    I was sold on your review. Then you made your remark about The Cell. A GREAT FILM. Maybe this THING isn't so bad after all.

  • Oct. 13, 2011, 9:02 p.m. CST

    I cant take any of your reviews seriously Harry

    by sunwukong86

    Come on, you're a professional yet you constantly swear and use incorrect grammar. What kind of movie critic does that? If you want to be taken seriously, dont act like such a fanboy.

  • i was telling my brother about it and as i thought of the best way to describe the film i literally paused and then said 'it is a perfect film'.

  • Oct. 13, 2011, 9:04 p.m. CST

    Was there anything insightful about this review?

    by Epsilon

    I'm actually asking, because I didn't bother to read it. I stopped at wet stinky shit. I also saw a lot of two word sentences in the middle as I scrolled down, and something about giving examples of something after that. It just didn't seem worth the time.

  • Oct. 13, 2011, 9:06 p.m. CST

    Harry! I finally saw Attack The Block!!!

    by gonkdroid

    According to your review this will be be good. Look forward to it.

  • Oct. 13, 2011, 9:09 p.m. CST


    by krull rules

    And fuck CG. And fuck first time commercial directors from Europe.

  • Oct. 13, 2011, 9:09 p.m. CST

    i'm still gonna watch The Thing prequel in theaters

    by antonphd

    i sat through Cowboys and Aliens. anything is good compared to that piece of shit movie.

  • Oct. 13, 2011, 9:10 p.m. CST

    oh shit! i have to watch Attack the Block tonight!

    by antonphd

    before it leaves the indie theater in town tomorrow.

  • Oct. 13, 2011, 9:12 p.m. CST

    thanks for the spoiler tag

    by jsfithaca

    i wasn't gonna see this anyways but still

  • Oct. 13, 2011, 9:13 p.m. CST

    If only they gave you a ring like Green Lantern...

    by electroaddict

    ...or some other hand-out, you might not have been so angry.

  • Oct. 13, 2011, 9:16 p.m. CST

    I'm surprised

    by ObiBen

    Actually, I'm not.

  • Oct. 13, 2011, 9:17 p.m. CST

    how the FUCK..

    by krull rules

    ...does The Thing have 7 out of 10 on imdb? Oh yeah! Fuck CG!

  • ...and he answered, THE FRENCH CONNECTION. Then I asked him what he thought the worst movie he's ever seen was. And he answered, THE FRENCH CONNECTION PART II. True story. And to this day, I've never seen THE FRENCH CONNECTION PART II. John Carpenter's THE THING is truly one of my favorite films of all time. On some days, you might catch me telling someone that is IS my favorite movie of all time. It's a great. And yet, even though my expectations are so and all the the warning bells are going off, there's no way I can resist watching this so-called THING prequel. I wonder if one day I'll be telling my grandchildren about it.

  • Oct. 13, 2011, 9:18 p.m. CST


    by krull rules

  • Oct. 13, 2011, 9:19 p.m. CST


    by mojination

    i'm not sure how many times this site has to remind you it's a fanboy site written BY fans FOR fans before it sinks in - apparently one more time. Would you rather someone who has had formal training in journalism/film yabber on about a genre film, or someone who has loved them all their life? I know there's plenty of films on here that have been critical pieces of shit that i've loved, the site has loved, and i bet even you loved. the folks on here know their shit. have you EVER read Harry's DVD column? for me that's the proof in the pudding. He has a remark about EVERYTHING that's on there, and there's alot there. win. fuck you.

  • Which is kind of ironic.

  • Oct. 13, 2011, 9:20 p.m. CST

    When did Moore leave?

    by Evil Chicken

    When did Ronald Moore step away from this project? I was so hopeful when I heard that Moore was writing it, I now see that he wasn't involved at all. If anyone could have done justice to a prequel of one of the BEST horror films ever made it would have been him. ...Call me disappointed.

  • Oct. 13, 2011, 9:22 p.m. CST

    Is the PROMETHEUS trailer gonna ride on this movie's tits or what?

    by the Green Gargantua

    If not, when?

  • Oct. 13, 2011, 9:24 p.m. CST

    Love you Harry but

    by heyscot

    You've given so many crappy movies glowing reviews it's hard to take them seriously sometimes. . .the only thing I take with your reviews is that you're a true lover of movies and if there's anything to be loved about a film, you'll find it. I wonder if there's anything cool about The Thing based on this review. . .

  • Oct. 13, 2011, 9:25 p.m. CST

    Anybody who saw the trailers could have told you...

    by Dr Hemlock

    ...this is a remake, not a prequel.

  • Oct. 13, 2011, 9:28 p.m. CST

    Harry hates it = probably pretty fucking good.

    by Stuntcock Mike

    Thanks Harold. Sold.

  • Oct. 13, 2011, 9:29 p.m. CST

    I've never been bought dude"....."I just have bad taste

    by Marlboroliteman

  • Oct. 13, 2011, 9:29 p.m. CST

    I've never been bought dude"....."I just have bad taste

    by Marlboroliteman

  • Oct. 13, 2011, 9:29 p.m. CST

    Jesus Harry you live for nostalgia. Embrace the now. HUG THAT SHIT!!!!

    by Stuntcock Mike

    Fuck the past.

  • Oct. 13, 2011, 9:30 p.m. CST

    And Brian Cox WAS in Alien!!!!

    by Marlboroliteman

  • Oct. 13, 2011, 9:30 p.m. CST


    by Marlboroliteman

  • Oct. 13, 2011, 9:32 p.m. CST

    Harry's Reviews

    by Doug Phillips

    Harry, for a lot of us your credibility went out the window with your Conan and Footloose reviews. Footloose Harry, footloose?

  • Oct. 13, 2011, 9:36 p.m. CST

    And regardless of Harry's taste...

    by veebeeyes

    there are quite a few reviews of this movie available, and most of the ones that you find will bring up the same complaints. If everyone seems to be saying the same thing, then chances are that there's something to what Harry is saying. That being said, I'm skeptical about it really being THAT bad. I suspect that his love of the other movies is possibly making him take this personally. This review comes off less like the movie is shit, and more like the movie ran over his dog and burned his house down. I haven't seen any other reviews that were anywhere near this harsh, so in that regard I'm thinking that maybe it's just Harry. But yeah...the general consensus seems to be that this is NOT a good movie.

  • Oct. 13, 2011, 9:37 p.m. CST

    Harry you need clarification

    by D.Vader

    Because your story certainly implies this WAS a huge Universal sponsored party with the cast being flown in. You never said otherwise.

  • Oct. 13, 2011, 9:38 p.m. CST

    Liked Green Lantern, didn't like Inception

    by double_l88

    How can anybody take any of your reviews seriously when you liked that crap? This movie might really suck but not on your word.

  • Oct. 13, 2011, 9:39 p.m. CST

    The fact that Harry liked the Nightmare on Elm Street remake...

    by D.Vader

    Really means you can't trust any review from him anymore. They're so damned scattered.

  • Oct. 13, 2011, 9:40 p.m. CST

    Most of the time, Harry wears whatever hat the studios send him.

    by SierraTangoFoxtrotUniform

  • Oct. 13, 2011, 9:45 p.m. CST

    Just use the George Costanza theory with these reviews

    by matthooper8

    Read it, but comprehend the exact opposite.

  • Oct. 13, 2011, 9:49 p.m. CST

    I've never been bought...

    by SierraTangoFoxtrotUniform

    Wow, you have some serious balls to actually try to say that. Do you remember when you pleaded for studios to give you "pwesents"? Or when you posted that pic of you with your Green Lantern ring and lo and behold, what followed was a positive review of a pretty much universally panned movie. You can try to lie all you want but your actions speak much louder and truer.

  • Oct. 13, 2011, 9:53 p.m. CST

    = Carpenter's movie itself was a remake for fuck sakes =

    by KilliK

    THE FUCK IT WAS. it was a movie adaptation of the book,not a direct remake of the original.that's why it was more faithful to the book than the original was.

  • Oct. 13, 2011, 9:58 p.m. CST

    Never having been a Carpenter or horror movie genre fan I just recently saw 'The Thing'

    by SierraTangoFoxtrotUniform

    And by recently I mean a year or so ago. And WOW, what a fucking creepy ass movie. It was terrific. I derided myself for having never seen it, trust me. The atmosphere was extremely prominent and just gripped you tightly and refused to let go.

  • does she survive? is she killed? does she become a thing which traps itself under ice? that ending is crucial in order to understand the intentions of the producers about this franchise.

  • Oct. 13, 2011, 10:08 p.m. CST

    Thank you SO much Harry!

    by white_vader

    For ensuring there's absolutely NO need for anyone to see this, as you spoiled most of it anyway and were so thorough you completely forgot to stick a spoiler box on there for anyone who may have been in danger of wanting to see it despite your infallible taste (mr Godzilla made me cry). Arsehole. Glad I saw it yesterday. No it's not great, but that's not the point.

  • Oct. 13, 2011, 10:08 p.m. CST

    It's clobberin' time!

    by Finnias

    …sorry, wrong franchise.

  • Oct. 13, 2011, 10:08 p.m. CST

    Gotta agree that Harry's reviews are completely

    by raymonf

    unreliable and baffling, all the more so coz I, like most here, largely share the same cinematic influences and obsessions of the past. How then, do I find myself so completely disagreeing with the majority of his reviews? Granted I have yet to see The Thing prequel, but on past form, I've gotta say this review has peaked my interest... Harry's nostaliga for the past didn't prevent such glowing reviews for those heap of shit Star Wars prequels, yet for as far as I see, his adoration of Carpenter's original and his sheer outrage that anybody would dare to step into such hallowed territory seems to form the basis of his critique. All very well, if it wasn't for his trackrecord of pouring sugar onto similar cinematic turds. Sure, everyone's entitled to their opinion, but Harry's is so inconsistant, even with his own criteria, that I wonder if he is being deliberatley obtuse simply to generate talkback hits. I also suspect that had Carpenter directed this prequel, and in line with his current form had produced a below par effort, Harry would be sucking its dick just like he did with Episode 1,2 and 3, not to mention all the other crap.

  • Oct. 13, 2011, 10:09 p.m. CST

    And it's hilarious to see the usual fuck cg comments

    by white_vader

    How embarrassing for you all that they were done by the same guys you all loved when they did District 9. Morons.

  • Oct. 13, 2011, 10:10 p.m. CST

    Damn the reviews, I'm seeing it!

    by SoylentMean

    Considering I haven't been to a movie theater in months I will be plunking down $6 for a matinee to see this tomorrow. It doesn't have to match Carpenter's masterpiece (nobody was expecting that, at all) it just has to be entertaining. I have a feeling it is a lot more entertaining than those who have panned it give it credit for. It's October, and as long as it isn't Saw, I'm gonna throw in my support.

  • Oct. 13, 2011, 10:12 p.m. CST

    Oh, and Harry's enjoyment of the NOES remake

    by SoylentMean

    was really, really hard to believe. That movie was what an abortion has when it wants to have an abortion.

  • Oct. 13, 2011, 10:19 p.m. CST

    I do agree that Carpenter's The Thing is a PERFECT film

    by SoylentMean

    That statement is motherfuckin' correct!

  • Oct. 13, 2011, 10:20 p.m. CST

    Thanks for the warning...

    by IamZardoz

    ...but Ill probably go see it anyway since all other movies are based on shitty comic books. I agree they will never make an all-male cast movie again because its just not PC or whatever but that was one of the aspects of the Carpenter Thing I loved, it seemed pretty real. Little stuff like the crappy gameshow rerun tapes and quotes like "I dont know what it is but its weird and pissed off", "I mean it!" and "and that makes you a murderer" were great lines. Brimley was great. I still think Russell did his best work in it. Anyway, Ill go see this crap out of curiosity and will just have to wait another 8 months for Prometheus.

  • Oct. 13, 2011, 10:23 p.m. CST

    Killik: the intentions of the producers are as follows....

    by Joaquin_Ondamoon

    ..'Do we have your money? Good'

  • Oct. 13, 2011, 10:27 p.m. CST

    The Cell is one of the coolest and creepiest movies ever.

    by Griefo

    Nards to what Harry says. Everyone should see it.

  • Oct. 13, 2011, 10:30 p.m. CST

    Thing ring do your thing

    by mdk

  • Not surprised it sucks. When no one has any imagination going in, it's impossible for any to come out on the big screen.

  • Oct. 13, 2011, 10:35 p.m. CST

    Usually i take harry's reviews with a boulder of salt...

    by mdk

    ...but this one seems somehow spot on, like the Big Guy has taken a bullet for us, his readership. I'll be sure to avoid this latest Hollywood diarrhea explosion like the plague it most likely is. "It's the Thing prequel, or reboot, or whatever, you' it anyway. Fuck you!"

  • Oct. 13, 2011, 10:37 p.m. CST

    And THE CELL was brilliant, except for...

    by BurnHollywood

    ...Casting Jenny From Th' Block as the female investigator.

  • A movie like Carpenter's The Thing is an example of how great prectical effects can be when done right, but there were also plenty of cheap-o horror and sci-fi movies during the 80's with terrible practical effects. The same goes with CGI, when done right it can be amazing, thing is that, most of the time, digital effects are done on the rush to meet a deadline. Now, about this Thing remake/prequel shit, of course it was going to be awful. How can anyone be surprised about this outcome?

  • Oct. 13, 2011, 10:39 p.m. CST

    The Cell sucked.

    by veebeeyes

    Nothing but eye candy with no substance behind it.

  • Oct. 13, 2011, 10:44 p.m. CST

    John Carpenter's Original?

    by cookylamoo

    So what did James Arness Star in?

  • Oct. 13, 2011, 10:50 p.m. CST


    by kevred

    Original, as in the film that this new film is ripping off. This film is not a prequel to/remake of the Arness film. Rather, it's a plundering of the "original" film - Carpenter's - that is its source material. Carpenter created a fresh, inventive take on the story. This new film is just dumbed-down crap.

  • Really, guys, you have to try harder. It's pretty transparent. We all knew this film was garbage. Whether Harry likes it or not, it's still garbage. Derivative, soulless, unimaginative garbage. Screw the makers, the studio, and all you apologists.

  • Oct. 13, 2011, 11:03 p.m. CST

    Thank You

    by Chris Artiga-Oliver

    I couldn't agree more. Carpenter's THE THING was and is by far the creepiest, moodiest , scariest film I have ever seen. To this day when I watch it I am completely drawn in and I always suffer the disappointment (and satisfaction) of knowing that there will in all likelihood never be a better ensemble horror flick made in my lifetime. The argument that remakes are "bad" doesn't interest me (hell THE THING was a remake) but to say that they are the death of creativity and originality in film is closer to the point. For every frivolous, poorly executed remake that sees the greenlight there is an original script that will never be produced. Without risk there is no real reward, the sooner Hollywood relearns this the sooner we will have great films back on the big screen.

  • Oct. 13, 2011, 11:10 p.m. CST

    Why Harry thought The Thing Sucked...

    by tailhook

    It wasn't scored by Angela Badalamenti. As such, he had to actually watch it in the theater.

  • Oct. 13, 2011, 11:24 p.m. CST

    LOL- Harry!!

    by don

    You love the movies you love but it's also obvious you'll love them more if a trinket is involved. One word- Godzilla.

  • Oct. 13, 2011, 11:54 p.m. CST

    Footloose, Transformers 3, Green Lantern...

    by Jay

    I guess I'll love the Thing than... I'm glad people are passionate and all. But it's pretty obvious people were hating this from the get go simply for what it is. It was condemned by the geek world before it was even filmed. I don't think this will be as good as Carpenters version. Nothing since it's release has been as good. But I do think this will be a decent R rated gore fest set in the atmospheric Antarctica.

  • and leans over the refrigerator. that's the only thing that i remember from that shitfest movie after all these years.

  • Oct. 14, 2011, 12:17 a.m. CST

    Too modernized for me


    The cast should have been all swedes or norwegians:) and they should have all been men. And no CGI! No one has the balls to make real movies any more. And what is up with these hollywood directors these days? They all seem to fucking suck save for a few and have no idea how to craft a good film.

  • Oct. 14, 2011, 12:17 a.m. CST

    stuntcockmike's post was funny...and true

    by Bobo_Vision

    Embrace the now. Coming to this site is starting to feel like hanging out with the cast from Grumpy Old Men as they sit around reminiscing about the good ol' days.

  • Oct. 14, 2011, 12:31 a.m. CST

    I Heard Promethius Might Be PG-13


    That basically deflates all my interest in it. Please Tell me Im Wrong.

  • That first clip they released of the Thing bursting out of the ice said it all for me, it was very telling of the I.Q. level of this film. They either wanted us to know this movie sucked in advance or they were just pandering to the mindless MTV generation tastless zombie teenagers we have roaming our society that will watch any mindless piece of crap the studios squeeze out. Everything about that first clip that was released was wrong. The stupid dialogue. No character relations. The lack of mystery or suspense. The Thing bursting out of ice which is both physically impossible and strategically illogical. Something the original THING would have never done. Just another chapter in the on going theme of Hollywood raping the classics and putting out forgettable turds.

  • Oct. 14, 2011, 12:39 a.m. CST

    manzilla - Here's the extended forecast...

    by Darth_Kong

    There is a high probability of PG-13 in theaters and an R or Unrated Director's Cut on Bluray with a slight chance of rain. Stay in and stay warm today.

  • Oct. 14, 2011, 12:41 a.m. CST


    by IWasInJuniorHighDickhead

    she survives the film. She is alive at the end. <P> Pretty obvious, really. If they're going to jump through the rest of the 'let's make a really shitty movie' hoops (token Ripley character, no consideration for continuity, make it appealing to ADHD kids etc) it should be no surprise when they make the move that allows them to make a franchise out of it when the suits run the numbers through a calculator to see whether it gets a sequel.<P> Despite the film being shite, there's every possibility that we'll be getting a sequel if the box office is enough. We all know where that sequel will be going... I predict that they cast a rapper as Childs and that whoever plays Macready will in no way be allowed to wear the beard that Russell sports in the original.

  • Oct. 14, 2011, 12:44 a.m. CST

    damn right. It should have been filmed in Norwegian

    by IWasInJuniorHighDickhead

    low budget would offset the lower takings expected because most of us can't entertain the notion of watching a film if it's not in English. A gloomy, low budget little horror.

  • Oct. 14, 2011, 1:10 a.m. CST

    Does this one star Frank Sinatra?

    by darthpigman

  • Oct. 14, 2011, 1:40 a.m. CST


    by BenBraddock

    was a great movie, a very succesful and worthy sequel to FC. All respect due yer grandpa but I say he got it wrong - check it out! Hackman is amazing...

  • Oct. 14, 2011, 1:40 a.m. CST

    Oh yeah, FUCK this remake

    by BenBraddock

  • Oct. 14, 2011, 1:42 a.m. CST

    This is like any remake/re-imagining.....

    by sam jacksons wig

    ...always compared to the original, or the remake of the original or the remake of the remake of the remake of the original. Hollywood and the movie industry have no more original ideas for its mainstream products. Even if they did, they would be very hesitant to throw any kind of money at such a venture that almost didn't guarantee a fat return. In a world where Johnny Depp starring vehicle gets shit-canned (and quite probably for the best!) when he is quite possibly the biggest movie star in the world at the moment, and James "ooooh look at how much my last 2 movies have made at the box office" Cameron can't get $150m to finance ATMOM, what chance does originality and playing to a smaller demographic have? The Thing remake was always going to be compared to Carpenter, and as such it needed to be all kinds of brilliance and hit us with an original plot in which the things we see have never happened before, or if they have, to be sylised in such a way they seem fresh. Are we suprised it didn't happen? Winstead so the movie didn't appear as a cock-fest and stop the 15-25 year old male audience from stumping up their $7+.... and throwing that in the mix was always going to be a shit idea for lovers of the original. CGI instead of practical FX? And we're not suprised???? Thw worst part in all of this is that we pretty much have the next decade steeped in the same bollocks. But like good little sheep we'll buy their tickets because that's pretty much what we do. We only have ourselves to blame.

  • Oct. 14, 2011, 1:43 a.m. CST

    No movie should ever be flat out condemned...

    by veebeeyes

    ...before being educated about it (ideally this would entail actually WATCHING IT). And yes, assholes, this also applies for shit like Human Centipede 2 and The Bunny Game. So did the new The Thing get an unfair chance? Probably. If it'd been exactly the same but otherwise having nothing to do with The Thing, then I suspect that it might have gotten a better reception. I personally suspect that much of the outright hatred of the Star Wars prequels has to do with them being STAR WARS prequel. If the exact same story had been modified into a completely new and original franchise, then people would still think that the movies are shit. But their emotional reaction would likely be that of total boredom rather than "that movie just raped my childhood."Same thing here. That being said, everything leading up to this movie DID sort of indicate that it was gonna suck. And there are enough reviews out there for me to reasonably assume that it DOES suck. Sure, I'm skeptical about it sucking quite as much as Harry says it does. I'm also not going to definitively state that it sucks WITHOUT WATCHING IT, because then that'd make me a fucking idiot. But there are enough clues for me to make some reasonable assumptions.

  • Oct. 14, 2011, 1:43 a.m. CST

    worthless, cynical shits

    by gotilk

    It's just getting depressing these days to read it. just.go.away. simple.

  • Oct. 14, 2011, 1:47 a.m. CST

    iwasinjuniorhighdickhead - sequel.....

    by sam jacksons wig

    ..oh yeah, and not suprising if due to the current glut of apocalyptic zombie movies and TV shows (some which are okay) any kind of sequel to this farce will be pitched at the world being overthrown with only a handful of humans left blah blah blah blah unoriginal blah blah resident evil has made a bucket of cash blah blah blah. Like I said, no more original ideas left so we'll mine what we can and "bring them up to date for a modern audience"- which means thoughtless souless mindless shash.

  • ..... at the movies (in the main, not altogether!!!) if what was being served now was of a palatable quality, that somehow bettered what had gone previously. Unfortunately, if we want to talk about good movies then nostalgia is mostly where it's at. Very few things hitting the screens these days are deserving of a sentence, never mind a debate.

  • Oct. 14, 2011, 1:55 a.m. CST

    @the dickhead who was in junior high (or...something like that)...

    by veebeeyes

    That's pretty much EXACTLY what I was expecting, and the fact that you can predict that shit without seeing hardly any footage sort of proves my point. There are plenty of signs that this was a soulless and creatively void piece of merchandise that completely lacks everything that made the "original" so special. The signs WERE fucking there, so I really don't know why people are bashing Harry for saying that the movie is shit. All indications (including the dozens of so other reviews that are easily available) tend to substantiate Harry's judgement that the movie sucks. I understand that people WANT it to be good. I mean...Jesus Christ, it's a new The Thing movie. Who here really DOESN'T want it to be good. If this somehow defied all expectations and ended up being just as good as Carpenter's "original", I don't think that ANYONE here would be complaining. But here's the thing...Harry saw the movie, while most of the people bashing him DIDN'T. You want to bash Harry's review, then go watch the movie and then come back here and disagree with the CONTENT of his review (rather than lob petty personal attacks about how it must be good because his taste in movies sucks).

  • Oct. 14, 2011, 1:56 a.m. CST

    I don't get why they didn't try something and make it a straight prequel

    by Andrew Coleman

    Like the movie isn't going to make truck loads either way. Most people I know (23-30) know the Thing and have seen it. It's rated R so you're not racking in moron kids... Why didn't they actually just make a prequel and make it cool? At least that would get good word of mouth. When will studios fucking learn that just bull shit remakes won't make them loads of money. This and Footloose need to die horrible deaths at the BO. Go Real Steel or Moneyball or anything that can beat these movies. Frankly I'd rather watch that shitty Three Musketeers movie with the flying ships with metro-sexual Orlando Bloom as the villain than either of these remake trash.

  • ;)

  • Oct. 14, 2011, 2:06 a.m. CST

    Make a prequel and make it cool?

    by veebeeyes

    Exactly HOW would one do that? The very idea of a prequel to The Thing is a decidedly stupid idea. As far as I could tell, the primary point of having a Norwegian camp to begin with was to foreshadow the kinds of shit that was about to go down at the American camp. We don't need to know the details, we can assume that shit went down pretty much the same way, and it's implied that THEY'RE ALL FUCKING DEAD. WHY exactly is there any fucking reason to make ANY prequel to The Thing, aside from cashing in on an established property? Is there a story to tell there? No. Any loose ends? No. And from a creative standpoint, if they wanted to explore a similar concept (shapeshifting alien that imitates other lifeforms, paranoia sets in) then they'd have more creative liberties by simply copying the concept and applying it to a new and unrelated intellectual property. By tying it to Carpenter's The Thing, they're boxing themselves in creatively by having to maintain some level of consistency between the two movies. So right off the bat, this is a movie which has absolutely no reason whatsoever to even be made (other than $$$$, of course).

  • Alright it's time to get back to serious. Where are we going with Motion Pictures? Films or movies if you will? It really seems that we are reaching a stagnation point with storytelling ability and technology. Lots of toys. And lots of gimmicks if you will. Where do I think this is going? Entertainment is going to really change I think in ten to twenty years and I think it involves this. Remember when High Definition Video came on the scene and no one wanted to believe it might dethrone or replace film? I think that the Motion Picture experience itself has become a bit to underwhelming in terms of interactivity. Here's my point. I think Motion Pictures and Video Games will become sort of HYBRIDIZED. You think I'm wrong? Let's look at a little known piece of information from the Department of Defense. Here's your clue and I'll let you look it up yourself. D-Wave Quantum Computer. Video Game Motion Pictures that look PHOTO-REALISTIC are coming. Think about the logic of what I'm saying is on the horizon. Quantum Computers. Holographic Discs or Flash Storage Devices. 2160 P Display Devices. Or Higher. Look it's coming and the writing is on the wall. Maybe not for all Motion Pictures, like RomComs, but for Science Fiction Adventure stories I'd bet my bottom dollar it's coming. Look at the current trend of how the studios have exhausted all the old material by trying to rehash them and are failing miserably. I give it 10 to 15 years and the Motion Picture experience will be nothing like you imagined and will be a bit more interactive and I think the studios and filmmakers know it too. I'm saying we might not just get to see a movie like The Matrix but will be able to play parts of it as well. And imagine the Quantum Computers are fast enough to display the images in real time photo-realistically. It's coming. Hopefully the studios have fresh ideas and the boldness to make entertainment with good stories. THE FORMAT WILL EVOLVE AND CHANGE JUST LIKE ADDING SOUND TO SILENT PICTURES AND COLOR TO BLACK AND WHITE.

  • sing it, brother

  • Oct. 14, 2011, 2:37 a.m. CST

    Fuck videogames.

    by veebeeyes

    People are criticizing stupid-ass remakes for missing the point. People are criticizing bad directors for failing to properly engage audiences. Well, do you know what else they do? The control the pace of the fucking experience. Doesn't that all sort of go out the window once you allow the audience the freedom to miss the target 1000 times in a row? In terms of "interactivity in movies", exactly what are you suggesting? If I shoot at the villain 100 times, what happens? Does that one scene drag on until I final manage to score a hit? Do they give me three minutes to shoot him in the head and then proceed with the story as if I DID shoot him (even though I clearly missed every single time)? I don't see how interactivity would HELP matters one bit, because all that'd do is take away from the directors'/writers' intent. Hey, do you remember when you were 5 years old and kids were reading those "Choose Your Own Adventure" books? Do you know why serious adult writers don't write their books in "choose your own adventure" format? No? I don't know either. But if I had to guess, I'd wager that it has something to do with that being stupid as shit. Fuck interactivity and fuck the convergence of movies and videogames. Just give me some good fucking movies. It shouldn't be that hard. And if filmmakers can't do that, then they're not going to cover up th fact that they're selling me utter shit by allowing me the chance to occasionally push a few buttons.

  • Oct. 14, 2011, 2:45 a.m. CST

    veebeeyes -

    by sam jacksons wig

    ***this is a movie which has absolutely no reason whatsoever to even be made (other than $$$$, of course). *** Whilst I mainly agree with that sentiment, it could have been updated for a modern audience, but kept the smarts and the all-round goodness that made Carpenters such a classic. If all remakes were made with this end to reach a modern audience who haven't had (or don't wish to) the chance to catch the older versions, then good on them! But as we all know, that aint the case, and the modern audience and the demograph studios are aiming at just want more bang for their buck. It's what they've been raised on and what their minds can handle. Therefore it's what the studios shit out. They will continue to do so, and in a way are responsible for setting this kind of mindset with younger audiences in the first place. If only they thought and acted differently, cinema would be a much different landscape- and a much richer, abeit poorer ($) one.

  • Oct. 14, 2011, 2:53 a.m. CST

    What exactly needs to be "modernized"?

    by veebeeyes

    The story is set in fucking 1982. In any case, the plot would seem to be more likely to be boxed in by tying in with the Carpenter movie. If you want to rip off the basic concept of the alien with a new and more modern theme, then why not apply that basic concept to a completely different intellectual property?

  • Oct. 14, 2011, 2:54 a.m. CST

    Personally, I think that Harry may have made a rod for his own back.....

    by sam jacksons wig

    ...(and there were no cripple jokes intended in that last sentance.) There are some here that just love to wail on the large ginger one for no other reason that to wail on him. To those I say "get over it- he doesn't really give a shit anyhow." But there are some who genuinely believe that Harry is full of shit from his past reviews. While filling them with eye-watering grammatical error, the word LOVE 750 times, and sentence structure that would embarrass an ape, I have little doubt of his passion for movies. Some of his choices, however, are shockingly piss poor. I get it- they're HIS choices and they differ from mine (inception aside, which I found un-fucking-forgiveable), but others here have an inherent doubt of his honesty and sincerity. If he just polishes his reviewing skills, diction and grammar and comes off sounding more professional than profane, I am sure this would go great guns into beginning to turn jaded minds. Headgeek- over to you!!!!

  • Oct. 14, 2011, 3:06 a.m. CST

    to make a version of this with plot details that are similar et al....

    by sam jacksons wig

    ...and NOT tie it in with the Thing, or give it it's name??? That would DEFINATELY be like the studios loading a gun and pulling the fucking trigger at their heads. Derisive cries of RIP OFF! Intellectual theft etc..... come on!!! Modernise it yes, and by that I mean bring it bang up to date so the little I Pad generation can have their gadgets to relate to, but keep the scripting tight and inject it with the spirit of the original. Not just a lame remake from the reimagining factory.

  • Oct. 14, 2011, 3:07 a.m. CST

    You're talking about skepticism.

    by veebeeyes

    If a reviewer (in this case, let's say it's Harry) makes some bad choices, then it's fair to be very skeptical of his opinions on a movie. Similar to how if all signs point to a movie sucking (in this case, let's say that it's 2011's The Thing), then it's fair to be highly suspicious that the movie is a steaming load of shit. And that's all fine. Healthy skepticism is good. The problem I have is when a person writes a review, and then people respond by attacking the reviewer. That's fucking bullshit. I certainly don't place faith or trust in Harry's opinions and tastes in movies, but the fact is that sometimes, he IS right. Sometimes I agree with him 100%. I don't think there's anyone here who can say with a straight face that he's ALWAYS wrong. So let's not beat up on the dude when most of the people doing so HAVEN'T EVEN SEEN THE MOVIE. Pay attention to the people who are bashing Harry right now. They AREN'T saying that his review is flat-out inaccurate, and they AREN'T providing compelling reasons for why the movie IS good. If Harry's review IS shit, and if people were informed enough to state definitively that he is wrong, then they'd be stating WHY his review is bullshit instead of making personal attacks such as that his general tastes suck or that he must only be saying that the movie's bad because the studio didn't pay him off.

  • Whilst I can't condemn this before I've seen it (it seems like a reasonable body-horror for a winters night), and lurve lurve lurve the original, the problem is that nowadays filmmakers are given far too much money to play with, whilst simultaneously all their toys are taken away by frightened execs and producers looking to fill a bottom line. This should've been a low-budget film that paid respect to JC's, given it's a prequel. Where imagination fuelled the effects work beyond being able to do whatever they want, only at the expense of having to bow to studio wishes. Make it too paced, they'll get too scared. Too gory, they'll get scared. Sometimes I wonder if these "horror" projects are really just to scare the producers more than the audiences. Still, I'll judge it for myself. Oh, and FOR GODS SAKE, WATCH THE SPOILERS, HARRY. This review should've come with a warning.

  • Oct. 14, 2011, 3:11 a.m. CST


    by Darth_Kong

    The FORMAT I'm talking about, either your kids will be playing/watching it or we'll be old and close to our death beds. Or we could be DUST. Like I said it won't be for all motion pictures but some stories will be built around this format. And it doesn't have to be FAKE they can make it as real as they want. It will just depend on the Author and the Studio and how they approach the PHYSICS. Look at it this way. Not so much CHOOSE YOUR OWN ADVENTURE but how do you make it to the end? As in life. Newer generations of humans have always asked the older generations "How did you make it through life?" How do you make it through an experience or a story? It will probably have elements of CINEMATICS with INTERACTIVE elements. Look, it won't be for every Motion Picture. But the FORMAT WILL EVOLVE OVER TIME. If you hate interactivity that much don't worry, I can't imagine it for COMEDIES or DOCUDRAMAS but this is definitely fits the demographic of teenage to thirty something males who want more INVOLVEMENT out of their BELOVED SCIENCE FICTION UNIVERSES. Something like this will come though. I have no doubt in my mind about that. HELL, I'D RATHER PLAY PHOTO-REALISTIC VERSIONS OF MOST OF THE SCIENCE FICTION MOVIES I'VE SEEN THAN TO EVER HAVE TO JUST STRAIGHT SIT THROUGH THEM AGAIN. It will definitely have an effect on pacing and timing with regards to editing but hey PHIL TIPPET reached a point where the business said hey, NO MORE STOP MOTION ANIMATION. USE A BLOODY COMPUTER. It made him sick for a spell but he got back on the horse and made the adjustment. I would even imagine that on the disc or whatever you buy that you will probably have the option of just straight watching or watching and playing. The entertainment industry will become more EXPERIENTIAL with some of its products and they'll have to to survive financially. But again if you want your coffee straight up black NO CREAM AND NO SUGAR I'm sure that will still be available to you too.

  • Oct. 14, 2011, 3:20 a.m. CST

    We're sitting here bitching about movies...

    by veebeeyes

    with storylines that only have ONE path towards the end. There are no "multiple ways to reach the end" in The Thing, because it was only filmed/edited one way. There's one final product reaching audiences, and THEY CAN'T EVEN GET THAT RIGHT. ONE storyline, and filmmakers are often managing to fuck even that up. Do you REALLY think that movies will somehow get BETTER if if becomes standard practice for them to have to keep trask of MORE storylines, and make sure that all of those storylines manage to diverge from a common beggining and converge at a common ending? We're bitching about filmmakers fucking up the format that they have to work with, and we're somehow supposed to SOLVE things by somehow making it common practice for movie storylines to become even more convoluted and complex in order to allow for multiple paths leading to the same ending? I this a joke, or are you really being serious?

  • Oct. 14, 2011, 3:28 a.m. CST


    by Darth_Kong

    I'm serious. Look, not everybody can be Chopin and as sick and twisted as David Lee Roth is, I've heard all the stories, no one but him could have pulled off "Hot for Teacher". Period. Sammy don't cut it. Even with Van Halen. Some things are UNIQUE and some things TRANSMUTE and CHANGE into other stranger and weirder things. Remember what Aughra said in the Dark Crystal? Sometimes good. Sometimes bad. New STUFF is coming. Count on it.

  • Oct. 14, 2011, 3:28 a.m. CST

    Books have been words on a page...

    by veebeeyes

    for...I don't know how long it was, but it was apparently a decent amount of time. And guess what? Books are still basically words on a page. I dunno...did people stop being able to write new compelling novels because plain old words on paper is old-hat? Beats me, because I don't read. But I like to think that sometimes someone's actually able to think of something worth writing, and manages to still churn out a good story in the ages-old format of ink-on-paper.

  • Oct. 14, 2011, 3:49 a.m. CST

    And let's talk about budgets.

    by veebeeyes

    Suppose that videogames and movies do converge in some sort of way in which it becomes common practice for many movies to allow multiple paths towards the end. Here's the thing...I don't know about the industry and I don't work in the industry. But I've somehow gotten the impression that budgets are going up, that it's getting more expensive to make movies with good production values, and that that probably plays a part in the current trend of safe and creatively dumb shit like The Thing. I don't know if that's the case. Someone correct me on that. But if that's even remotely true...think about videogames with multiple endings, or multiple paths towards and end. What percentage of gamers do you think are actually going to unlock all of the ending or search for all of the gold coins? I don't know, but I suspect that it's a small percentage. And that most gamers will play through it once, and then never bother with all of the extra content there. That's wasted content. That content required money to make. about movies? I'm going to see The Thing soon, and I'll spend $10 on it. I'll probably think it's shit. If it's shit, if my first impression is bad, would I be more likely to spend an extra 20 or 30 or 40 dollars to watch the movie repeatedly, just in the hopes of possibly unlocking a "path which provides a satisfactory experience? Or am I more likely to simply never watch the movie again, in which case even MORE money got poured into the production of the movie with no returns, thus guaranteeing studios to take even FEWER chances? Think about that, and then think about there've been about 15 Final Fantasy games, 10 Resident Evil games, and a buttload of Halo games. Not to mention countless prequels, remakes, and spinoffs. The videogame situation is even WORSE. And you're suggesting that the solution to bad movies is to inflate movie budgets even MORE by funding content that most people will never watch, thus forcing movie studios to take even FEWER creative risks.

  • Oct. 14, 2011, 3:52 a.m. CST

    The Thing, The Blues Brothers, An American Werewolf in London.

    by loafroaster

    That's pure cinematic bliss right there.

  • Oct. 14, 2011, 4:11 a.m. CST


    by Darth_Kong

    Let me state my position on Motion Picture Video Game Hybridization. ALIENS is a masterpiece to me. With the disclaimer that ALIEN is a classic and is more coveted to me than ALIENS. But back to ALIENS. I love the film. I wouldn't take away any of James "King of the World" Cameron's creative decisions as a director in terms of story and editing but I could definitely use more from that specific universe as a fanboy and ALIEN 3: Student Filmmaking at work at 20th Century Fox just doesn't cut it for me. And as far as I'm concerned ALIEN RESURRECTION is nothing short of a movie made for Lifetime Television. This whole ALIENS COLONIAL MARINES game has me STOKED and they've designed the game as a TRUE SEQUEL to ALIENS. All the stuff I've seen for it makes me happy I just wish it was more photo-realistic. But the point is it's a studio backed legitimate extended universe experience that I can interact with and at the moment after seeing all of the promotional trailers and E3 footage I can't imagine it will hurt the integrity of ALIENS like ALIEN 3: Student Filmmaking at work at 20th Century Fox did. I can except ALIENS COLONIAL MARINES as a LEGITIMATE SEQUEL to ALIENS. I can't say that about ALIEN 3. I think the Execs at FOX know this too and that's why they allowed the property to enter the video game domain. When I say it's coming in a way it's already started. Again I can except ALIENS COLONIAL MARINES as a sequel to ALIENS. I can't say that about ALIEN 3.

  • Oct. 14, 2011, 4:20 a.m. CST

    That's all fine and well...

    by veebeeyes

    but none of that indicates that it would work better as a videogame as opposed to a proper movie. Granted, it's probably CHEAPER to make the game, and that's likely the only reason why you're finally getting the sequel that you wanted. But play close attention to the fact that it's being released AS A VIDEOGAME and NOT as a movie (or even a movie that's a little bit interactive). And really...Aliens? Don't get me wrong, I love Aliens. But is there REALLY any need to revisit that property, in either videogame or movie form? That's the exact same repetition and creative stagnation that I was talking about. That's exactly why they actually made a fucking remake/prequel/whatever of John Carpenter's The Thing.

  • I could forgive a little if they toss in a Shelly Long cooking eggs for Henry Winkler type scenes.

  • Good point Harry. However, going forward please refer to the Thing remake as TINO (Thing in name only) wouldn't want you to confuse the uninitiated who cannot differentiate between JC's classic and this as you call it, "warm loaf of shit". I'll wait till a proper torrent release and forgo seeing another Carpenter remake clusterfuck.

  • Oct. 14, 2011, 4:35 a.m. CST


    by Darth_Kong

    This gets into JUST BECAUSE YOU CAN DO SOMETHING DOESN'T MEAN YOU SHOULD. People are like that with cranking out children or as someone from Texas once said to me, TURNING THE PLEASURE PALACE INTO A FACTORY. Sometimes it's not a good idea. ALIENS COLONIAL MARINES is something I have wanted for a long time. The Thing prequel, I dunno, should they have made it? It's not a morality issue with me but I know in the hands of more competent and talented filmmakers it could have been something special. There are talented filmmakers out there that much I know. It's just sad when films we love are soured with prequels and sequels that look like a SHIT SAMMICH. It happens. And it appears to look that way with THE THING PREQUEL as is the case with ALIEN 3. SHIT SAMMICH. I'm excited to see the ALIEN Universe complemented with PROMETHEUS and ALIENS COLONIAL MARINES and I'm betting that both will be more satisfactory to me than the mortal wound that is ALIEN 3 and 4 and the MONSTER MASH HOGWASH AVP movies. Things are changing and I welcome the variety.

  • Oct. 14, 2011, 4:39 a.m. CST

    You know what was a good videogame?

    by loafroaster

    The Thing. Okay, back on topic.

  • Nowadays, I wonder what the new generation thinks of these remakes, particularly if the originals were not seen by them. Are people over 30 just bitter old people now? Maybe. Who knows? Mary Elizabeth Winstead has already sold me a ticket.

  • Shit sammich indeed.

  • Oct. 14, 2011, 5:04 a.m. CST

    You just KNOW Carpenter is fuckin smiling right now...

    by spidar40

  • Oct. 14, 2011, 5:18 a.m. CST

    Darth Kong, that's idiotic

    by white_vader

    Calling Alien 3 "student filmmaking" instead of the suit clusterfuck everyone (including you) knows it to be. Everything Fincher has done since bears that out. Stop being so disingenuous. Or maybe you are that clueless and you don't know Alien 3's sordid history. Could be...

  • Oct. 14, 2011, 5:27 a.m. CST


    by Darth_Kong

    I'll be genuine. The wooden planet idea is retarded. Cutting apart the wooden planet to burn to keep the monks warm is retarded even though Peter Jackson did a similar thing with Frank cutting apart his dream home in The Frighteners to put wood in the fireplace, no disrespect to PJ, is retarded. And a Monk sitting on the toilet getting killed by an alien coming through the bottom sounds retarded or at the very least sounds like it belongs in Piranha 3D. Not William Gibson or Eric Red could have saved that sinking ship. It's retarded student filmmaking with a studio budget. Fincher should have passed.

  • Oct. 14, 2011, 5:33 a.m. CST

    CGI - mentaldominance

    by Mr Gorilla

    Dude - CGI is just the tool. I, like you, am sick to the teeth of people using CGI to paper over lack of story, lack of characterisation etc. But in the right hands it can work wonders. I'm thinking of two moments in the films of Alfonso Cuaron: the baby in CHILDREN OF MEN and Buckbeak in HARRY POTTER 3. You'd have to be some sort of idealogue if you thought that practical effects would have been better. Guillermo Del Toro has spoken before about 'snobs' who hate CGI. With the right artists, and the right director etc, it's a WONDERFUL tool. Just saying.

  • Oct. 14, 2011, 6:21 a.m. CST

    Harry's email to hercules...

    by Doug Phillips

    Herc, you gotta get over to my review of The Thing...they are tearing me apart. Say something positive about me, ya know, validate me a little bit. I heard the studio is sending out cool toy Thor hammers for the Avengers and I will be damned if I let those little pricks in the talkback spoil it for me. Pronto, I am a big time comic book writer and movie mogul now!

  • Oct. 14, 2011, 6:24 a.m. CST

    Harry, why not post as an anon reviewer?

    by dalcross

    If you hated the film so much and wanted to warn everybody, wait a while after the screening and stick up an anonymous review as if it came in from elsewhere. You're in the clear and everyone knows well in advance to steer clear. And considering your kind words for some really poor stuff recently, it must be REALLY bad.

  • Oct. 14, 2011, 6:31 a.m. CST

    Harry, did you watch this in a theater...

    by scrote

    ...or just download a pirated cam? No love for Beltrami's score...or wait a minute was it that badalamenti dude who did this? Heh-heh. And I thought the Cox meme was bad...whoof!

  • Oct. 14, 2011, 6:36 a.m. CST


    by scrote

    What the hell happened to Eric Red? He was doing some seriously cool stuff in the 80's; The Hitcher, Near Dark. Hell, I even liked Cohen and Tate and Body Parts...

  • ... only then will the suits give any play to actual creativity.

  • Oct. 14, 2011, 6:46 a.m. CST


    by SeXX ED

    ... they'll start dipping into the 90's for remake ideas - good luck with that, cokeheads!

  • Oct. 14, 2011, 6:55 a.m. CST

    Had no intention of seeing it

    by Jules Bedeau

    First of all, this is the first time I am hearing that it was a prequel(so, the marketing of this movie was terrible). I honestly thought it was a remake and had no reason to think otherwise. My favourite scene from the Carpenter film is when they were testing the blood and all of the men were strapped into their chairs. Hilarity in the middle of a horror film-- classic! Harry, if you are ever in Toronto, I would love to take you out for dinner and just listen to you cuss about horrible remakes, prequels, spin-offs and sequels. The list is long!

  • ... as brilliant and ground-breaking as any film could ever be. The decision to treat this "property" as an opportunity for amateurish rehash was a monumentally awful mistake. Seriously, is anyone calling the shots in LA-LA LAND over the age of 24 at this point? This was like giving Ratner a go at GODFATHER 4: ELECTRIC WOPALOO!

  • Oct. 14, 2011, 7 a.m. CST

    Maybe they should remake shit films and make them good?

    by SigourneyWeavers3Dbeaver

    JOHNNY MNEMONIC 2013, I'm so there! Johnny: Justin Long Beat Takeshi: That asian dude from The Hangover Ice T: Chris Brown Dr Rollins: Marilyn Manson Jesus H Lundgren: The Rock The film's tits: Megan Fox

  • Oct. 14, 2011, 7:04 a.m. CST

    sigourneyweavers3dbeaver - EXACTLY!

    by SeXX ED

    And Carpenter's film was the most shining example of that idea... the very best.

  • Oct. 14, 2011, 7:11 a.m. CST

    American Werewolf and The Thing are not perfect

    by chien_sale

    I loved them but they are hardly perfect Cinema. Carpenter's film was pure b-movie with a limited script with great special effects. And American Werewolf while there's no better werewolf movie, just when it gets interesting, the wolf becomes Godzilla and they kill him in an alley. It's like Landis said "alright i've had enough", got lazy and ended it too soon.

  • Oct. 14, 2011, 7:45 a.m. CST

    Holy shit!

    by ScriptCunt

    That review was almost coherent! And barely more than a paragraph about tangential formative childhood bullshit. I'm shocked.

  • Oct. 14, 2011, 7:56 a.m. CST

    I’ve realized just how much I love John Carpenter’s original

    by Jake Pantlin

    Christ Harry, you sound just like the fucking fanboys on here that bitch and moan about J.J. Abram's Star Trek (2009). This isn't your Daddy's "The Thing?" Boo-fucking-hoo. You admit that you are "predisposed" to love John Carpenter's original. Well, this isn't the original. But it's still a good film. You need to get over yourself. In reality, it is you who are drowning in nostalgia. For once, just try to be a real fil critic and see a picture with fresh eyes.

  • Oct. 14, 2011, 7:58 a.m. CST

    ...I’ve realized just how much I love John Carpenter’s original...

    by Jake Pantlin

    Christ Harry, you sound just like the fucking fanboys on here that bitch and moan about J.J. Abram's Star Trek (2009). This isn't your Daddy's "The Thing?" Boo-fucking-hoo. You admit that you are "predisposed" to love John Carpenter's original. Well, this isn't the original. But it's still a good film. You need to get over yourself. In reality, it is you who are drowning in nostalgia. For once, just try to be a real fil critic and see a picture with fresh eyes.

  • Oct. 14, 2011, 8:04 a.m. CST

    You know what was a GREAT videogame?

    by Stalkeye

    Dead Space. A perfect mash up of The Thing, Solaris and Event horizon with a touch of Alien and you have the perfect recipie for a sci fi horror VG.

  • Oct. 14, 2011, 8:17 a.m. CST

    Godzilla?? He's a DOG...

    by Billyeveryteen

    Getting shot in an ally is just right.

  • Oct. 14, 2011, 8:17 a.m. CST


    by scrote that a quotable line or what? Should have just edited your review down to that, Harry. Would have been more succinct. I'm off to see this precisely because of this article. Never trust a review from Harry - no matter what 'hat' he is wearing.

  • Oct. 14, 2011, 9:08 a.m. CST

    Damn ! I'm bummed....

    by The Puma Man

    I really wanted this to be good, what the fuck has happened to Hollywood these days?

  • Oct. 14, 2011, 9:22 a.m. CST

    re: Damn ! I'm bummed....

    by Jake Pantlin

    Dude, take everything you read from Harry with a grain of salt. I saw the movie, and I liked it just fine. I saw the 82 version on TV the other night, and I thought they went together fairly well. You should judge it for yourself. I can't help but be ammused by the fact that most the newspapers today have given the film good reviews. Harry is just a nostalgic crybaby.

  • Oct. 14, 2011, 9:32 a.m. CST

    Nice SPOILER warning, Harry

    by D.Vader

    Fuck. Seriously. What the fuck. Don't you know any better.

  • Oct. 14, 2011, 9:35 a.m. CST


    by scrote

    No, he does not.

  • Oct. 14, 2011, 9:35 a.m. CST

    Dont give him a break. He threw away 80 Mill or whatever it cost

    by Knobules

    "Give him a break". That is lame Harry. People are taking time out of their busy lives, spending hard earned money to see what this guy produced. And it sucks. Not to mention whatever this mess cost the studio. If this was a normal job for us plain folk you would not get a break. You would be FIRED. Hi I just slapped together a POS and it cost 80 Million and half the country is going to waste money on it this weekend. Ah gimme a break I am new at this. Oh ok you get a pass big guy. Here is a cookie and a teddy bear. Do it right next time.

  • Oct. 14, 2011, 10 a.m. CST

    Colour me unsurprised that yet another reheated movie is crap.

    by Arkhaminmate001

  • Oct. 14, 2011, 10:06 a.m. CST


    by Philvis

    I had plans to go see this with a buddy next Tuesday. Definitely will not be wasting my money on this.

  • Oct. 14, 2011, 10:11 a.m. CST

    I am right there with you hihat

    by thekylegassproject

    for all of his encyclopedic knowledge about film, harry's taste is suspect to say the LEAST

  • Oct. 14, 2011, 10:11 a.m. CST


    by ZodNotGod

  • Oct. 14, 2011, 10:13 a.m. CST

    So many prequels have the same problem - backstory

    by impossibledreamers

    Just like with Star Wars, Episodes 1-3... When we watched Episode 4 and there was all this talk about an old civilization filled with Jedi who fought a Clone War and used to police the galaxy, etc. etc. And the whole tragedy we're told is that the galaxy turned slowly corrupt and the Jedi died off (a long process it sounded like) then the Empire moved in. If you read the novel, the Emperor was portrayed as a pupper of the evil governors and merely a figurehead (but thats not my point). So, George rolls out 1-3 to SHOW us all this stuff. Only, it's not what he told us. The whole galaxy falls apart in only about 5-10 years and its due to a whiny brat who listens to an evil old man who is NOT a puppet ruler. If you are going to set up a prequel, you gotta' be faithful to the structure LAID OUT in the backstory of the originals. So, the helicopter guy was wrong, the Thing's intelligence was wrong and I will bet other details that Carpenter so brilliantly provided as hints about how bad things got for the Norwegians were not there either.

  • And I don't really remember exactly what he said on Nightmare, but just going off what he said with The Thing and how it was easy to tell WHO WAS THE THING the whole time unlike the first one which kept you guessing. <P> That's the biggest flaw in the Nightmare remake, you KNEW when someone was in a nightmare, there was no ARE THEY DREAMING ARE THEY NOT aspect to the new movie that the original had, that topped with it's HE's a BAD GUY...wait no he's not...wait YES HE IS aspect of that movie ruined any potential it had at being even just a decent remake. So if Harry did like that film because they sort of tried something different with the is he bad is he not bad aspect, it still suffered from what he is calling one of the weakest aspect's of this remake. SOooooooooooooooooo you know............

  • Oct. 14, 2011, 10:41 a.m. CST

    I'm proud of myself for resisting this film

    by Beezbo

    In the past, there was NO way I would have missed anything to do with a movie I love as much as The Thing even if I knew it would suck. Now, I won't even watch these remakes, "prequels" and sequels for free on TV. I've resisted Nightmare on Elm Street, Let Me In and will resist this. It's now $10 for me to see a matinee at my local theater. I refuse to waste my time and money on this crap.

  • Oct. 14, 2011, 10:42 a.m. CST

    I was convinced this would be

    by Brian Hopper

    an irredeemable piece of crap... an insult to those of us who hold Carpenter's dark, chilly masterpiece in such high regaard. But the fact Harry hates it makes me think it might not be that bad. May have to check it out after all.

  • Oct. 14, 2011, 10:44 a.m. CST


    by Series7

    Give into Let Me In, shits solid brah.

  • Oct. 14, 2011, 10:55 a.m. CST

    Let me in was very good for a remake.

    by Stalkeye

    Fright Night, on the other hand.....

  • Oct. 14, 2011, 11 a.m. CST

    I can't believe all the sheep on this site.

    by Jake Pantlin

    All the people thanking Harry for saving them $10 at the show... you are fucking retards. Harry liked Green Lantern, for Christ sake. Did you thank him for the $10 you lost after seeing that piece of shit? On the plus side, the studio did give Harry a free ring on that one. Who wouldn't want a Green Lantern ring? Harry likes movies that remind him of his youth. Harry liked Green Lantern comics, so he was "predisposed" to like Green Lantern. Harry loves John Carpenter, so anything not resembling Carpenter's film has to be a piece of shit. Unless, of course, the Director's last name is Rodriguez (see "Predators").

  • Oct. 14, 2011, 11:07 a.m. CST

    Blitz kicked ass.

    by Bigdada

  • I mean seriously, that's like putting the blind in charge of the decorations, of the hiring of a deaf guy as resident music critic (once again, just not enough bass for my liking...). Egads...

  • I recently heard Carpenter talking about this and other re-imaginings of his work. At this point in his career, this is the best kind of thing that could happen. His words, "I'm sitting at home watching an NBA game when someone on the Internet messages me and tells me someone is remaking one of my movies. I hold out my hand, without even having to get up, and someone comes by and drops a check into my hand and I say, 'Thank you, Thank you very much,'." He doesn't care if these movies are good, bad or indifferent. They're not his movies. They're somebody elses. He gets a huge free paycheck. That's his reward for making a great movie that somebody years later wants to remake.

  • Oct. 14, 2011, 11:28 a.m. CST

    By the time they’re running around on a fully working THING ship…


    That actually sounds very good. Would make me excited to see it, except for the trailer with the super-fast breaking out of ice alien. That makes me think it's more likely to suck.

  • Oct. 14, 2011, 11:32 a.m. CST

    Been craving the Blues Brothers lately


    and its streaming on Netflix.

  • Oct. 14, 2011, 12:11 p.m. CST

    You are a two faced cunt Harry

    by sg

    You love Robert Rodriguez but hate Paul WS Anderson, both showed early promise but have been poor ever since ... let's examine why ? Is is because Paul refused to let you go on set for Soldier yet Rodriguez gave you an actual role. I have worked in the VFX industry for 20 years and went and saw The thing, also being a fan of the original, and it was a solid 7 out of 10. Lots of the criticisms of the film were valid but it was enjoyable but I felt the filmmakers tried to be match Carpenter's film too much. But what amazes me is the slagging off of the CG, as a competitor, I was really impressed by the quality. Then to read you saying it was 'fucking shit' just shows you for what you are. All the films this summer season had really high calibre CG in them ... work you CANNOT / NEVER COULD DO with puppets/animatronics apart from Green Lantern which you liked ! Did Warners buy you a huge food gift basket ? I bet you cheered when Rick Baker won the Oscar for Wolfman when all the work shown on the reel was CG. You know what when you call people names expect them back ... if the VFX supe needed new glasses, you're a talentless fat hack. Your writing is atrocious and I really don't care about your brought on the internet wife.

  • Oct. 14, 2011, 12:14 p.m. CST

    I know I'm just pissin' in the wind here, but...

    by Jon Forbing

    Why would anyone come back to a website every day, read every article, and comment on them when they hate the founder and think his website is shitty? What is the point?? I just don't understand how you can be so much of a shitter that you spend all your time reading a site JUST so that you can talk shit in the comments. If you don't like Harry, or respect Harry, or think his writing is worth a damn, then why the fuck do you READ it? Read the other articles, or read another website, or go fucking form your own opinions independent of the internet. If you're so addicted to the tiny rush of adrenaline that you get when you anonymously troll people on the internet that you need to spend hours subjecting yourself to things that you hate for NO OTHER REASON than to be able to put another check on your "flamed free article on internet" tally, than you need some serious professional counseling. First step I would recommend, unplug your computer and go the fuck outside for a while.

  • Oct. 14, 2011, 12:23 p.m. CST

    Everybody go and see The Thing, anyway, because...

    by Peter

    ...then maybe they will have the confidence to make "At the Mountains of Madness". If The Thing flops at the box office, I fear it will be many years, if ever, before we see Guillermo Del Toro's Lovecraftian passion-project.

  • Oct. 14, 2011, 12:29 p.m. CST

    TJCOOLGUY: Stop making so much sense

    by Steve

  • Oct. 14, 2011, 12:35 p.m. CST


    by Jake Pantlin

    So... what you are saying is, if people don't agree with Harry's comments, we should just shut up and go to another website? I don't think AICN is shitty. I just think most of Harry's reviews are bullshit. Christ, the guy uses the word SHIT in the title of his review. I happen to think the film was good, and since Harry has a forum where everyone can post and express their thoughts, I'm going to call him out on that B.S. review. If you have an issue with people expressing their opinions, then perhaps you should be going to another website that plays it safe, where everything is all rainbows and lollypops. If so, I recommend

  • Oct. 14, 2011, 12:39 p.m. CST

    If you saw the movie and think that Harry was wrong...

    by veebeeyes

    then that's one thing. What I don't get are the assholes who were bashing Harry about his review when they didn't even see the movie yet.

  • Oct. 14, 2011, 12:47 p.m. CST

    veebeeyes - yeah, I agree with that.

    by Jake Pantlin

  • Oct. 14, 2011, 12:49 p.m. CST


    by Jon Forbing

    Exactly. And atheron, you absolutely have the right to disagree. My issue is with people who obviously just hate a specific author (this isn't an AICN-exclusive problem, this pisses me off on every site I go to) and still read all their shit, just so they can be righteously idignant about it in the comments. I'm sorry if it came off like I don't think people should have their own opinions, but it seems like you (a person who has seen the film and has reason to disagree other than just being a trolling dickwad) are the exception rather than the rule.

  • Oct. 14, 2011, 12:51 p.m. CST


    by Darth_Kong

    The only info I know about Eric Red is what is posted on wikipedia. The whole car accident thing if it's even accurate. I don't know if that affected his career or not. It's kind of a mystery.

  • Oct. 14, 2011, 1:02 p.m. CST

    "...I’m very definitely Harry Knowles, creator of AICN…

    by Jake Pantlin

    "...There are times where I have to wear different hats. I’m very definitely Harry Knowles, creator of AICN… but I’m also the co-creator/founder/programmer of FANTASTIC FEST, I wear a producer hat on several projects and I’m beginning to get writer gigs for Comics & other industries, but…" Blah, blah, blah... Having re-read this opening paragraph, I just fucking cringe. What exactly are you trying to say here, Harry? What do any of these points have to do with "The Thing"? Are you trying to tell us all just how cool and important you are? This is one of the reasons I hate film festivals run by pretentious geeks ( all know the ones... the ones that hold on to the mic and won't shut up during Q&A, when all the audience wants is to hear the Actors and Director talk, or see the actual film.) Harry comes across as one of those types of geeks.

  • Oct. 14, 2011, 1:02 p.m. CST


    by Philvis

    You have to look at it this way; If Harry likes a movie, it still may be something we say is crap. However, if Harry doesn't like a movie, that is a good indicator to steer clear, because how often does he come on here and say he doesn't care for a movie? If he does, I definitely take note.

  • Oct. 14, 2011, 1:05 p.m. CST

    I'm just going to stop reading Harry's reviews... lol

    by Jake Pantlin

    I didn't realize until today just how much his reviews piss me off. I'll stick with Quint and Capone. At least they know how to use spellcheck. ;)

  • Oct. 14, 2011, 1:25 p.m. CST

    You are talking out of your arse

    by sg

    You have no idea about film-making do you ? The creative team behind every movie always reference reality ... nature being the best reference for most effects. How can you say the FX in Carpenter's Thing look real ... they look and move like animatronics or stop-motion animation. In the 2011 film the actors did act with puppets, so the integration was actually believable. CG artists do not direct the films, directors make bad films. And CG can do organic ... Planet of the Apes and Harry Potter 8 had excellent organic work. I'm not saying that it isn't hard as Tron proved, but this is what I don't understand as this film used the performances of the actors with CG bodies and still you complain. We are not all computer nerds, we are striving to make the best effects we can with the material we're given and I think Harry's review is biased and moronic. Also take off the rose tinted specs just because it's an animatronic doesn't make it good either.

  • Oct. 14, 2011, 1:46 p.m. CST

    A well-written review.

    by david starling

    “Well, shit, it wasn’t THAT bad.” Well… rewatch Carpenter’s original – and think about all the things that Carpenter’s eye caught that they didn’t here.

  • Oct. 14, 2011, 1:46 p.m. CST

    To the stop motion/claymation defenders

    by GQSioux

    If you know it's there, it sucks....

  • Oct. 14, 2011, 2:19 p.m. CST

    I don't know what version you saw...

    by Mo_Rephus

    but, it wasn't the one I just got back from. Why did the thing attack the guys on the helicopter? Because it was about to be exposed, Harry. Either you didn't see the scene play out the way I did in the theatrical version or you've been in this business too long. It was CLEAR & OBVIOUS...nothing vague about it. It knew someone knew, it knew the chopper was about to land back at the Norwegian camp, so it did what it thought was it's best course of action. Perhaps it thought it could get to the pilot(s) in time and take the chopper to McMurdo itself, who knows? But it OBVIOUSLY did what it did because it WASN'T headed for McMurdo after all. As for your suggestion the last half is like a slasher film, I fail to see your attempted comparison. If by that you mean the thing wanders the camp for a grand total of 5 to 10 minutes searching for someone after it's been discovered and attempts to take over as many of those left as it can,, I never saw a machete or a chainsaw and two are you again expecting the film to follow everything in Carpenter's film even after complaining that it mimicked that film in it's last half (which is not true either)? Somewhat hypocritical of you, don't you think? I enjoyed the film. I'm ready to see it again. I'm currently watching Carpenter's film and find they both go together quite well. I find myself smiling and getting excited all over again with this film now that I see all those things (no pun intended) in the Norwegian camp. I find myself going, "Cool! Now I know how that got that way!" I'm not annoyed at anything because there's nothing to get pissy about. The stuff in the new film designed to explain the stuff in the old one was well thought out. Is it perfect? No, of course not. No one should go into this film expecting something as great as Carpenter's film. Lightning in a bottle that can never be captured again. Perhaps it's time to pass the torch, Harry. You should move on into producing full time since you clearly think you can do better and hand the reigns off to another here at AICN. You obviously cannot view films the way you once could. You're hypocritically and unfairly comparing and complaining about this film and it's lack of perfection, yet at the same time you excuse Lucas' further tampering with the Star Wars films (original trilogy) despite the fact the newly added (and indeed the 1997 & 2004) CG is inexcusably of poorer quality than the effects in this new Thing film. Speaking of the CG in The Thing, I found it, for the most part to be quite good and only found a couple of instances where it was a bit shoddy. It looked great overall and matched VERY well with the practical effects (which were excellent) and matched the style and look of the ones in the 1982 film. That and your complaints about the effects in the one you saw, which you simultaneously admit weren't finished, clearly indicate a problem on your part and an inability to be objective anymore. Not to mention, once again, hypocrisy. It was GOOD. I ENJOYED it and I want to see it again...soon. Was it as good as the 1982 film? No. Was it a fun and entertaining film? Yes. It answered many questions (whether you wanted to ask them or not is irrelevant...I'm talking to you, Capone) and did so in a way that could easily have been embarrassingly wrong, but wasn't. And Harry, when a person complains about a character's facial hair not being exactly as they remembered it, considering we're talking two different actors 30 years apart, it's kinda pathetic. I'd bet you didn't even think about the fact that the thing burned outside with the split looking head looks less burned in the 1982 film because it's still alive and was attempting to heal itself. See it again, Harry. And this time make it the actual finished theatrical version. Then go home and watch the 1982 film right after it. Quite fun and enjoyable. I have NO complaints.

  • Oct. 14, 2011, 2:33 p.m. CST

    No one asked for these crappy remakes from hollywood

    by Neil

    But idiot people that pay and go see anything they put out tells Hollywood to keep making this shit. They're about to run out of all the somewhat popular 80's horror movies to remake. Ugh! It's a sad and embarrassing era for Hollywood.

  • Oct. 14, 2011, 3:47 p.m. CST

    Saw it - Liked it.

    by Dark Knight Lite

    And unlike you twats, I saw Carpenter's version on opening day in the theater. That the CG was dodgy in places is my biggest gripe. I wish modern cinema would embrace practical effects again for horror/creature films. The film is entertaining and doesn't sully the reputation of the '82 version. I mean, Harry, of course it's no GODZILLA ('98) or ARMAGEDDON, but it was a good way to blow $8.

  • Oct. 14, 2011, 4 p.m. CST

    What I will do in 4 months

    by Dark Knight Lite

    Buy the Blu-Ray, watch both films back-to-back, and exclaim: The first half was pretty good, but the second half, when they got to the American camp, IT WAS AMAZING! And the music got better too!

  • Oct. 14, 2011, 4:08 p.m. CST

    Harry didn't like it?

    by Motoko Kusanagi

    You know what that means, old time AICN readers, don't you? ;-) btw, no offense :-)

  • He is also super slim, athletic and is an authority on movies too. Sorry, a bunch of pigs just went flying past my window. What a load of shit. Knowles has spouted some crap on this site before but this latest stuff takes the biscuit. Firstly, it is obvious to anyone who isnt a red-headed semi literate obese hick from Pigsknuckle, Austin that Knowles will write ANYTHING as long as the studios reward him sufficiently. He has a long history of writing overt puff pieces as have other contributors to HIS site (yes, Knowles correctly points out that is his site so it is clear he dictates to his contributors that they have to apease the studios that pay for this site). As to being

  • Oct. 14, 2011, 4:16 p.m. CST

    Knowles writing gigs (continued)

    by Mike J

    (apologies my last post got posted before I was done) As to Knowles supposed writing gigs, this is a guy who can barely grunt so who on Earth is going to hire him to do any professional writing. Knowes' writing is so poor I doubt he ever graduated. He writes like he talks, Stupidly and badly. I conceed Knowles knows a fair bit about movie posters and film related toys, but thats about it. He's an arse in every other respect and the only reason he is known as much as he is because he got their first. If aicn was started today it wouldn't survive more than 3 months, no matter how much Knowles was willing to write a glowing review of a shit film just because he was remunerated by the studio.

  • Oct. 14, 2011, 4:19 p.m. CST



    Here's an idea for a double-feature: Watch "Inception". After the movie, you'll probably be thinking, "What an entertaining action movie, and an ingenious twist on the heist flick genre!" Then watch "The Cell" and realize how the "Inception" filmmakers wasted a great opportunity to include dreamlike imagery, fantastic visuals, and manifestations of psychological states and concepts in their movie that's supposed to take place in dreams. (Note: I am open to the interpretation that the lack of fantastic and dreamlike imagery was a deliberate choice to reference Nolan's reputation for "realistic" films. I think Inception is, on one level [dreams within dreams, etc.] a metaphor for filmmaking. People talk about how Nolan has made "realistic" Batman movies, so it is possible that the plain-jane "real world" appearance of the dreamscapes was another reference to Nolan's style of filmmaking, though I don't think it is likely).

  • Oct. 14, 2011, 4:19 p.m. CST

    =To the CGI defenders:=

    by KilliK

    Do the hospital scene in T2 where T1000 passes through the bars,using only practical effects.i dare you.

  • Oct. 14, 2011, 4:21 p.m. CST

    The 80s had more perfect movies than maybe any other decade

    by Billy_D_Williams

    The Thing E.T. Raiders The Blues Brothers American Werewolf in London Back To The Future Predator The Fly Platoon Die Hard The Empire Strikes Back And I do mean PERFECT, as in, can't be improved upon, every aspect perfectly executed. (PS - I'm probably missing a few movies) They simply DO NOT make movies like that anymore.

  • Oct. 14, 2011, 4:22 p.m. CST

    you forgot Robocop

    by KilliK

  • Oct. 14, 2011, 4:22 p.m. CST

    THE CELL and INCEPTION have similar elements


    Protagonist has a mission that requires them to go inside someone's mind...and INCEPTION might be the better film overall, but THE CELL has the better manifestation of mental constructs.

  • Oct. 14, 2011, 4:22 p.m. CST


    by Billy_D_Williams

    in Hollywood you fail UPWARDS

  • Oct. 14, 2011, 4:37 p.m. CST

    I watched SCOTT PILGRIM yesterday...

    by Chris Moody

    ...and I still can't believe the morons who thought that was a good movie. It was very...very....boring.

  • Oct. 14, 2011, 4:48 p.m. CST

    killik, thank you

    by Billy_D_Williams

    cant believe I forgot Verhoven's masterpiece

  • Oct. 14, 2011, 4:52 p.m. CST

    the 80s was that great nexus point

    by Billy_D_Williams

    between art and was a good 50/50 balance...commercial filmmaking had just started for the most part (thanks to the one two punch of Jaws and Star Wars) and hadn't yet turned into the cash cow factory we see today, where today it's more like 90/10 commercial being the dominant side. Back before the 80s, way back in the 1900s between the start of filmmaking and the 70s is was more like 90/10 with the artistic side being the most i think we're set for some sort of restart soon.

  • Oct. 14, 2011, 4:54 p.m. CST

    He LIKED Emmerich G◯dzilla for fucks sΔke!!!

    by the Green Gargantua

    FṴṴṴṴṴṴckin GIN⊙.....

  • Harry seems to be a mortal enemy of IMDB and checking out the people involved in movies. Brian Cox is in Alien, Angela Badalamenti wrote the score for Drive, and Refn's previous movie was Bronson. Talk about sloopy jornalism.

  • After Harry's brinaless gushings of Abrams TRek and Super 8 and him falling asleep during INCEPTION, his opinion on movies are quite suspicious, to put it midly. However, saying that, it is not very hard for me to beleive this movie is not all that good. I'm affraid the writing was in the wall. Everything i knew about this movie just striked me the wrong way. and now it seems my fears were proved not too wrong. Oh well! Still, there is DRIVE and TINKER TAILOR SOLDIER SPY, so not all is lost.

  • after all life is a circle.

  • Oct. 14, 2011, 5:43 p.m. CST

    billy_d_williams, wrong that nexus happened in the 1970s

    by AsimovLives

    By the 80s, the ballanced tipped very dramatically in favour of dumbed down commerciality. The 80s where the begining of the end. The 80s was the era of dumb. The era when shit started to reign supreme.

  • Oct. 14, 2011, 5:50 p.m. CST

    My review (spoilers)

    by I am not a number

    Just got back from the movie and I definitely did not see the same movie that Harry did. As someone else noted, the thing in the helicopter only changes when it realizes that the chopper is being grounded. It is not unreasonable for it to figure that someone figured out its identity. It is not like it changed in mid-flight after having safely gotten away from the camp. Harry makes it sound like this was that shitty FOG remake (which I HATED), and it was nowhere near that. And I am a much bigger fan of JC's THE THING than I am of JC's THE FOG. In short, it is not as good as John Carpenter's film (I doubt anyone is surprised by that), but I would rate it around 7.5/10. There are a lot of problems with it though, but I still thought it was a fun ride despite them. First, there are a lot of red shirts in the film, so it is difficult to keep track of who is getting eaten/absorbed/shot (at the end, they showed the guy who cut his wrists and I have no idea who this was in the cast, or if I missed a scene showing him actually kill himself. They just sorta find him). As a result, it is hard to feel much of anything for most of the cast. Also hard to tell how many people are actually still alive at a given time (who grabbed Lars, by the way?) Second, the movie copies the wrong parts of JC's version. If there is one thing they should have copied, it was the minimalist score (I was more energized by the couple times they use the original theme than when they went with the more intrusive music). There were a number of scenes where I was taken out of the film because I was reminded that the same thing happened in the original. For example, one character gets attacked by the thing and gets torched with the flamethrower while he's propped up against the wall, and I couldn't help but think how this looked exactly like when Windows got incinerated. And the obvious callbacks to the blood test scene (nobody got tied to a couch though), and the guy with the flamethrower - assumed to be the alien -breaking into the building after being locked out, and the human guy getting shot in the head, and the first attempt to test by mixing blood getting foiled before it could be attempted, etc. Some of the problems are simply a consequence of the original film existing. For example, there are a limited number of ways in which you could tell who is human according to the rules set up in the 1982 version, so even when they change bits you are left thinking - oh, this is how they are going to do the blood test scene (instead of checking by blood, check their teeth. I still found this scene to be tense, even though it didn't top MacCready finding out which blood was not human). You can almost picture the writers saying that they need to come up with something different so as not to completely copy one of the best scenes from the first movie. And I'm not a fan of the whole bit with it tossing out fillings - as I always understand it, the creature takes over the cells of your body , so why would it expel metal that was attached to the body? It was a niggling concern that was at the back of my mind, but I guess it doesn't necessarily contradict anything we saw in the first movie (nobody with a nose ring, etc got taken over so the issue would not arise). The CGI is nowhere near as bad as people have been saying. There were only a couple shots where I noticed it being subpar, and I was prepared for bad CGI based on early reviews. I thought the effects were pretty good over all, though I felt like they should have focused more on the transformations as it was easier to see what was happening in the original one. I also did not see the characters who were taken over actually acting like they were the monster, as Harry said. The helicopter scene goes out of its way to paint one character as the monster only to make it be someone else (if you saw the commercials, this reveal was ruined). It's not like you just look for the shifty-eyed guy to know who the monster is. I can only think of one moment where you could largely guess who the monster was (during the flamethrower showdown). So yes, being really familiar with the original film can drive you nuts when scenes don't quite match up to the original (the creature MacCready and Doc find with the split face did not look exactly the same, which kinda bugged me), but that aspect is rather minor for the most part. I did like their take on how that split-faced form of the thing came to be - I had thought of it as just one face split in two, rather than a merging of two faces. I thought that sequence was really disturbing. If you were unfamiliar with the original film, you probably wouldn't have most of the problems I (or Harry) did. Still, they didn't prevent me from enjoying it. Though what are we supposed to think Winstead's character is doing during the events of the original movie?

  • Oct. 14, 2011, 6:06 p.m. CST

    SPOT-ON, i am not a number

    by Dark Knight Lite

    Well done. I guess she got in the Snowcat and drove away towing the other one, so she wouldn't get pinned for multiple homicide. Or maybe JJ's Enterprise beamed her to planet Coincidence, where the Thing grew big and chased the acne-scarred Shatner Shemp into the waiting arms of Spock. That's the only explanations I got.

  • Oct. 14, 2011, 6:17 p.m. CST

    So it's a prequel to STAR TREK as well!

    by I am not a number

    Wow, I did not see THAT one coming, dark knight lite! (I hated the STAR TREK reboot, FWIW) Though you are right, she'd likely have had to move both of the vehicles to explain why we don't see them in the 1982 version when they find the spaceship.

  • Oct. 14, 2011, 6:24 p.m. CST

    even though harry's opinion of films is bizzarre at times


    I'm sad to see "warmest load of shit on the screen" in the title. Of course, I'm not gonna read this spoilerific review until I see the movie.

  • Oct. 14, 2011, 6:52 p.m. CST

    Remember when Harry liked Godzilla?

    by Randy

    Good times

  • Oct. 14, 2011, 7:06 p.m. CST

    IT SUCKS ASS. And Carpenter continuity gets FUCKED AT THE START

    by Big Dumb Ape

    Holy shit was this thing (no pun intended) CRAPTACULAR. And for all the talk of how accurate they were going to be tying it to the Carpenter version, right from the start they fuck things up. Bear with me here... In the original 50's version, there is an iconic sci-fi movie moment when the heroes discover the crashed spaceship. They are walking around on the ice field, at which point Dr. Carrington -- the arrogant scientist -- turns to Captain Hendry (Kenneth Tobey) and says... DR. CARRINGTON: Captain, may I suggest that we spread out, to try and determine the size and shape." CAPT. HENDRY: Right. (yelling) Spread out, everybody! We're gonna try to figure out the shape of this thing!" The music swells ominously as the men fan out and take their positions...they raise their arms to indicate the shape... And Scotty, the newspaper reporter, says: "Holy Cats. Hey--" Captain Hendry: "It's almost--" Staff Sergeant: "Yeah, it's almost a perfect--" Scientist: "It is. It's round." Staff Sergeant: "We finally got one." Scotty: "We found a flying saucer!!!" Because this was 1951, to uncover the saucer they then used the standard military procedure. They placed thermite charges and detonated them, to melt the ice. Unfortunately, the charges cause the saucer to explode as well, thus destroying it. Dr. Carrington and the team of scientists are upset, thinking the greatest discovery in history has gone up in smoke. But a moment later a Geiger counter starts beeping and it leads them to the Thing (James Arness) still buried in the ice. To make sure nothing goes wrong again, they then use axes to literally cut out the infamous ice block...and you know how the rest of the story goes. IN THE CARPENTER VERSION...he threw in a fun tip of the hat to the 50's film. When MacReady and Doc visit the destroyed Norwegian camp, they grab documents and video tapes. Back at the American base, we then see MacReady at one point watching the tapes and CLEARLY SEE THE NORWEGIANS FINDING AND UNCOVERING THE SHIP EXACTLY THE SAME AS THE FIFTIES VERSION. Yep, we see all of the Norwegians out on the ice. We see them fanning out. And we even see the freaking explosion as THEIR charges go off... ...Which actually serves a PURPOSE in Carpenter version because it SPECIFICALLY sets up MacReady's line later on, when he visits the crash site and he is literally standing on the COMPLETELY UNCOVERED and DAMAGED saucer and comments "Jesus, and these guys blew it up." So, of course I'm waiting to see this played out in the new version. Waiting to see them uncover the ship and accidentally blow it up. But do they? NO. Instead they TUNNEL DOWN to the ship. At which point I said "What the FUCK???" Which also makes no sense at all because why would the ship be in an underground cavern? It CRASH LANDED and formed a crater on impact, at which point...100,000 years later...snow and ice would have naturally WIND SWEPT OVER IT and thus buried it. But it wouldn't have "caverned" it. There wouldn't be any freaking giant AIR GAP. The ice and snow would be right across it's entire hull -- hence the 100% natural and logical reason WHY you had to uncover it. But I guess for the sequel some moron decided "Hey, let's have it already uncovered and ready to serve!" Which reminds me -- and I know it's a typical movie gimmick-- but it also cracks me up that for the big reveal, even though we're in a huge ass UNDERGROUND cavern, the lighting is BRIGHT AS DAY so the characters can see the full ship. But you know what? For a while I thought that maybe...just MAYBE...they were going to get creative. Later in the prequel, when Lars shows Kate the box of grenades, I thought to myself: "Ah, they're gonna go for the stereotypical big explosive finale. So somehow she's gonna end up BACK at the crash site, and she's gonna use grenades to blow up the ship. And THAT'S how it gets destroyed." And sure enough that's SORT of what they do -- in the finale we see SOME explosions going off. The only problem is there's no really great SFX moment that shows the WHOLE SHIP going up in flames, where we see it's EXTERIOR being ravaged, thus establishing the damage seen in the Carpenter version. Then again, in terms of fuck ups, even though the engines get revved, we also never see the ship actually breaking OUT of the cavern to completely uncover itself -- thus creating the wide open crater that MacReady and the Doc visit in Carpenter's film. Do I have more bitches? You bet. A million of them. But considering that they blew it right from the start, that's when I realized -- as I sat there in the theater -- that all the hype about connecting it to the Carpenter version was a lot of bullshit. And I'll warn you -- it was bullshit. Most of the other things that "tie" the two films together are equally stupid or downright creatively lazy. As Harry put it, this really is a warmed over piece of shit. And it will leave a bad taste in your mouth because it is sooooooo fucking disappointing when you think about all the cool stuff they COULD have done...the creative choices they COULD have made...but they totally dropped the ball on. Bottom line: WAIT FOR CABLE OR NETFLIX.

  • Oct. 14, 2011, 7:13 p.m. CST

    Just Saw It...

    by BoggyCreekBeast

    Not that bad. Not that good, but better than seeing Paranormal Activity and its PG-13-don't-scare-the-kids-too-much attitude.

  • Oct. 14, 2011, 7:14 p.m. CST

    "...but I loved that he was Dutch…"

    by NoQuarter

    When I first read this, I thought it meant that the movie was being directed by Jay Karnes!

  • Oct. 14, 2011, 7:46 p.m. CST

    Search YouTube for

    by Keith

    "The MacReady". Also "The Thing Musical". Both excellent.

  • Oct. 14, 2011, 7:49 p.m. CST

    I'm probably missing a few movies

    by Keith

    The Terminator.

  • Oct. 14, 2011, 8:05 p.m. CST

    Good movie (not great) 7 outta 10

    by shanedugg2000

    Just came back from it and I agree bang on with a "i am not a number"'s review above... To compare it to Blues Brother 2000 which is a total piece of shit is really unfair. This movie is a lot of fun and is much better than the recent horror stuff Hollywood has been churning out. The fact of the matter is that I would call John Carpenter's The Thing one of my favorite horror movies of all time. Carpenter was at the top of his game, the soundtrack was bang on, Kurt Russell and the case were awesome and Rob Bottin showed me things as a kid that my eyes hasn't seen and my brain couldn't even comprehend. The movie was - and is - just plain amazing. Of course this one is not in the same universe as the first (how could it be?) but if you want a decent time at the theater, I think any genre fan will have felt they got their money's worth with this one. Harry was waaaaaaaaaaaaaay too hard on it. Just my 2 cents.

  • In summary, this movie sucked. Too much CGI. That's all I have to say. And I didn't care for the characters. It was so much scarier in the original when that dude's head turned into a crab because I cared about that character. I didn't want any of them to die. In this, they were basically all generic Norwegians. It was also too big. It should've been a smaller movie. And I didn't want to see the inside of the ship. We were also forced to sit through the process of watching the characters learn about what the alien is and what it does and of course there had to be a "suspenseful" scene where the characters are doing some sort of test to learn who's a Thing and who's not a Thing. And all the fricking Things looked like necromorphs, especially since most of them were CGI! Now, if this was a Dead Space movie I wouldn't be complaining, but this is a Thing movie. They did so much in the last one without CG and it looked great. Why'd they have to go the CG route? I wouldn't be complaining if it was Avatar CGI, but it was GI Joe CGI so it stuck out like a sore thumb. And the CG blizzard and CG breaths looked terrible, too.

  • Oct. 14, 2011, 8:51 p.m. CST

    The music was good, though.

    by Yelsaeb

    Marco Beltrami turned in another great score. It'd been great if Morricone could've returned but Beltrami is a pretty good subsititute.

  • Oct. 14, 2011, 9:19 p.m. CST

    Great review, Harry.

    by fathergreedosarducci

    You keep at it week after week and month after month, despite being caught in a classic catch-22 scenario: if you like a movie, you're a sellout; but if you blast a movie, it's because they didn't give you a set visit, or whatever. Haters gonna hate. Do what you do. As I've said before, your pieces here reflect a deeply personal review style, and it isn't for all tastes (or even most)-- but it's yours, and I'd rather read AICN reviews than the output of someone who's swallowed the AP Style Book whole. And you're 100% right about The Thing: I would not say Carpenter's film is above remaking (any film can be improved on, by a genuinely better set of filmmakers than the ones who went before), but the material deserves a hell of a lot more than this. Ramona Flowers vs. Invaders From Mars is just not a film any thoughtful human being would say needs to be made, much less seen. That said, Harry, you're still completely wrong about Inception. :)

  • Oct. 14, 2011, 9:26 p.m. CST

    Unintentional clue in Prequel to the end of the 82 film

    by GPolice

    I just saw it today and like a few others here, I thought it was an entertaining film, though not of the same calibre as Carpenter's movie. But unlike other, lesser sequels, it does not have a negative impact on Carpenter's version, and can be enjoyed as a companion piece or ignored, equally. SPOILERS In this prequel, it's established that fillings and earrings are expelled during the absorption/transformation into THE THING. Using this logic, that would mean that Childs in the earlier film could NOT have been infected, as he wears an earring in that film, which is also present in the final scene with MacReady. So in effect, this prequel "clears" Childs and removes the ambiguity that he could be a creature. And since MacReady had just destroyed the Blair Creature, it probably means that neither of them were THINGS. As far as the poster above mentioning how the Carpenter version shows the Norwegians blowing up the ice around the ship, but the prequel does not, it's quite possible that this DID occur after the initial finding of the ship in the cavern, but just wasn't shown onscreen, before the scene when they arrive back at the base with the frozen block containing the creature. Just my take.

  • Oct. 14, 2011, 9:54 p.m. CST

    That "nexus point" thing is the whole ball of wax

    by matineer

    Can't say exactly when, though. Things don't look well for the Robocop remake.

  • Oct. 14, 2011, 9:55 p.m. CST

    Harry is way off

    by A

    Just seen the new Thing prequel. First of all, carpenters Thing was a masterpiece, and will never be duplicated. This new Thing does go the extra mile to fit into that carpenter universe. 1) The creature effects do fit into the look and style of the 1980's movie. The effects will convince you that the original designers of the creatures worked on this prequel. 2) This movie pays its respect to the 1980's Thing, you can see it in the base camp sets, and the props. 3) There is NO character copycat of McMurphy in this prequel. Something I was glad to see. 4) True, the characters development is not as strong as the original, but you don't need it to be. The writing is solid. I am a huge fan of the original, and this does fill a specific part of the Thing timeline nicely. For a prequel, they did a damn fine job. I would give it an 8.5 out of 10.

  • Oct. 14, 2011, 10:13 p.m. CST

    zing asi. yeah hes terrible. good ole Harry.

    by dahveed1972

  • Oct. 14, 2011, 10:14 p.m. CST

    where did they film this?

    by dahveed1972

  • Oct. 14, 2011, 10:41 p.m. CST

    Just walked out of "The Thing."

    by notcher

    It was THAT bad! Fuck that movie and it's director. No fucking heart, soul or care was put into the making of that movie. FUCK them ALL!!!

  • Oct. 14, 2011, 10:46 p.m. CST


    by A

    LOL, Yes, it True... The awesome character of McMurphy from "One Flew over the Cuckoo's Nest" is not recreated in this prequel. And neither is MacReady's character.

  • Oct. 14, 2011, 11:30 p.m. CST


    by kidrobot71

    You are one of the most bought and paid for people on the internet. Nobody is fooled Harry, nobody.

  • Oct. 14, 2011, 11:36 p.m. CST

    Harry is incoherent as usual.

    by LF Martinez

    Been visiting this site for a long time. I used to post back in the day under a different pseudonym (back when the Star Wars prequels were being produced) and have resisted the urge for a long time. I used to read Harry's reviews with regularity; however, for the last several years I have found his reviews to be the worst kind of rambling, tangential pulp. While I appreciate there are sites out there for movie lovers like AICN, and I give him a lot of credit for creating what used to be the gold-standard for movie information, I simply don't think Harry has any credibility any more. I took my seventeen and thirteen year-old boys to see this after school today and we were all pleasantly surprised. Teenagers are difficulty to please sometimes, and usually they come away with a harsh word about some truly excellent films, but we were talking about the scenes we enjoyed this evening, and this film gave us a lot to talk about while driving home. While not on the level of Carpenter's remake, it did nothing to detract from his brilliant horror piece and it had some excellent entertainment value. I thought the aliens were well conceived, and for the most part, well rendered. I can't think of any movie with CGI that doesn't have one or two scenes of jarringingly obvious effects-work, including Avatar, Rise of the Planet of the Apes, and this film was no different. Furthermore, Harry has a poor track record recently, particularly when he promotes movies like the Green Lantern, Cowboys & Aliens just to name a couple of pretty foul films. I felt pretty dumb watching Cowboys & Aliens with my wife and another couple this summer. While I am trying to not get too personal, it has felt to me like Harry has been losing his touch for a while. Usually I will read one or two sentences of his reviews and think to myself, "There he goes again, off writing two and a half pages of backstory about his action figures, when he should be focusing on the film itself." If you have reservations about watching this film, and hold Harry's reviews in high regard, than you probably won't like this film. However, if you find Harry's reviews to be immature and incongruous with your tastes, you might want to give it a try, and you may come out of it pleasantly surprised like I did. Harry doesn't know everything, and isn't the arbiter of taste for the movie-loving world.

  • Oct. 14, 2011, 11:36 p.m. CST

    Harry Is The King Of BS

    by kidrobot71

    The reality of Harry Knowles is that he dislikes that which it is easy to dislike. For example. Everybody knew the Thing prequel wasn't going to be great, Harry would get no real heat for not liking that plus it isn't a big Hollywood movie. So it was easy for him to put it down. When it's a movie that isn't good but the "geeks" he supposedly speaks for would roast him alive for not loving, he gives it a blow job. If the movie is a giant Hollywood production with lots of of presents and free shit, then he gives it a glowing review because he wants to be down with the inner circle of Hollywood. Why else does he start a review with his resume and his "Look at all I do" line. Harry you don't stand for us and most of us come to the site to read Quint's reviews or some of the other writers. Your opinions are meaningless to anybody who wants an unbiased review. Want proof You liked Armageddon You liked the Nightmare On Elm Street remake You liked Green Lantern (REALLY?) You gave Lucas all kinds of shit about the prequels but then came out defending him with the bluray release?

  • Oct. 15, 2011, midnight CST


    by LF Martinez

    I don't need your tips on parenting thank you. How dare you suggest that just because we enjoyed this film, that I don't love my children. You are an ass. I don't rely upon my children's reactions to determine if I like or dislike a film, either. I was illustrating the point that we thought it was an entertaining film, and that people should exercise their free will and see a movie of their own volition, rather than letting someone with credibility issues write their opinion for them. Frankly, it shows how little you know of parenting to suggest that my children, both of them young men with their own well conceived opinions, are of the same demographic as young children who would enjoy Shrek. What, are you like, eleven or something? A sheep in Harry's fold. Don't worry, one day you will grow up and have your own opinions. It's okay. Mental dominance, indeed.

  • Oct. 15, 2011, 12:01 a.m. CST

    Just saw it,...really enjoyed it!

    by thot

    I saw The Thing when it hit theaters in 1982. I was a high school senior. It remains one of my all-time favorite films of any genre. I had high hopes for the prequel and it didn't disappoint! Sure, it hits the same beats as the '82 version, but still manages to be a load of fun and pretty damned creepy at the same time. I was glad to see that they answered many questions teased at in the '82 version. Don't get Harry's hate at all. I will probably get in on DVD. Thumbs up!!!

  • Oct. 15, 2011, 12:27 a.m. CST

    If viewed in a vacuum, it works as a fun little monster movie...

    by Shut the Fuck up Donny

    As a prequel to John Carpenter's The Thing, it fell far short... The pacing was inconsistent. The special effects and creature design felt like they came from a high-budget Resident Evil or Silent Hill game (although the autopsy scene towards the beginning was quite well done). The acting was decent, but the actors never came together as an ensemble. I wouldn't see it again.

  • Oct. 15, 2011, 1:07 a.m. CST


    by bloody_shit_on_my_dick

    So you must have worked on the VFX for this film right? Is that why you're so butt hurt? Harry said the CGI is shit and you get personally offended? Well guess what? He's right. The CGI is shit, movie is shit, and your life must be shit too. You should drown yourself in a toilet full of diarrhea for producing the WORST FUCKING CGI EVER FUCKING SEEN BY HUMAN EYES. You fucking tool. Eat shit and die.

  • Oct. 15, 2011, 1:08 a.m. CST

    harry thought Superman Returns was just as good as Superman the Movie

    by kabookieslap

    So that tells you something. When he hates something, I know it is good and this was a great film. Don't know what film you saw Harry

  • Oct. 15, 2011, 1:09 a.m. CST


    by Jon Voights Ballsack

    You agree with Harry's review because you can feel it's true? First off, change your fuckin' login because I don't think those words mean what you think they do. You reference the CGI blizzard as a massive negative point twice. The word blizzard is never used in the film. An earlier poster used the word instead of the more accurate snowstorm, which is something you commonly get in Antarctica. When you're done looking up word combinations for a new login, maybe you can research what happens to water when it gets cold. You say everything you've seen and heard about this movie stinks, completely disregarding at least five positive reviews posted in this very thread. Are you assuming that every post that doesn't agree with Harry is a plant? They aren't (well, maybe that one guy). The film is solid. I will never claim that we NEEDED to know what happened at the Norwegian camp, but this film is far better than what we would have gotten if it was just a cash grab remake (christ, can you imagine what we'd have to endure if Platinum Dunes was involved). There is absolutely some clumsy CGI in the film. There's also some really well done CGI that complements some surprisingly grisly practical effects (the autopsy scene appears to be 100 percent practical, and it's pretty nasty in parts). But let's stop putting the first film on a pedestal as the gold standard for practical effects. Some of those effects don't hold up, and unfortunately for Carpenter that includes the Wilford Brimley Diabeetus Monster at the end. While we're at it, can we stop holding the first film up as a masterpiece of horror? Carpenter's film is brilliant for exactly 90 minutes. It collapses when they go to perform the test on Blair, only to find that he A. busted out then B. went down into a conveniently located ice cavern directly beneath the shed and began construction on a new ship. This was a BAD plot detail that escapes plausibility. The events of the film unfold over 24 to 36 hours. Even if Blair could multiply himself into a thousand little things, the condition of that reconstructed ship is just silly. And of course then we have to deal with the aforementioned Diabeetus monster. The ending is still perfect, though I really never believed that either man was infected. All that really mattered was that they didn't know. Look, I love the film - my Laserdisc copy was signed by Carpenter back in '96 or so - but no amount of love can overlook the fact that it loses steam right after the blood test scene. It was enough to have Blair escape the shed. Throwing in underground tunnels that no one knew about and makeshift flying saucers was just unnecessary junk that detracted more than it contributed. Oh, and lay off the enter key, mentaldominance. It makes your posts too easy to identify and immediately scroll past. Better to not give the reader an early warning signal.

  • Oct. 15, 2011, 1:11 a.m. CST


    by kabookieslap

    Or I think they blew a hole into the ice to go into the cavern the ship was in. They dug that tunnel too fast. Had to be what you see being blown up in the videos in Carpentes film

  • Oct. 15, 2011, 1:22 a.m. CST

    wow,the plants are working over-time for this movie.

    by KilliK

    how pathetic.

  • I agree with Harry,a dn the 1 st half of the film is interesting and then it dives into the the standard mister horror slasher flick and becomes paint by numbers. I enjoyed it and while I the cgi was obvious it was still homage to the original. I wish they had used pratical effects.

  • I agree with Harry. The 1st 30 to 40 mins sets it up good and their was a chance to deliver and good flick worthy of it's namesake but it didn't and it lost the chance to become that. I'm just betting the suits had the 2nd half rewritten to be a cliched slasher horror flick that is paint by numbers. I still enjoyed it though.

  • Oct. 15, 2011, 2 a.m. CST

    re: plants

    by LF Martinez

    What is pathetic is the moment someone voices the opinion that a film isn't as bad as the prevailing forum suggests, they are labeled a "plant." What is equally pathetic is the limited imagination of the talkback forum when the conversation devolves into labeling and name-calling simply because a divergent opinion is voiced. We can all be part of the angry mob, with our downturned thumbs, or we can allow a dissenting opinion that postulates that this film may actually be worth watching. If every reviewer saw the film said the film was trash, that would say something; however, there are enough positive reviews on the net and in this forum to suggest that it may not deserve the lambasting it is receiving in this forum. You may hate the film, but some thought it was entertaining. Liking the film should not automatically arouse the suspicions that a positive reviewer is a "plant." The whole "plant" monologue is pathetic, almost as pathetic as the CGI vs. practical effects debate that is so predictable and tiresome in these forums. Don't the majority of you have anything new to say? By the way, there were both CGI and practical effects in this film. But most of you wouldn't know because you take Harry's bait every time (re: mentaldominance, "I believe Harry because it feels true"...sheesh)...hook, line, and sinker. Now I know why I don't visit the Kingdom of the Flies (aka AICN) very much anymore.

  • Oct. 15, 2011, 2:11 a.m. CST

    And hello. Carpenter had a longer stop motion animation scene

    by kabookieslap

    he cut it because it looked stop motion. He has said that if he had CGI back then he would have used it. Stop fucking bagging on CGI you hacks. Here is the stop motion deleted scene (well 2 shots made it into the final film)

  • Oct. 15, 2011, 2:13 a.m. CST

    dreadmethod before you call people plants have you seen the film?

    by kabookieslap

    I did at 12 this afternoon and I have the ticket stub to prove it. And harry liked Emmerich's Godzilla

  • Oct. 15, 2011, 2:29 a.m. CST

    And the reason why the third act is the way it is

    by kabookieslap

    is because The creature knows it is made. It wants to get back to it's ship, but it also knows the humans are actively hunting it and armed. so that period the film is in real time. Remember that this film takes half the days Carpenters did in the timeline. By the end of the film the ship is rendered useless, so when it gets to the American camp, it has to hide and bide it's time to scroung our tech to make a smaller ship so it can get away from the Antarctic or back to space. So it hid. When it first got to camp and they put it in the Kennel, it went on the attack mode that it did at the Norwegian camp as the dogs knew something wasn't right and barking at it. then it hid. Look at Nauls. It really hid with him. It went out of its way not to stand out. But it had replicated his bad heart which failed and only attacked when they used the paddles on it to shock it. With Palmer it hid but when the blood test was going on it knew it had been made so it went into attack mode. With Blair, it purposely tried to mislead people into thinking it was suicidal (the Noose and talking to Macready in nonsense while it was secretly building the ship underneath it. It was purposely misleading them to force them to leave him out there so he could build the ship. As Soon as they started blowing up the camp, and his ship, Blair went on attack mode as they just blew up it's other ship it was building. So the way it was in the 3rd act was the way it was in spots in Carpenter's film. Also, since the stop motion animation was taken out, we did not see it moving in long shots like it did in this one, but it did do that. The last scene with Blair taking out the cook and Garry was a monster movie that you fucks are complaining about in this film.

  • at the Varsity that summer a month before release. So I saw The Thing and ET a month before release. Now the critics shredded Carpenter's movie when it came out. 1950's thing director Nybe said "If you want to see this junk, go to a morgue. It's much cheaper" Siskel and Ebert didn't think it was scary at all. And it had to problem that Blade Runner had. 1982 is still the greatest summer movie season ever. in a few months you had -Conan the Barbarian, Cat People, Rocky 3, Firefox, ET, Star Trek 2, Best Little Whorehouse in Texas, Tron, Night Shift, The World According to Garp, Poltergeist, Porky's, An Officer and a Gentleman, First Blood, The Thing, Blade Runner, Fast Times at Ridgemont High, The Road Warrior. Those three months were filled. But, what happened is, you did not have the amount of theaters you have today. Normally movies open and are out of first release theaters by the end of the month at the latest. Not with summer of 1982. Movies that opened in may were still in first run houses in July. many movies like The thing, blade runner and tron had to open at smaller theaters and second run theaters. To this day it is still considered the greatest end to end block of movies for summer release in a short period. And most of those movies are considered classics. There were so many good movies out early and staying that many movies did not get a fair shake and are now classics getting sequels and prequels.

  • Sorry Harry, maybe you were on ecstasy when u reviewed Godzilla

  • Oct. 15, 2011, 3:34 a.m. CST

    I mean they did not even cover the thermite charges

    by the Green Gargantua

  • Oct. 15, 2011, 3:34 a.m. CST


    by the Green Gargantua

  • Oct. 15, 2011, 4:22 a.m. CST

    The Cell is awesome

    by Fritzlorrerains

    Love it.

  • Oct. 15, 2011, 4:39 a.m. CST

    Harry should have taken this advice:


    q"My best advice... is to not expect it to be as good as, or even close to, John Carpenter's film. To do so would leave you disappointed. And you'd be a fool." From some reviewer at Rottentomatoes(34%) Hey he's entitled to his opinion but personally, I'm going in with an open mind. We all knew this movie would probably be lame, I'm hoping it's just half-way decent. I mean, c'mon. This is what Hollywood does now. They remake movies into mediocre inferior versions to make a couple million bucks. What can you do? I'm hoping for an Assault on Precinct 13. Although the actors looks pretty weak compared to that cast. :( wtb K. Russel

  • Oct. 15, 2011, 4:54 a.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    Life is not a circle about a spiral. Things do tend to repeat, but always differently.

  • Oct. 15, 2011, 5:01 a.m. CST

    big dumb ape

    by AsimovLives

    Change the name of the movie to Abrams Trek and yours could had been my review of JJ Abrams' penultimum movie. Now you know how i feel about that movie.

  • With guys like you, small wonder the rest of the world tends to see americans as a bunch of xenophobic dumbasses. You do your own country and people a great disservice. Think before you say shit like that again.

  • Oct. 15, 2011, 5:22 a.m. CST

    Marco Beltrami ever made a good score? That would be news to me.

    by AsimovLives

  • Oct. 15, 2011, 5:28 a.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    "As far as the poster above mentioning how the Carpenter version shows the Norwegians blowing up the ice around the ship, but the prequel does not, it's quite possible that this DID occur after the initial finding of the ship in the cavern, but just wasn't shown onscreen" You know why this argument is wrong? Because if ther eis one thing that Holywood will never leave out in a movie is a big ass explosion. They will cut out exposition, they will cut out character development, they will cut out plot linking scenes, they will cut out plot logic narrative scenes, but they will never, ever, cut out a big ass explosion scene. Never! Admit it, the people who made this movie just fucked up. And i'm not even puttingthe blame on the designated director or the crew team, but the studio executives who obviously can't give a fuck.

  • Oct. 15, 2011, 5:45 a.m. CST

    jon voights ballsack

    by AsimovLives

    However, the Blair's escape, the underground tunnel and the makeshift space craft made of piece os machinery from the base is directly taken from the original story, pratically word by wpord. And the Carpenter's movie even mananges to go more subtle then the book story it's based on. I assume you never read the book, and even risking spoiling it... SPOILER ALERT ... in the original story the creature actually mannages to make that makeshift spacecraft operational and the story ends with him flying away to space, and the surviving characters musing if this is the last they see of it, or the spieces he belongs.

  • Oct. 15, 2011, 5:45 a.m. CST

    This tunnel thing sounds stupid to me.

    by AsimovLives

  • Oct. 15, 2011, 5:45 a.m. CST

    This tunnel thing sounds stupid to me.

    by AsimovLives

  • Oct. 15, 2011, 5:51 a.m. CST

    This tunnel thing sounds stupid to me. Why?

    by AsimovLives

    Because, unlike what movies might tell us, ice is very fucking hard to escavate. Specially if it's centuries old ice, which is so compacted it has the same thoughless of iron. Tell that to the Top Gear guys who so frequently crashed their Toyota Hilux agaisnt blocks of old ice in their Polar Special episode. That's why in the original story and in the two previous movies they use termite explosives to cut through the ice. Becasue that's the only expedient thing to do, specially for such a large area. Only high temperatures can be effective to go through old ice, like what covers Antarctica. Drilling would be an exercise in futility. They would take weeks to escavate a tunnel large enough for a man to crawl in for a few hundred yeards long. Just ask the people who are trying to drill hole to reach the underground lakes in Antarctica.

  • Oct. 15, 2011, 7:28 a.m. CST


    by scrote don't actually watch Top Gear do you? Say it ain't so...

  • Oct. 15, 2011, 7:32 a.m. CST

    Termite explosives?

    by scrote

    ...better off with matches - they're bigger...

  • Oct. 15, 2011, 8:09 a.m. CST


    by kesoze4

    Looks like someone forgot to pay off Harry this time...

  • Oct. 15, 2011, 9:55 a.m. CST

    Yeah but is it as bad as Dave & Busters?

    by UltraTron

    Redemption games? And at least 3-4 fully armed cops walking around. 2-3 ready for battle at the entrance alone. You'll never see a cop in a casino in Vegas. I guess it's a prescence designed to keep a certain element from ever frequenting the place. What a jack hole that place is. And that sign! They just opened a new one- that fucking logo looks like it might have looked good for an orange Julius in 1978.

  • Oct. 15, 2011, 10:41 a.m. CST


    by Jon Voights Ballsack

    I wasn't aware that was in the story. I'll have to give it a read if I ever come across it. But it still seems to me that the shape of that ship made in as little time as Blair would have had is just implausible. Your results clearly may vary.

  • Oct. 15, 2011, 11:46 a.m. CST

    Think any CGI artists will ever be thought of like Bottin?

    by SK229

    (First off, I cross-posted this in the other Thing TB, but this one seems to be getting more traffic, just wanted to see what people thought.) In other words, someone who decides to up and fucking quit doing CGI for film and then a decade later, people are talking about him as if he's Howard Hughes? Mysterious, vague... seen and talked about only in snippets of conversation... think that'd ever happen with someone who animates a digital effect? I think it's because, right or wrong (I actually believe it's wrong), when digital vfx are really good, like the T-Rex in JP, it's the ultimate effect... total reality. Certain practical effects have a character to them that says something about the artist that created it, a kind of 'unreality' that's no different than the work of a painter or sculptor, so those people are treated like 'real' artists when just as much artistry can go into a digital effect. I do think we're starting to get sort of 'one-man band' vfx guys in the digital world but only on very low budgets. Gareth Edwards comes to mind with the work he did on Monsters. As for good and bad CGI, I just saw Trollhunter and thought the effects were absolutely stunning at times. I actually BELIEVED I was seeing a truck being chased by a Jotnar (think that was the name). I thought that film was absolutely brilliant and got less credit than it deserved, especially in the fucking god-awful indie landscape... the fact that this got less attention than 'Attack the Block' makes me wanna quit coming to this site and watching movies altogether. Anyway, it was extremely effective at building tension and disbelief, then unleashing havoc on the audience where you just sit there slack-jawed and giggling. But it would never have worked if the pay-offs didn't seem 100% believable, and I'd say the majority of the effects in that movie were more believable than all the shit I've seen in the biggest sci-fi and action movies out over the last few years. Why is that? Why is it that a simple troll effect, rendered and shot in just the right way, can be so much more exciting than the $50 million worth of effects in your average summer tentpole. As it becomes easier and easier to have 1-5 man digital effects teams that can do the work of much larger fx houses by taking the path of least resistance (using 2D images when possible, for instance), there's a growing 'us vs. them' tension in the digital effects world. There are guys who are entrenched in places like Sony Imageworks where they're sort of indoctrinated into believing it takes a string of 15 guys and 100 render passes to do one simple thing that a person who is self-taught could do alone on their computer in a single night. And the end result is that the expensive, overdone effect doesn't look real but everyone stands around pretending that it does. Why? Well because we're professionals who just spent $1 million of the studio's money, that's why. Don't trust your eyes or anything, THAT SHIT LOOKS REAL. And they'll argue until the cow's come home... you ever have an argument about a fake looking effect with a digital effects nerd? It's an exercise in futility. If Ockham's razor were taken to digital effects and the simplest route to a realistic effect were always taken (and this is presuming you have a MOTHERFUCKER of a director who will ride herd on shoddy effects), then the effects budgets would be roughly 1/3 to 1/2 of what they are now and the effects wouldn't look so plastic and fake much of the time. It's why someone like Neill Blomkamp can pull of District 9 for $30 million. He knows enough to always have the effect in money for the story he needs to tell and knows what will work and what won't. I actually think this skill is going to become more and more important for film directors with fx budgets spiraling out of control and the end result usually being lackluster. Now I LOVE practical effects when they're done right (even when they're not, there's a charm to something concrete and actually on set that bad CGI doesn't have). But the problem with practical effects these days is that a simple shot gets into the hands of the compositors and the digital side of things and the next thing you know, that $500,000 model looks like a shitty digital matte painting. I think this happened a lot on Phantom Menace. I couldn't believe some of those things were actually models. In LOTR, I felt like it was often borderline, but there were enough shots where you could feel the reality of the model and practical work that, to this day, it gives those movies that handcrafted feel and it's why, in the long-term, I think they'll hold up. If anything, the overdone color grading is what gives some of the practical effects and locations in LOTR a fake quality... again, the problem of a digital tool being used to throw a new color of paint all over the fucking movies. But I also noticed that some digital effects guys want to fuck up a good practical effect with their bullshit... there's almost an arrogance like, "Silly practical people... give us your shot, WE'VE got this." Too bad it winds up looking like shit. One example of this is the digital effects guys trying to convince Nolan they could render a digital Batman for dangerous stunts (word is, he could always tell when it was fake and balked at the idea) AND in Iron Man, when ILM wanted to completely replace Winston's suit in shots where it just wasn't called for so that it'd be easier to add all that physically impossible, overly complicated digital bullshit with the robotic arms screwing things into the suit and putting it on him. THEN, in the fucking shot where the camera just moves around the suit, standing still, where there is ZERO FUCKING NEED to replace the practical suit, they went and did it there too! I'm sorry, in the side-by-side, you can tell which is the actual physical suit. The practical suit has tell-tale signs of shadow and light playing on the metal texture that the digital version lacks. If Favreau couldn't tell, then he was just giving into the pressure to remove the practical effects. One of the reasons the Nav'i worked in Avatar is because Cameron insisted on certain tricks that make the eye go, "Oh, that's a real being," which almost totally had to do with the weight of the muscles and the texture of the skin. Some of the skin looks to have (you can see this in still blow-ups of Netiyri's face) TOO much texture, as though he knew that you have to have 20% more skin texture and areas of contrast through the use of the war paint so that our eyes buy into it quicker. Anyway... long enough rant, just wanted to see what other people thought about this stuff as it relates to what I'm seeing in this digital vs. practical debate.

  • Oct. 15, 2011, noon CST

    the trailer and poster doomed it from the start.

    by Boober

    Hitchcock 101 is absent here. And trying to use a James Cameron blueprint and marry it to the JC original is a doomed concept. The original was about a cancer that obtained sentience by copying higher lifeforms and using their strengths to fulfill its simple, brutal directive to multiply with a DNA rape-kill. Scary! It was only vulnerable when trying to consume. Here it seems to happen so fast that it could just tank everyone: end of story. The 4 creature reveals and deaths in the trailer along with the Winstead channeling her inner Weaver with flamethrower doomed any hope of getting my $.

  • That is why I think that was not to expose the ship but to cut the tunnels that they went into the cavern with

  • Oct. 15, 2011, 12:12 p.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    Not only i watch it, i fucking love it. But hear me out first, because by top Gear i mean tyhe proper top Gear show, which means, the british one presented by Jeremy Clarkson, Richard Hammond, James May and The Real Stig. And not the american travestry.

  • Oct. 15, 2011, 12:14 p.m. CST

    jon voights ballsack

    by AsimovLives

    The thing is, did just the Blair thing made that ship, or had it help form another thing? Because least we forget, the movie is quite dubious to the notion that ther Blair thing that dies was the last thing creature. So, you can conceive the idea that the Blair thing had help. Twice the effort takes half the time. And really, that part is quite faithful to the original story, it's only how it pays out that differs.

  • Oct. 15, 2011, 12:24 p.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    I'm sorry, but it's beyond obvious in the Carpenter movie that the thermite explosives were used to expose the whole ship. They jsut used it a little bit too much. In the original stor,y there ar eno norwegians who first discover the Thing's ship. It's the guys at the base who do find find it and blow up the ship thanks to a miscalculation of the explosive needed. In fact, the story itself starts in the aftermath of the autopsy, when Blair describes what they got in there, and all that went before told as exposition.

  • Oct. 15, 2011, 12:28 p.m. CST

    Harry- Do you really believe any of this vodoo bullshit?

    by DylanYousonofa

    Saw it yesterday. I'm a child of the 80s with MUCH love for the original, having seen it in my hometown cinema 3 times that summer. LOVED this movie! The darkness and paranoia of Carpenter's film are still very much intact. a near perfect prequel. Harry liked the Conan remake? wacky prick.

  • Oct. 15, 2011, 12:40 p.m. CST

    i enjoyed the movie last night

    by antonphd

    it was basically a remake shoe-horned into being a prequel. it wasn't as good as the original, but it wasn't a bad movie. i wouldn't suggest seeing it in the theaters, but it's worth watching on dvd at some point if you get bored.

  • So age is no excuse to enjoy that piece of shit. Bad call, Harry ol' pal! Really, you liked that? How can you even muster the courage to rewatch the original, the shame must be crushing!

  • Oct. 15, 2011, 1:29 p.m. CST

    And Harry cried during ARMAGEDDON? Who the fuck does that?

    by AsimovLives

    I also cried when i watched that movie, but that was for the money i spent on that fucking shit. A different thing.

  • Oct. 15, 2011, 1:47 p.m. CST

    HAM-FISTED. BAN-HAMMER. Hmmm......

    by Darth_Kong

  • Someone could make a cool logo for the BAN-HAMMER similar to the HAMMER of THOR except the use of the word BAN-HAMMER is code for the BLACKLIST USER button that AICN editors can use to ban TalkBackers from the site. Seeing BAN-HAMMER on wikipedia would bring me the kind of happiness I had when someone, forgive me for forgetting, made the AICN First Class poster with Harry on it that was parodying the X-Men First Class poster. I laughed till I cried.

  • Oct. 15, 2011, 1:57 p.m. CST

    asimovlives - i choked up watching that movie

    by antonphd

    it was in the scene where bruce blows himself up and instead of seeing his life pass before his eyes he saw his daughters life. forget the rest of the goofy movie, that was a pretty potent moment. with the music it was enough to choke me up. plus, i get choked up watching the commercial for War Horse, so, you know, some people just have a soft spot for just the right imagery mixed with just the right music.

  • The psychological thriller element of the original was fantastic. I was on the edge of my seat through the entire film. This one was more of a slasher flick. The killer was going around wacking people left and right. I mean look at the original Halloween movie. Why do people like the original more than the sequels. Because the original Halloween was a great thriller. Then they changed the sequels into slasher flicks and explained why Michael Myers did what he did. Now I do enjoy slasher flicks. So I probably would have enjoyed this if it was under a different title. This was not a The Thing movie to me. The original movie built up the suspense very well. The Thing in the original was very cautious about assimilating too. You weren't sure what it was going to do next and the only time you saw it was when it was cornered or in danger. It was more concerned about survival and not going around killing people. It did not expose itself unless it really had too. The Thing (2011) was a different story. The Thing in the helicopter did not need to expose itself because it was not cornered yet. Nobody knew who the Thing was at that time. In other scenes it was putting itself in a situation where it had to chase somebody down. So everybody knew who the thing was. For example the scene where the Thing was the norwegian chick and she was chasing after the female lead character. Everybody saw her because she was running around. She was more like the Terminatrix for crying out loud. It just seemed stupid to me. In the original, the Thing chased Macready because he knew who it was. It couldn't hide from him at that point. Harry was right about the Thing jumping out of the ice. Why would it have done that right in front of the guy. The Thing in the original would never have done that. The introduction to the characters was great. I wanted to see more of them before the Thing came onto the scene. I was hoping the suspense would have built up but it didn't. I felt that the Thing kept popping up at all the wrong times. No suspense at all. I thought the CGI was awful too. Not to mention it seemed too over the top at times. I usually don't hate on films but I have a lot of love for the original and this movie irritated me to no end. Anyways that is my rant.

  • Oct. 15, 2011, 2:24 p.m. CST


    by Stephane

    Who gives a fuck if you now wear "many hats" or if you write comic books...the mere fact that you mention "THE CELL" as a near perfect film is proof that you are no more than the film equivalent of a sideline coach. I personally think that it is worse for a well known director to fuck up GREEN LANTERN than it is for an unknown to make The THING. For the people who expected this movie to stand up to Carpenter's masterpiece...GROW UP!!! Arent you the same people who didnt spend your money in 82 to see it thus making it flop royally????? I saw The THING in 82 and was amazed...i saw it more than once. I will give the prequel a chance and i am not going there expecting anything else than being entertained. If you were offered your first directing job by UNIVERSAL or PARAMOUNT, etc... but in your contract you had to submit to having most of your effects done in CGI in the year 2011ish...would you turn it down? HELL NO!!!! WHO ARE YOU FUCKIN KIDDING???

  • Oct. 15, 2011, 3:05 p.m. CST

    18mac didn't like it, but I did

    by Dark Knight Lite

    He is completely entitled to his opinion, some of which I agree with. However I came out enjoying the experience overall, and am considering going to see it again next week. We got an R-rated, gory, monster movie in theaters, so give it a chance, and make up your own minds. Don't call me a plant, losers. I've been posting since the SPAWN review in '98. Check the archives if you doubt.

  • Oct. 15, 2011, 3:10 p.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    Are you kidding me?

  • Oct. 15, 2011, 3:27 p.m. CST

    Harry's likes and dislikes

    by Dark Knight Lite

    are way too tied up in preconceptions and his damn near pathological need to be given tribute (gifts, set visits.) This is why he will never be considered a serious film critic, writing skills notwithstanding. Just compare his reviews of ARMAGEDDON and INCEPTION for a sobering experience. Now I will admit that THE THING '11 is more Bay than Nolan, but it's cretainly not the "shit" that Harry reports it to be. If harry is now writing comics, his editor will have his/her work cut out for themselves.

  • Oct. 15, 2011, 3:29 p.m. CST


    by unclemonty666


  • Oct. 15, 2011, 4:03 p.m. CST

    Prequel, eh?

    by Manatee

    That sort of implies they anticipate making this into a series of movies. Please, for the love of god, DON'T encourage them by seeing this film!

  • Oct. 15, 2011, 5:22 p.m. CST

    First movie I slept through in a long time!

    by slave to the one


  • Oct. 15, 2011, 6:11 p.m. CST


    by sg

    How old are you ... 13 ??? You must be with a tag like that. No I did not work on this feature, I already said that, you cock. I've worked with lots of very talented A-list directors, that you will only ever read about and Harry only sucks the cocks of. Of course those directors that don't let him get their films slated, as was my original point. The CG was of a very high standard, there were a few dodgy shots agreed but the lighting, texture work and integration were very good, cock boy. Also have you ever thought that the reason that the practical work was replaced was because it was worse, fuckstick ? Anyone can slag off anything, as is the internet age way, I suggest you try to get a job in the film industry and make it better that way but I doubt that will ever happen as that takes time, talent and dedication, of which you have none, dick.

  • Oct. 15, 2011, 7:32 p.m. CST

    Did you hear about the Norwegian man who loved his wife so much

    by SmokingRobot

    he almost told her?

  • Oct. 15, 2011, 7:37 p.m. CST


    by severianx1

    I have no doubts that this movie sucks, and I've read enough here and elsewhere to get a pretty clear understanding of exactly how and why it sucks, however I find your chief criticism to be quite easily explained away. Your main issue seems to be that the creature in the new movie is doing all sorts of stupid things that would endanger it that it never did in the original. Well, since this new movie is a prequel and therefore takes place before the original, the simple answer is that it learned from its mistakes.

  • Oct. 15, 2011, 7:51 p.m. CST


    by kabookieslap

    You said "In the original stor,y there ar eno norwegians who first discover the Thing's ship. It's the guys at the base who do find find it and blow up the ship thanks to a miscalculation of the explosive needed." However, this is not a prequel to the book. This is a prequel to Carpenter's film, which differed greatly from the book. In Carpenter's film the Norwegian's find it first and Mac and Copper go to the Norwegian Camp. In fact when they first step in the door Mac yells "Hey Sweden!" and Copper says "They're not Swedish Mac. They're Norwegian" So this is what happens at their camp before the dog runs away. In Carpenter's film, all we see is a video tape of Thermite exploding and that is it. It is not stated if they used the Thermite to clear the snow off of the ship completely, or if they just made the entrance into the cave. It is conceivable as who knows how much thermite they had, and the entrance they made was a pretty big hole. When Mac and Nauls fly in the chopper to the ship, it is barely damaged. About as much damage as happens near the end of this movie.

  • Holy shit, Asi- that's ridiculous, even coming from you! You're smarter than that! Every time you make a salient point, you ass-rape it twice over with a 'Jar Jar Abrams'-like comment. Look at Billy_d's list above, and please explain how that was the end of modern cinema as we know it. (oh, and Billy - great list/example!) To paraphrase the carpenter's mantra - think twice, post once.

  • Oct. 15, 2011, 8:02 p.m. CST


    by the Green Gargantua

  • Oct. 15, 2011, 8:03 p.m. CST

    I WANT A PROMETHEUS TRAILER, shits got me worried

    by the Green Gargantua

  • If they have tails it would fit into the whole Promethean concept of serpents and how the snake represents the 5 icons/symbols. 1. Lucifer 2. Wisdom 3. Energy 4. Fire 5. Regenerative Principle I hope Ridley has an inside to the occult and all the symbols and sticks them in Prometheus.

  • Clueless as usual eh Asi? billy d williams is correct.The 80s was a perfect decade for the ENTERTAINMENT films because they had that perfect mixture or commercialism and artistry in it. That's why all these 80s entertainment movies are all time classics.Predator,Star Trek films,Terminator,Robocop,Indiana Jones,Die Hard,and so on. They could entertain the audience without insulting their intellect because behind their cool visual effects and badass action,they had content,they had soul. I think the end of the good,entertainment cinema started in the 90s with the parallel decline of the 80s action stars and that specific hero archetype that they represented. Another thing which helped in the decline of cinema was the revolution of the CGI technology.It did that not because it is an inferior tool to create effects compared to the old fashioned practical ones,it's not even that case,but because it turned the directors into lazy artists with no interest about character development,story progress,messages,themes and all that. But the biggest reason which lead to this decline of cinema is the audience itself and mainly the young audience.But that's a big subject to talk about and not the right time and place to do it.

  • Oct. 15, 2011, 9:19 p.m. CST

    THE THING (2011) is not that bad

    by la_sith

    HUGE fan of the original here. The last 15-20 minutes are clumsy, but for the most part, it's a decent pre-cursor to the original and entertaining monster movie. I actually though the FX were (for the most part) a fairly good hybrid of digital and physical. I went in with EXTREMELY LOW EXPECTATIONS and was not disappointed. Unfortunately, the movie doesn't do much to advance the overall story/franchise. As a result, it's only semi-satisfying.

  • Oct. 15, 2011, 9:20 p.m. CST

    The beginning of the end?


    It's evolution, baby! Er, devolution?

  • Oct. 15, 2011, 9:24 p.m. CST



    I gotta see this shit. I don't trust any of you fuck-tards! No offense!

  • Oct. 15, 2011, 9:27 p.m. CST

    Universal Is The Walmart Of Studios

    by THX1968

    I knew The Thing was gonna suck. Actually, I had no idea that it was a prequel. Carpenter's The Thing is pretty close to being a perfect movie. So fucking gross, and I mean that complimentary, that it still is the only movie that almost made me puke when I was a kid. It's damn funny too! When all the guys are tied to the couch taking "The Thing" test and the guy's head splits open! Gross and funny. And Kurt Fucking Russell. C'mon, it's so good that nothing could come close. Universal sucks ass. Any kind of prestige the studio had has evaporated long ago, and they keep marketing promising films under their Focus Features banner, and they are the last studio to do this shit, really. I can't think of a single film coming from Universal that means anything to me.

  • Oct. 15, 2011, 9:32 p.m. CST

    I think Prometheus...

    by SK229

    will be about how the Xenomorphs were the very first species seeded and created by another species. Humans are part of the same experiment. I have a feeling the film is going to be about the beginning of intelligent life itself and, like 2001, will posit that evolutionary events on more than one planet with intelligent life were set in motion by an ancient race of God-like beings.

  • Set visits etc, etc etc. It's called the Drew McWeeny School Of Online Criticism. It's transparent.

  • Oct. 15, 2011, 9:33 p.m. CST

    I enjoyed it.

    by Mattman

    It's not the masterpiece the first film is, but it was very well made. The creature effects work nicely and the movie is nicely paced. The middle act is too much of a retread of the Carpenter film, but it's not BAD by any means. I liked the ending, which was a bit larger scale than I expected. Winstead was a likable heroine who I wanted to survive. If you think this is a terrible film, you've lived a sheltered life.

  • Winstead was flagging the chopper down, and the pilot was about to oblige. The Thing knew at that point that it wasn't going anywhere and that they were onto it. So it attacked while it still had time. Big fucking mystery.

  • Oct. 15, 2011, 9:37 p.m. CST

    atheron = P R O F E S S I O N A L

    by Stuntcock Mike

    Well put.

  • Oct. 15, 2011, 9:41 p.m. CST

    Agreed, Stuntcock

    by Mattman

  • Oct. 15, 2011, 9:48 p.m. CST

    People used to SHIT on the original

    by la_sith

    It's sort of like the BLADE RUNNER of horror movies. It bombed hard, and the critics almost universally shat upon. Now referred to as a "classic" by the same critics. Oddly enough, came out the same year as BLADE RUNNER, too.

  • Oct. 15, 2011, 10:41 p.m. CST

    And The Thing (2011) is an absolute shitfest. Who woulda thunk it?

    by elgato73

    I knew this film was too good to be true when I saw the teaser months ago. If this was a true, and I mean if this film was an absolutely note and pitch perfect prequel with no continuity errors whatsoever in relation to what happens in Carpenter's The Thing, there would be no way in Hell that any of the characters would be walking around inside the alien ship. But you could see them doing that in the teaser. The Norwegians in the video Macready watches did exactly what he says--"they blew it up (the ship)." They didn't go into the fucking ship, they detonated what had too have been loads of explosives (my guess thermite) and blew it up in an attempt to break through the ice. But they blew it up. The Doc and Mac see this when they see find the ship. Sure there looks to be a hatch open, but that's where the alien must have crawled out before freezing to death in the ice. And if you don't have the Norwegians look and dress (and even wear the same white out sunglasses) like the ones we saw in the Carpenter film, then why they fuck even try to call this a prequel. Fuck the suits who did this. And Ron Moore. What the fuck man? You're making a so called prequel to a classic film and you can't be bothered to get the continuity correct? I expected more. Once again, it looks like all the money that went into this film went to cocaine for all the suits instead of into making anything resembling a good piece of cinema. Cunts should burn for this!

  • Oct. 15, 2011, 11:42 p.m. CST


    by uberman

    I thought the lighting,n the effects, the acting and the tone of this 'Thing' was spot on. No, it is nowhere near a 'beat for beat' of the original and the characters all are smart. I've seen some shitty movies but this is not one of them. In fact, I'd say this is more in line with the remake of 'Let the Right One In.' I also love how it looks like it was filmed in real artic weather rather than a soundstage ala '30 days of Dark'. All in all a winner all around. If you like a good creature feature, see it.

  • Oct. 15, 2011, 11:52 p.m. CST


    by Peter

    I see where you are coming from but I just don't agree. Why should the Thing have to learn? Its basic mode of survival is to imitate other forms of life. Unless it suddently got that ability at the beginning of the movie then it doesn't make much sense that it took that long to learn. It should have known that exposing its true identity was a bad move. If you look at the technology the Things possess then you know they are intelligent creatures. The 2011 movie strayed far away from that. It became a common predator hell bent on killing everybody. In doing so, it exposed itself. What is the point of it imitating other living things then? It was not the same intelligent creature trying to survive. It became none other than a common killer. For me that threw the thriller element out the window. They could have done more with this movie and that is what bothered me. If you are going to make a sequel or prequel to a movie then at least follow the true nature of the character or Thing. They just did what typical sequels or prequels do. Less character development and more body count. I felt in the original there was more to this creature. It was interesting. No one really knew what it wanted. What was the Thing's motivation? Did it want to kill people or spy on the human race? It left a lot of questions. This one really didn't. It seemed all it wanted to do was kill people. The atmosphere of the original was much more intense. I expecting the same from this movie but it just didn't happen for me. I didn't expect this to be as good as the original but I expected them to a least try to make it somewhat close. I'm not trying to keep people from seeing this either. I'm just offering my point of view.

  • Oct. 16, 2011, 12:15 a.m. CST

    Hey Harry!!!!`

    by Bob Lite

    I've been coming to this site every so often, I 'm familiar with your posts. All I got to say is that I agree with EVERY word you said! I saw it last night even racing to the theater (which was in another town) to go and get seats early, hell, I even convinced my wife, who hates horror flicks, to come with me! In a nut shell, I felt the EXACT same way you did! I'd rather head to a maximum security prison and get locked up with the sodomites than having been brutalized by watching this flick! I felt violated. The Thing had a special place in my heart when I first saw it with my father, so like you I gave this movie a chance, I even made a tribute video! Can you see now why I feel so violated? Great review! Spot on!

  • Oct. 16, 2011, 12:19 a.m. CST

    Troll Hunter was better

    by Roger Moon

  • maybe cause he has been sick a lot or maybe the movie wasn't interesting enough to pay careful attention. when i watched it i was pretty surprised by how much he got wrong.

  • Oct. 16, 2011, 1:31 a.m. CST

    asimovlives - no, i am not kidding

    by antonphd

    some of us are softies on the inside. me, i am not really emotional much of the time, but movies have a way of getting to me. maybe that's why i love them so much. hell, i cried at the end of Warrior. both times i watched it. sometimes movies push people's buttons. sometimes it's the content and sometimes its the music. sometimes it's both. i have felt very strong emotions listening to movie soundtracks.

  • Oct. 16, 2011, 4:28 a.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    These good movies were the end result of the 70s. Alld ecades have momentum, and it's influences don't stop right at the end of the calendar. Some of it's influence still goes into some years into the next. So, yeah, those good movies from the above list are the last hurrah of the magnificent seventies. 80s movie bullshit is exemplified by such crap like TOP GAY, i mean TOP GUN and RAMBO II and shit like that. Hell, even FIRST BLOOD is a 70s movie that overflew to the 80s, the reason why it's so superior to the rest of the shitty franchise.

  • I like his gut reaction, it;'s a nice way to gauge geeky fan reaction and he gets a lot of pertinent info down. but he wouldn't know an unbiased opinion from a hole in the moon. "This is THE THING, it has be great!" Right there Harry, is your problem. I'll go see The Thing 2011, when it opens and I'll possibly enjoy it, on it's own merits, because although I've seen Carpenter's The Thing several times, including the digitally cleaned up version in cinema, I don't have that hellbent unflinching love that blinds me to any furtherance of the property. I even enjoyed the videogame sequel. Anyway, there you go.

  • Oct. 16, 2011, 4:30 a.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    No, the 80s were not the perfect decade of entertaiment. They were the perfect decade of stupid ass dumb shit bad entertaiment. I don't know about you, but me, i want to be entertained well. This is why i shit on the 80s. That fuckign decade is more notorious for the exceptions then the norm. The norm was dumb ass stupid retard bullshit. I guess it's convinient to forget about that, hem, so to perseve a romantic idealistic notion about the 80s which is nothing but bullshit. The 80s were shit. That's it.

  • Oct. 16, 2011, 4:31 a.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    Offense not taken, fucktard.

  • Oct. 16, 2011, 4:36 a.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    But man, you can't compare the emotional power of WARRIOR to the pudrid faggotry of Armageddon, can you? And just because a filmmaker wants a scene to be dramatic, doens't mean you have to reply in kind just because he wants you to. He has to earn it. It's his job to cause a reaction from you, not yours to give one for free.

  • Oct. 16, 2011, 4:39 a.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    As for getting strong emotions from soundtracks, i'm certain everybodyin here can say the same thing. Every one of us in here have a story to tell about that, for sure. Movies also move me a lot. I could list soem of them. But they have to fucking earn it. A cheap melodramatic emotianal trickery made by a hack like Michael Piece Of Shit Bay-ass wont suffice.

  • ΤΗΕ FUCK THEY WERE. Die Hard,The Killer,Predator,Robocop,Terminator,Raiders of the Lost Arc,Aliens,Star Trek 2,3,4,Star Wars 2,3,Blade FUCKING Runner,The Thing,Evil Dead 2,ET,The Goonies,Return To Oz,The Lost Boys,Ghostbusters,Ferris Bueller's Day Off,Superman 2,Blues Brothers,Time Bandits,48Hours,Trading Places,Beverly Hills Cop,the list is endless. Great movies,both entertaining and with a lot of heart,content and quality. What do you got to persuade us that the 80s was not a good decade for the entertainment cinema? What are your arguments? What are your facts,your examples? because so far, apart from a generic,hateful rant that the 80s suck,you got nothing to prove your point,NOTHING BOY,NOTHING AT ALL.

  • Oct. 16, 2011, 7:53 a.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    No, man, cinema is both to feel and to think. Each of those alone is orphan. a movie made just for one of those is an half incomplete thing. But if you have both, you have quality. This nonsesne notion that just feelings have predominance above all else is just oneof those bewildering crap i can't even begin to guess where it originated from. But it's bullshit. Thinking is way underrated this days.

  • Oct. 16, 2011, 7:55 a.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    As i said before, those movies you listed above were the watershed of the 70s. Midway fully into the 80s, when the 80s style was fully going, you couldn't have any of make those movies made, no matter what. All studios executives would say "audiences would want tha,t it's too cerebral, just make dumb entertaiment, that's all they like". The great movies of the early 80s are the watershed of the 70s cinema. That's when the waves finally broke and left a waterline.

  • Oct. 16, 2011, 7:59 a.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    No, the list is not endless, the list is actually quite very short. You just named the exceptions. And the exceptions ony confirm the rule through contrast. Those movies do not exemplify the cinema of the 80s, those movies are the notable exceptions. The 80s is represented by TOP GAY GUN and RAMBO BULLSHIT II. Those are the true 80s movies. Those are the movies that fully embraced the way of the 80s in making movies, those are it's cheerleaders. Movies like that, not those you aforementiond. Adentum: I'm sorry to not share your love for SUPERMAN II and GHOSTBUSTERS. But that's how it is.

  • For good quality and intelligent entertaiment, not so good. The exceptions are exceptional because they were exceptions to the rule.

  • Oct. 16, 2011, 8:09 a.m. CST

    Soon as that russian clip came out...

    by jimmyjohnson

    ... with bucketloads more computer generated imagery, it shoulda been clear this was going to suck donkey nads. the ONLY reasonably fun bit i was looking forward to was the aftermath of Grigg's little facial 'hiccup'. til his whole mug split open in the RU trailer, that is. Bollocks to this. i'll catch in on film 4 in four years time.

  • Oct. 16, 2011, 8:22 a.m. CST


    by scrote

    ..still can't believe you like Top Gear...

  • Oct. 16, 2011, 8:28 a.m. CST

    Anyone remember...

    by scrote

    ...the original trailer for The Thing ('82)? That was creepy stuff. Just that letterhead and the sound of the guy on the radio calling for help. Awesome. The new trailer ('11) showed you a whole bunch of stuff that you should never have even glimpsed. Any feedback yet from Carpenter on this remake? He's such a sardonic bastard; I'd love to hear what he has to say...

  • Oct. 16, 2011, 9:12 a.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    What is wrong with TOP GEAR, man? And i'm talking about THE BRITISH TOP GEAR, not the lame american one. Do you know the difference between the two?

  • Oct. 16, 2011, 9:32 a.m. CST

    The original trailer for Carpenter's THE THING was indeed awesome.

    by AsimovLives

  • Oct. 16, 2011, 9:34 a.m. CST


    by scrote

    ..never seen the American one. I've seen your posts on here over the years and it just strikes me as kind of odd that you would be 'into' Clarkson and The Hamster. Still, if that's your thing (pardon the pun) then have at it. I don't want to get into a rant about about the Top Gear guys...I could go all night and probably develop blisters on my fingers. Seen the new Thing yet? You're in Portugal, right? Don't think we've got it in Spain here yet...

  • Oct. 16, 2011, 9:36 a.m. CST

    No, not until this Friday...

    by scrote

  • Oct. 16, 2011, 9:47 a.m. CST

    scrote, about TOP GEAR

    by AsimovLives

    Let me say this straight: mos tthe of the time, i don't agree with the political views of The Hamster and Jezza. In fact, it's James May who's the presenter i most sympathise with. Adn still, mos tof the time i don't agree with their political views. And that doesn't prevent me at all from enjoying their show. It is, by far, the most entertaining show i ever seen in my life. That ir's about a show cars and yet mannages to have better comedy then most comedy shows i ever seen is nothing short of complete bewilderment. I lvoe the show because it's both very informative and so damn funny. And despiste my differences of political views, i find the 3 presenters to be very engaging, funny, charismatic and entertaining. I respect them, even when i don't agree with them. Adn their friendly banter is just one of the most sweet thing on TV. No, The Thing remake has not been released here either. I suspect we will get simultaneous released in our countries. Have you seen Almodovar's latest?

  • Oct. 16, 2011, 10:01 a.m. CST


    by scrote

    Well, each to their own, but I'm glad you recognise the political bias propagated by the Top Gear team. Personally I can't stand the smug, snarky scripts they turn out on that show, but that's just me. Wasn't having a go at ya. Just checked on IMDB - you should have had The Thing by Oct 13th. Haven't seen anything by Almodovar since Women On The Verge...It's not my thing. I'm not Spanish; born in the UK, brought up in the US and ended up here in Spain. Good talk...

  • Oct. 16, 2011, 10:08 a.m. CST


    by scrote

    Well, each to their own. I can't stand their snarky, smug scripts, but I'm glad you recognize the political bias the bunch propagate (James May is the least repugnant of the team). Wasn't having a go...was just curious. Just checked on IMDB - you should have had The Thing out last Friday (13th). Haven't seen anything by Almodovar since Women On The Verge... Not my thing. I'm not Spanish. Born in uk, raised in the US and have ended up here in Espania... Good talk...

  • Oct. 16, 2011, 10:10 a.m. CST

    Christ, can't believe this... a double-post...

    by scrote

    No wonder this site gets so many hits....

  • Oct. 16, 2011, 11:17 a.m. CST

    I can't call it warmed over shit

    by Steven

    This is certainly not what this movie should have been, but its not as bad as this post makes it out to be. It certainly does not live up to John Carpenter's film. If you can't give the proper respect to the original in a remake, prequel or sequel then don't make the movie. Steven

  • Oct. 16, 2011, 11:33 a.m. CST

    scrote, ahh, the pleasures of double posting

    by AsimovLives

    As for TOP GEAR, so much of what the blokes say are so tongue-in-cheek it's hard to take it all seriously. The whole show is a masterpiece of self-deprecation humour. That's the spirit i take it in. As Clarkson himself said, it's their little plucky show. They take makingtheir show sery seriposuly, but the show is not to be taken too serious. Too many examples from the show itself prove that. As James May says, the show is three middle-aged englishmen cocking around. And it's terribly infectious, and downright funny. While still being very informative.

  • Oct. 16, 2011, 11:36 a.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    And dude, do visit my country, if you can. You will love the food, the beers and the wines we got here. And so far, the weather. Still feels like summer. And we even get sunny winters too. If you ever want to visit Lisboa, where i live nearby, give me a call. I love meeting peopel from a board, specially british and americans. And you are both.

  • Oct. 16, 2011, 11:39 a.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    There's Spain and there's Hispania. Spain is the country where you live. Hispania is what the romans once called the Peninsula Iberia, of which Spain is part of, together with Portugal, Andorra and Gibraltar. I don't think Espania exists, but i could be mistaken. The spanish themselves call their country España, which might sound like Espania to foreign ears. Sorry for the pedantism but, me personally, i love this type of trivia stuff.

  • Oct. 16, 2011, 11:54 a.m. CST


    by scrote

    Thanx very much Dude. I might take you up on that

  • Dog Burster Alien just got... BAN-HAMMERED!

  • Oct. 16, 2011, 1:02 p.m. CST


    by Darth_Kong


  • Oct. 16, 2011, 1:20 p.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    Good post! I'm a fan of those Bushist (of W. Bush) presidential theorems.

  • Oct. 16, 2011, 1:34 p.m. CST

    Sorry asi - I call 'Shennanigans'...

    by Joaquin_Ondamoon can't use the argument that the 80's sucked because the 70's were a watershed for cinema, and there was 'carryover', just to prove your point. Because while there were great movies in the seventies, they were the result of people making smaller movies on smaller budgets that focused more on people than extravaganza. People like Cassavetes and Peckinpah made films that were more focused and not designed to appeal to a broader audience, although they were critical darlings. Those directors worked outside the studio system: they weren't looking to make the next 'Gone With the Wind', they wanted to tell their stories. I agree with Billy_d and Killik (yikes! did I just say that?! j/k! ), that the 80's were the Perfect Storm of commercialism and entertainment. I don't know how old you are bro, but I'm guessing you're in your mid-thirties. I was 20 in 1980 (*sigh*), and I can tell you that during that decade I went to the movies once a week, sometimes twice. Not because there was nothing else to do, but because there were so many great films to see. You couldn't wait for Friday. Sure, there was a lot of drek - every decade has it's share of junk cinema. I could sit here and list a ton of shit films from the 70's. What's the point? I agree with Killik (again!) that the rise of the Action Hero (tm) fueled much of what we saw on screen. In the 80's the US was on top of everything: we had a kick-ass President, the economy was cranking; we had a lot of self pride (and this is not a political discussion - I don't talk politics on the net. It's worse than discussing movies!) Action films were the personification of how we felt as a people (imho). I mean, I love 'Easy Rider', but I have to be in the mood to see it. However, if I happen to stumble upon 'Red Dawn', fuck it - turn off the phone! I'm watching that bad boy until it's over! One thing I will agree with: I feel that the Beard ushered in the decade with 'Jaws' (and yes, Lucas too with SW). That was the beginning of a great run. So I'll concede that the decade began (somewhat) in '75. But to dismiss the entire decade of the 80's as a wasteland of cinematic creativity, is just silly.

  • No, in the 70d both the small and the big movies became abnormally intelligent and demanding movies for the audiences, where things could be gritty and realistic and subtle. It run the whole gammut of budgetry. In the fucking faggotry era that was the 80s, that disapeared. The big budget movies generally became stupidier and stupidier. The 80s was the percursor of everything that is wrong today in blockbuster-ville. There was a watershed of the 70s that ended in the early 1980s, and movies like BLADE RUNNER are one of those. Decades in cinema don't end nicely at the turn of the calender and the year that ends with a zero. THis nostalgia for a 80s that never existed is based on bullshit and misconceptions. Ther ides that people can be nostalgic for the most dumbass decade in the whole history of Holywood is hysterical beyond belief! If there is a decade that doesn't deserve a nostalgia movement it's tha,tt he fucking pudrid piec eof shit fucking 80s, the decade when shit reign supreme and idiotic bullshit was the norm. Nolstagia can be so wrong!

  • Oct. 16, 2011, 2:25 p.m. CST

    Asi, how can you hate the 80s?

    by Mattman

    Very creative decade in filmmaking, especially sci-fi and fantasy. I'm missing a lot of stuff, but here's a sampling: Blade Runner (Sorry dude, it was released in the 80s, so it's an 80s movie) Empire Strikes Back Empire of the Sun E.T. Raiders, Temple, Last Crusade Conan the Barbarian Ghostbusters The Thing Terminator Robocop Batman Back to the Future Dark Crystal Labyrinth Willow

  • Oct. 16, 2011, 2:26 p.m. CST

    Asi, and I understand the importance of 70s cinema

    by Mattman

    Acknowledging the impact of 70s cinema doesn't mean you have to hate the 80s.

  • Oct. 16, 2011, 2:42 p.m. CST


    by scrote

    ...okay, I live in Spain,not Espania, my keyboard won't allow hyphens

  • Oct. 16, 2011, 2:43 p.m. CST

    by mattman: "Asi, how can you hate the 80s?" Very easily

    by AsimovLives

    I lived through that shit, in my teen years. A few good movies and Tv shows are not sufficient to forget the stupid retard fucking shit of a decade that was. The only decades worst thenthe fucking 80s was the decades that had world wars in them, and that's just because of the war. The 80s, the era of shit and stupidity. Everything that's wrong today is a direct consequence of the 80s, Movies, music, society, economy, the whole lot.

  • Oct. 16, 2011, 2:53 p.m. CST

    Asi, but what about the films I mentioned?

    by Mattman

    Do you or do you not recognize that there were a multitude of classic films in the 80s? And I forgot Apocalypse Now and Predator, along with a slew of other classics.

  • Oct. 16, 2011, 2:54 p.m. CST


    by johnnyrandom line of space will do. Sheesh.

  • you mongoloid Iberian rectal bleed.

  • Oct. 16, 2011, 2:57 p.m. CST

    And one more thing, Asi

    by Mattman

    The 80s had far more than "a few good movies". You know that. Don't downplay the cinematic significance of that decade just to make your point. That's cheating.

  • Oct. 16, 2011, 2:58 p.m. CST

    goatfucker how is your quest to have Abrams ass baby going?

    by Xiphos_2

  • Oct. 16, 2011, 3:08 p.m. CST

    See, this is why I don't engage in conversation with asi...

    by Joaquin_Ondamoon

    ...because you can't have an intelligent discourse without using words like 'faggotry'. That, and the fact that anyone's OPINION that doesn't coincide with yours is wrong. You may, dislike movies of that era - It doesn't invalidate that there were many, many good, solid and yes (*gasp!*), commercial films during the 80's. And those are the films I return to time and time again. Unlike, lets say, 'Herbie goes to Monte Carlo', or 'Kingdom of the Spiders', 'Airport 77', or 'The Hindenburg': all released the same year as 'Star Wars'. 'Smokey and the Bandit'. Were these intelligent films? I give you this - the SEVENTIES ushered in the era of the blockbuster 'disaster' movie. 'The Towering Inferno', 'The Poseidon Adventure', The whole 'Airport' series. Good popcorn fun. Any of these the next 'Citizen Kane'? No. I don't shit on the 70's. I love many films from that era ('Rollerball', 'Slap Shot', 'The Godfather'). Every era has it's ups and downs. For most of us - the ones that actually LIVED through them, the 80's rocked - get over it.

  • In the 80s, Holywood undermineed and compeltly revoked and brough down the system that allowed so great movies to be made in the 70s. Now, part of the faul was rampant ego from man yof the great filmmaker5s of the 70s. Nobody denies that. But 80s Holywood executives saw it as an oportunity to highjack the movies form the creatives and treat them merely as products for dumb masses. That's their attitude, not my words. This 80s executives even gloated of how they mananged to completly turn hoylwood into a mere mercantilism. Frankly, the reason why they didn't stoped making seruous cinema movies altogether is because there was too much prestige asscoiated to many important filmmakers and the weight of the oscars for anybody's career prestige, including studios to gloat about how many statues their movies own in a year. A question of image. The fuckgn 80s in Hoywood can be summed up in two words: money and image. All else expendable. If a move turne dout good,that would be a side effect from the ewfforts of dedicated filmmakers, not by the design of the studios and the people who coughed up the cash. Quality was no longer desired. A complete contrast to the 70s. Hell, one of the reasons why Star Wars was not inicially made at Universal was that that the whole thing just sounded too silly, too goofy, too lightweighted, too simple, how anything good could come out of it?

  • Oct. 16, 2011, 3:14 p.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    I use vituperation to show my despise for certain things tha ti desipise. Common language is not enough for me to show my feelings for it. Can i do a whole conversation without vituperation. you bet i can. Can that makes my point across to my true feelings? In some cases, i couldn't. Sorry if my coarse writing that offfends your sensebilities. I bet you must also feel pretty offended with Harry's reviews, specially about the movies he hates. Or Blade 2.

  • Oct. 16, 2011, 3:15 p.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    You fucker only posts about me and nothing else whatsover. For the last time, no, i wont let you suck my dick. Now fuck off.

  • And again, reread my coment aboutthe 780s watershed that broke in the 80s. Some movies in the 80s were stil made in the spirit of the 70s. The late runners to the finish line. Movies made in the spirit of the 70s, but on the wrong decade, going against the grain. ARe good movies made in any decade, including the 80s? Of course. And in the 80s, in defiance and in contradictionto the general mood of the time of the Holywood of that decade. THe 80s was the decade of Flashdance, of top Gun, of Rambo II, of Fatal Attraction, of high concept-low calories entertaiment. The order of the day was to keept it simple and keept it stupid. That's the 80s. That for the same of nostalgia you guys want to only focus on a few good movies and use them as representative of the decade is just nostalgia with rosy tinted glasses. And even the best of the 80s movie cannot compare in scope and artistic ambition to the best of the 70s movies. WAs there any movie mad ein the 80s that can be compared to GODFATHER PAFRT II, a movie that is both entertaiment and art and made under a big studio with a huge budget? Is there? No, there aren't. Bloody hell, even invoking Blade Runner is not good, because that movie was made independently, most of the money coming from outside Holywood, from every place, inclusing HK. The studio WB merely took over distribution. The budget of it was from so many places, they had to contract a bond firm to secure it. Conan The Barbarian was made by Dino DeLaurenttis, with his financing coming from europe. Do i have a terrible opinion of 80s Holywood? You bet! It was when movies started to be made in which accountants had more weight over filmmakers. Holywood was always about profit from films, but they were in the movie business, in the 80s they merely become a business.

  • Oct. 16, 2011, 3:27 p.m. CST


    by scrote

    ...are you bi-polar?

  • Oct. 16, 2011, 3:27 p.m. CST

    I'm not easily offended Asi...

    by Joaquin_Ondamoon

    ...what I'm saying is that when you use that argument - 'EVERYTHINGSUCKS!' - you invalidate what you're trying to say, and make it easy to dismiss. You may have a valid point somewhere in there, but who can be bothered to decipher it? Back up your arguments with valid, researchable facts, or state that 'in your opinion', 80's cinema was subpar because of ...etc. To answer your questions, Harry's 'reviews' amuse me, in as much as I bother to read them. I'm not concerned really, with how Harry feels: he has an agenda, and I anything of his that I read I take with about 5 pounds of salt. I have much more faith in Quint's opinions, honestly. Oh, and the 'Blade' movies are a guilty pleasure of mine. Not exactly great cinema, but they don't invalidate the entire decade they were released in, either.

  • Oct. 16, 2011, 3:41 p.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    No, just very passionate. And i'm tame compared to the average spanish that you might know.

  • Oct. 16, 2011, 3:41 p.m. CST

    See, your post to mattman was more to my liking...

    by Joaquin_Ondamoon

    ...although I disagree with it. I'll toss up 'Empire Strikes Back', as a big budget 80's studio movie that was both entertainment and art (and imho, the best of the whole series). Now, nothing - nothing! - compares to 'Godfather II'. It's almost an 'apples and oranges' argument. But to dismiss the 80's as totally devoid of artistic filmmaking is kind of silly. For every 'Meatballs 2' (I won't dignify it with roman numerals), we had a 'Terminator', or a 'Temple of Doom' (and fuck the haters, on that one). We're always gonna have movies that suck - this decade makes a pretty good case for that (yeah 'Twilight' - I'm looking at you!). You just have to sort the chaff from the wheat.

  • Oct. 16, 2011, 3:48 p.m. CST


    by scrote

    ..the only thing the locals here get passionate about is their almonds...

  • Oct. 16, 2011, 3:53 p.m. CST

    Anyway, back on topic...(sorta)...

    by Joaquin_Ondamoon

    I'm not gonna bash Harry's review, I haven't seen 'Thing/2011'. And I'm not gonna see it ,either. It just encourages the remake/sequel-itis that currently has Hollywood by the short hairs. If anything, Asi's 80's rant applies to the current decade more than the 80's. Thank goodness some people are making movies like 'Drive', with it's 80's/Michael Mann vibe (ha!). I have 2 kids, a full time job and other considerations that make actually going to the theater less of an option for me these days, so I want to see something original. Not some reconstituted rehash of something I've already seen. Those of you that liked it - fine. Good for you. I just have no interest in it whatsoever. And I'm still pissed I dished out cold, hard cash for 'Cowboys and Aliens.' Zzzzzzzz......

  • Oct. 16, 2011, 3:54 p.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    OK. THen allow me to use an example just to point out the different attitudes in cinema from the 1970s to the 1980s and how in the 80s things turned for the down. Take the first two movies of the Rambo saga. compare FIRST BLOOD with RAMBO: FIRST BLOOD PART II. Both are action movies. Both are entertaiment movies. Both movies could be more diferent form one another. First Blood is a full 70s action movie. It has chases, it has shootouts, it has a main character battling odds against him. And how does that movie plays out? Pretty much of it's running time, fairly realistic. With one or two exceptions, none of what happens in the movie is outside the real of possibilities. In fact, it's know form real history of people who have done things that would make Rambo from the first movie not all that special. But Rambo in the first movie is special. What he goes through and what he can do is already presented as exceptional and yet still in the realm of plausible. Adn the whle movie, despiste it's action, it's still presented as a gritty thriller, and in the end, as proper drama. Who never felt moved by the final breakdown of Rambo's the character? And then there's the fact that nobody in the movie is a villain. They are flawed people who make mistakes. Rambo himself contributes to the shit that happens to him because he didn't took the clue from the sherriff. THe sherriff was wrong, and Rambo was wrong, both caused the situation. First Blood also has ambiguity going for it. It's an embitious little action movie. Came the 80's and Rambo II, and it's all a cartoon with some strawman pseudo-poilitical farse based on a urban legend about vietnam vets left behind. Cartoon is the best way to describe that movie,and nonthign mroe is needed. That's how easy it is to break down Rambo II. Both of this Rambo movies represent, quite clearly, and are perfect examples, both from the same genre, of the type of movies that were made in the 70s and 80s , and the spirit and atittude that went to it. Rambo II is as 80s as it can be. So, did this answer safistified you better then my previous rants?

  • Oct. 16, 2011, 3:59 p.m. CST


    by scrote

    ...both of those movies were made in the 80's...what's your point?

  • Oct. 16, 2011, 4:01 p.m. CST

    First Blood was made in '82

    by scrote

  • Oct. 16, 2011, 4:04 p.m. CST


    by scrote need to research, dude...

  • Oct. 16, 2011, 4:11 p.m. CST

    Yes, Asi - a much more concise and rational argument.

    by Joaquin_Ondamoon

    And an excellent example. I'm not gonna sit here and defend 'Rambo II', or any of it's ridiculous sequels - Stallone can do that, if he so chooses. What I'm saying is that there were other movies of that decade (the 80's) that did speak to people (or at least to me). The John Hughes teen comedies. Anything with John Candy in it (yes, even 'Harry Crumb'). 'Rain Man'. We could go back and forth all day, really. Sure, none of those films are 'The Godfather', or even 'Godfather III' (which I never felt was as horrible as people seem to think). I'm just saying that a blanket statement that the entire decade blew, to me, is erroneous. You have your points - I just disagree with some of them. In the end, let's just agree to disagree.

  • Oct. 16, 2011, 4:12 p.m. CST

    Yes, his facts are in error - but he makes a good case for his argument.

    by Joaquin_Ondamoon

  • Oct. 16, 2011, 4:17 p.m. CST


    by scrote

    First blood was released in 1982...Rambo First Blood Part two in 1985.... And you are agreeing with Asi on the difference between 70's and 80's movies? Not sure I get this...

  • Oct. 16, 2011, 4:38 p.m. CST

    Don't make me defend, Asi! lol!

    by Joaquin_Ondamoon

    No, I disagree vehemently with Asi's opinion - but I understand the core of his argument: that studios in the 80's pushed a lot of crap out the door and on to screens in the name of profit. But that happens in every era, doesn't it? Even more so nowadays. The studio system has been strangling creativity for decades. Ask any of the stars that were beholden to the contracts that studios roped them into 'back in the day' (if they still live). I just don't think you can use the 80's as a starting point for that. I love 80's films, even some of the ones he mentioned as crap. I happen to think that some of the best movies ever made came out of that decade (some of which I mentioned above, as did Mattman and Billy_d). So I think he's dead wrong on that account. I was merely giving him props for stating his argument in a mature fashion, without one single 'Bayformers' or 'Jar-Jar Abrams' comment. If anything, his comments about Rambo II ring true about today's films: prequels, sequels...anything to make a buck. Still, there's a few diamonds in the rough out there, if you look.

  • Okay, dude. Kudos...

  • Oct. 16, 2011, 5:10 p.m. CST

    First Blood as "70s cinema"

    by MCVamp

    It's inaccurate because of the 82 release, but the spirit of the film is a more 70's sensibility. This is probably because it had been in development since 72. The film and screenplay had its roots in the 70s and although Stallone had involvement in the final product, it was still a product of that era. When they smelled money to be made, the 80s came into play and turned RAMBO into a balls-out, brains-gone sequel.

  • Oct. 16, 2011, 5:27 p.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    You're right, it a 1982 movie. But the movie was developed during the 70s (Pacino once was set to play the role), and there's a whole 70s vibe to that movie. Again, one of those movies that were 70s movies but reached the shores in the early 80s. Still, my point stand. The 70s type movies didn't ended in news eve 1980. You know, maybe my point could be made even bettwr with the Rocky series and constrast Rocky with Rocky 3 and Rocky IV. How about that?

  • Oct. 16, 2011, 5:37 p.m. CST


    by scrote

    ..that would have been a whole lot better. The Rambo thing, not so much...1982 is not the late seventies, no matter which way you try to slice it...

  • Oct. 16, 2011, 5:39 p.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    That's the thing, there were a few diamonds in the 80s. The emphasis is on FEW. No decade is beret of pearls. 80s included. But generally speaking,the 80s was when Holywood stop caring about the quality of the product and only cared about profit lines and market testing and use the economic system of such business as mass shoemaking for films. In Holywood, movies were always a business. But the people, on front of the studios they cared for their movies. They might not know how to make one,but they sure cared. Movies where their babies, and they could be quite protective. In the 80s, when yuppidom ruled the land, they couldn't care if a mvoie was fgood or not, all they care was that it folowed some perceived formula that could garantee sucess. Let me just say this: the good holywood movies of the 80s, they were good despiste the studios. In the 70s, the movies were good because of the studios. You guys love BACK TO THE FUTURE, right? You guys ever heard the stories of the making of that movie? You guys heard the stories of the idiotic pressures and ideas that the studios wanted to impose on the movie,and how Zemekcis and Spielberg had to constantly +çay games and fool the studio to let them do their thing? And BACK TO THE FUTURE was not some arty-house low concept movie made with the intention of deliver a political or artistic message, it was just a lightweight family friendly silly adventure movie. Nothign highbrow about it,and stiull spielberg and Zemeckis fouight tooth ad nail for it. The movie you love almost was not made as you know it by the thick of a fingernail. That's 80s Holywood in a nutshell. Every movie you love of that decade was made in despsite of the prevaling Holywood mentality and mood of the time. THe great 70s movies of the time were made because they folowed the mood of the time, not fought against it. The movies that were made in tune to the mood of the 80s are retard dumb bad shit like Top Gun, the poster boy of 80s cinema.

  • Oct. 16, 2011, 5:44 p.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    Again, read my posts and my points about the late arrival of the last 70s movies in the early 80s. The mood of a decade don't stop so nicely like as if it has ABS brakes at the crossing line from 1979 to 1980. This happened in every decade. The case whee the thing is les visible is the change from 1960s to 1970s, because the 70s were quite a continuation of the mood found in the movies of the late 60s. Movies like John Boorman's POINT BLANK could even be seen as 70s movies avant la letre. A 70s movie made before there was a 70s.

  • Oct. 16, 2011, 5:46 p.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    Basically, FIRST BLOOD was made in the spirit of 70s cinema. That counts more then just the year it got it's copyright.

  • Oct. 16, 2011, 5:48 p.m. CST

    I'll give ASI a gold coin here...

    by Darth_Kong

    If anybody ever gets the chance walk into the script room, or whatever they call it, at Sony Pictures Studios and ask them for the formulas for certain genres. Certain things have to happen every so many pages depending if a script is an action movie or a romcom. Remember what Ridley was fighting with FOX about during ALIEN? The studio execs said nothing happens for 40 minutes and Ridley said yeah but look at what you're looking at. THERE IS DEFINITELY A METHOD TO THE MADNESS NOW. It's FAST FOOD MOVIES. DRIVE THRU TACO BELL HOOTY HOOTY HOOT NOBODY CAN TELL... Hopefully Ridley isn't fighting so many Cee U Next Tuesdays on PROMETHEUS.

  • Oct. 16, 2011, 5:57 p.m. CST


    by scrote

    I understand what you mean when you talk about the zeitgiest of a decade, but each decade has it's antecedents. It may very well bleed through into the following decade but each decade is in of itself. 70's cinema is 70's cinema...and the same can be said for the cinema of the 80's, ad infinitum...

  • Oct. 16, 2011, 5:59 p.m. CST

    I never saw First Blood as a 70's era movie...

    by scrote

    ..because I viewed it in the early eighties... big difference...

  • Oct. 16, 2011, 5:59 p.m. CST


    by Josh

    IDK what happen with this movie. I wanted to love it. Even when I first saw the trailer I said rip off. But it grew on me. Welp sorry to say the movie was a boring POS. the characters were more dull then my shits. Ummm the action lame. The gore decent. The monsters were cool though they looked like something out of dead space. Thats about it. But the movie was so damn boring it felt like a drama with some added horror. I don't want to write anymore I am getting depressed.

  • Oct. 16, 2011, 7:04 p.m. CST

    Movie was Great, Harry is full of warm feces

    by Arthur

    So the main reasons Mr. Knowles did not like the prequel were because he did not get to see the scenes with the helicopter survivors and his overwhelming fanboy nostalgia for the original. Malarkey on both counts. The Thing attacked the helicopter occupants because it momentarily lost its cohesiveness and lashed out to the sole witness. Why waste time showing surviving the crash, when a much more powerful scene was created when the survivors show up at camp unexpectedly. The norwegian with the flamethrower threatening to torch these survivors because he couldn't be certain of their true identities. That was more powerful. Knowing you survived a crash, trekked through the snow injured, and now you have a flamethrower shoved at your face. Now the pompous Knowles also mentions the lack of character development and relationship amongst the outpost residents to which I say, WHY SHOULD YOU CARE? What would he like a funny guy quick with a joke, the father pineing for his family back home, or the lone female who feels like a den mother to these males. Who cares if you want some comraderie so bad go see some other type of flick. What the comraderie exhibited while they sat around and drank after there big alien discovery is not enough for you. How much relationship would you want when it doesn't matter at all in terms of the bodycount; Is it that there deaths can have more meaning to you because you grew to care about the characters. The real suspense comes from not knowing who is the Thing. Which person could possible be this creature. Finally the original. If you can not give a review with an open mind because you are to hung up on the way you saw the original or when you saw it, or even its lasting impact on you then you should have not bothered to see the movie let alone review it. I love the original but this is its own movie. As for you knit-picking on this first time director -SHAME ON YOU. This was a great movie too and in the hands of a lesser director it would have suffered. If any other director would have tried there hand at directing this movie you would have been throwing feces too. You are just an overopinionated blowhard.

  • since we have some unfinished the bat-kitchen robin.

  • Oct. 16, 2011, 8:45 p.m. CST

    scrote First Blood is an 80's movie. Came out in August of 1982.

    by kabookieslap

    The book was a 70's book. What is weird is that by the time the movie was made the clothes that Rambo wears in the book, which is what he wore in the movie, everyone was wearing jeans and old army jackets at that period. So it was kid of off for the Sherrif saying "Walking around town..dressed like are" seemed weird to the audience as we were dressing like that.

  • Oct. 16, 2011, 8:50 p.m. CST

    asimovlives True that First Blood was developed in the 70's, but

    by kabookieslap

    When Stallone was hired to play Rambo, part of his contract was that he got to rewrite the script. So they really ditched what was developed as the final film is Stallone's rewrite going back to the source material of the book.

  • Oct. 16, 2011, 9:03 p.m. CST

    joaquin_ondamoon Empire was financed by Lucas

    by kabookieslap

    And it is the only Star Wars film that had the least involvement by Lucas. He hired Leigh Bracket to write a script based on the things that they did not use for Star Wars. Gary Kurtz said that the whole multi generational thing that Lucas has been saying for years was bullshit. Look at the LA times article titled Gary Kurtz speaks out. Lucas and Kurtz were going to make Apocalypse Now, but the studio wanted a sequel. So Coppola got tired of waiting and did it himself. They took what they did not use and formed a storyline. Lucas hired Leigh Bracket to write a script from that storyline in which Leia was never Luke's sister. It was another girl being trained as a jedi somewhere else and Luke wasn't to meet her till later in the series. She turned in the first draft, and then died shortly after. Lucas then brought in Lawrence Kasdan to do a re-write. He did. Then Lucas hired his old college professor Irvin Kirshner. He told Kirshner it was his film, and he was only going to oversee special effects, to Which Lucas storyboarded. So, Kirshner went to England and shot the movie on his own and had a lot of it rewritten. Then he did his first edit, and Lucas hated it and tried to edit it more like Star Wars. But his wife Marcia stopped him and said something like "Don't be stupid. That is a great film" So Lucas relented and kept Kirshner's edit, which is what is what was released. Lucas had also never like Empire as it went to far from his idea of a kid movie. Only later on did Lucas finally realize how great it was. He knew that if he tampered with it much he would get shit from the fans. He made a few changes to it in the Special Editions and people hated one in specific....Luke saying Yehaww. But the reason why it is so good is that it had the least intervention by Lucas and was made by a great film maker.

  • WB took over video distribution as Ladd had not set that up within his company. But the Ladd Companies first film was Outland. It also did Chariots of Fire, The Right Stuff, Body Heat and the first two Police Academy movies. But no where in the posters, or in the movies was it a Warner distribution. Only in home video release, which was the deal.

  • Oct. 16, 2011, 9:10 p.m. CST


    by Darth_Kong

    Was there any retaliation against Gary Kurtz speaking out? I mean everyone knows how the industry is. No one on the inside can say a film is bad when it really is or how things really work or came to being. Most people have no idea in the world that what they see on television of how the industry is portrayed is a big lie. There's nothing true on television. Not even factual. I never knew Gary Kurtz spoke up. Good for him.

  • Oct. 16, 2011, 9:11 p.m. CST


    by Darth_Kong

    You've had plenty of time to WOLF DOWN that pizza. ;)

  • Oct. 16, 2011, 9:26 p.m. CST

    Okay guys here is how 70's and 80's movies went down

    by kabookieslap

    First there was Jaws, which was released during the summer. Summer before was not considered a good time to release movies over any other time in the year. Jaws was the first movie to be released in wide release instead of slowly building in different markets like had been done before, like Rocky. Close Encounters, Star Wars and Superman the Movie are considered the three films that started the big event movies as they were all shooting at the same time, with Superman starting first, but coming out last due to shooting two movies and the problems with the producers. Those movies made boatloads and studios started looking at these big event movies. It was at this time that Paramount went with Star Trek as a film instead of new TV show that they had been developing since 75. Because Jaws and Star Wars blew off the summer season, and Superman and Close Encounters the Christmass season, this is the two seasons studios started eyeing on. The more the big event movies made, by these film makers that were pushing the envelope, the more studios stated making a slate for the seasons. I forgot what led to 1982 being so great, but I think it had something to do with a strike, much like Jaws was formed by the looming writers strike. Because of it, there were a lot of movies. Also, I believe because of the 1980 summer doing just okay, studio heads really wanted a good slate. It was the one year, except for the boneheads at Columbia that passed on ET, that they really cared. Universal even had a 2 page spread in Starlog that was epic announcing their slate for the summer. It was also the only time besides Jaws, Superman, Star Wars, and Close Encounters where a films stayed in theaters for a long time. Not like Star Wars which stayed at the Cinerama in Hawaii for a year, but for a long time. Many of the films that opened up in May stayed in first run cinemas. I remember Poltergeist, Conan, Star Trek 2, Firefox, and Rocky 3 staying in the first run theaters till late July. Movies like Tron, Blade Runner and The Thing had to open in 2nd run theaters in a lot of places. It was just the one summer where the stars aligned right.

  • Oct. 16, 2011, 9:33 p.m. CST

    Where movies started going wrong was Batman 89

    by kabookieslap

    I saw it at the 12:05 showing the night before it opened. It was not so much hyped by the studio as people just hyped it on their own. Literally you could not walk down the street without running into someone with a Batman shirt (not movie related, just general Batman) every block. People were shaving the symbol into their Arsenio Hall haircuts. But when it finally opened, people were jazzed for it. I can remember people dressed like the joker and batman for it. But when the end credits started I just remember the crowd saying "That was it. That is the movie we were all waiting for?" But it was hype that made that movie more than substance like Die Hard. Die Hard came out and a lot of people were goofing on Bruce Willis as a action hero. But that movie built from word of mouth on it's first night opening. But from there the studios started pushing what they can advertise over what the movie was. Look at Alien 3. Also, in the 80's people started aping Spielberg and Spielberg started producing way too many movies that looked like he made it. By the time of Batteries Not Included and Harry and the Henderson, it was "How many of these films can he make?" but the late 70's and early 80's were amazing to live in as a film fan.

  • Oct. 16, 2011, 10:49 p.m. CST

    That's Too Harsh, Harry

    by Pop_aristocrat

    The Thing wasn't that bad. I'll admit, I agree it retreads too much of Carpenter's work, and it adds nothing to the story that wasn't already established by the original. So, if anything, its a useless film. But that doesn't make it a BAD film. Its nowhere near as good as Carpenter's for many of the reasons cited. Flimsier characters, less inspired terror and creature designs. These are very valid complaints. But, if the film were released on its own, without the shadow of its predecessor, it would look like a decent film. And compared to many other releases of late, it holds up very well.

  • Oct. 16, 2011, 11:39 p.m. CST

    @Asimov part1

    by KilliK

    =No, the list is not endless, the list is actually quite very short. You just named the exceptions. And the exceptions ony confirm the rule through contrast. = Nope,sorry,you are wrong.I could write all day this list and it still wouldnt have been complete.the list is endless. Besides,your argument was that the entertainment movies of the 80s, had a complete lack of quality and they had nothing more to offer than dumb fun. But the existence of a great number of quality entertainment movies from the 80s era,proves beyond any doubt that this accusation of yours is completely wrong and unjust. Facts are facts as they say,and they represent nothing else than the harsh reality. And since you cant use counter-argument against the fact that great,masterful entertainment movies exist in the 80s,you go to the next stage of your dispute process: you are claiming that these movies are the exceptions,that the bad movies overcome the good movies,which as you put it, the ratio of good/bad movies define the quality of the entertainment cinema of an entire decade. The problem is that this argument is in reality a fallacy,a fallacy of Composition.It's not a valid argument,it does not prove that the 80s were a bad decade for the entertainment movies,simply because a part of those movies,even if it is the majority,are bad movies. And the reason for that is that if we are going to accept this logic of yours and apply for the 70s,then by that logic the conclusion we get is that the 70s was a bad decade for entertainment movies as well. Because truth to be told, there were a lot of trash films in the 70s and i mean a lot.Hell the grindhouse,exploitation,blackploitation,trash cinema,b-movies,z-movies,porno,etc genres were born in that decade which was natural because of the worldwide new wave explosion in the cinema. So do you agree with the above? were the 70s a bad decade for movies,because statistically the good movies were a lot fewer that the bad movies? if not,then you must agree and accept that this kind of argument with rations and numbers is at least unsustainable,not to mention silly.

  • Oct. 16, 2011, 11:40 p.m. CST

    @Asimov part2

    by KilliK

    = Those movies do not exemplify the cinema of the 80s, those movies are the notable exceptions. The 80s is represented by TOP GAY GUN and RAMBO BULLSHIT II. Those are the true 80s movies. Those are the movies that fully embraced the way of the 80s in making movies, those are it's cheerleaders. Movies like that, not those you aforementiond. = Now from the above is pretty clear that you are using the fallacy by Accident.Which basically means that two bad movies from the 80s happen to be two of the most popular movies from the movies,thus all the cinema from the 80s are bad which means the 80s were bad for cinema. This is a fallacy for three reasons: You are only talking about two movies,which means the sample you are using is very small.Statistically it is not enough to prove that all the movies in the 80s were bad.But even if it was,that leads us to the above occasion where you use the fallacy of Composition: you cant say an entire decade was bad because a lot of movies were bad ones. Secondly,there is is a big exception in this generalization of yours: there are also a lot of good movies from the 80s which also happened to be very popular too.For every Top Gun and Rambo 2,there is a Die Hard and a Predator. Finally,what the fuck has the popularity of bad movies to do with the undeniable fact of the existence of a lot of good movies in the 80s? could you please explain to me how on earth the BO numbers of some movies negate the quality of other movies? could you? = Adentum: I'm sorry to not share your love for SUPERMAN II and GHOSTBUSTERS. But that's how it is.= I'M sorry but who gives a fuck if you share your love for SUPERMAN II and GHOSTBUSTERS?. Your personal taste on films doesnt matter,your arguments matter.and unfortunately in this department you have failed miserably until now.That's how it is. that's all for me for now.i know i am not having a real dialog with you,essentially i am talking in the thin air,but it is fun to kick your ass while you are trying so desperately to prove your,fun,fun.

  • Oct. 17, 2011, 12:38 a.m. CST

    =yes, even 'Harry Crumb'=

    by KilliK

    are you kidding me? i fucking love that movie.

  • Oct. 17, 2011, 12:40 a.m. CST

    =,thus all the cinema from the 80s=

    by KilliK

    i meant: thus all the popular movies from the 80s fucking edit.

  • Oct. 17, 2011, 12:42 a.m. CST

    =if you share =

    by KilliK

    if you dont share fucking edit.

  • Oct. 17, 2011, 1:02 a.m. CST

    Re: You Hated THE THING Prequel ...

    by ArmageddonProductions

    ... but you loved THE PHANTOM MENACE? Because your THING review pretty much sounds like a review I'd have given the latter, aside from the functionally-illiterate grammatical blunders and the faint praise given to the first forty minutes (let's face it, there ain't forty decent minutes anywhere to be found in PHANTOM MENACE ... maybe four).

  • If you want to see a new alien thingy, and a few scenes with tension, this is the movie for you. If you want a superior THE THING, good luck. FULL SPOILERS AHEAD THINGS start out promising with the 80's version of the Universal logo. Maybe because this 2011 version isn't based on the Campbell's story from ASTOUNDING mag (as the credits claim), but is actually based on JOHN CARPENTER'S THE THING. Then we get a literal cliffhanger as the buried UFO is located by the Norwegians from a distress-like signal, a la ALIEN. You know this remake is immediately going downhill when the protagonist paleontologist is literally just thrown into the mix at the get go. No personal background, no career goals, no home to say goodbye to, no hubby bidding tearful farewell or wishing a swift homecoming - she's just dropped on the helicopter. So, *the team* digs the alien out and hauls it back in a block of ice to drip and THAW OUT, while playing ukulele and drinking to celebrate finding an alien. You would think at this point, having gathered *specialists*, they would all be taking photos and radioing everyone they know to become worldwide Nobel laureates in alien science, UFO physics or whatever. No, they just videotape a *specialist* drilling the ice for a tissue sample and then they GO AWAY. As shown in THE THING trailer, it soon bursts out of the thawing ice, sort of like Glenn Close jumping out of the bathtub in FATAL ATTRACTION, and begins attacking and cloning like a mad killer. Whereas John Carpenter went for the creepy and disturbing, this 2011 version aims low with jumps and scares. While all the chasing and running with flamethrowing babe (ALIEN, again) was going on, my mind began to wander about possibilities like, *Did the alien infect-replicate-absorb everyone on that UFO, sending it hurtling into the Earth? Wait, the alien KNOWS how to drive a spaceship, so it must have absorbed the intellect of the UFO-drivers, if it wasn't already the pilot. Why doesn't an all-replicating alien just replicate ONE person and say, -- Hello, everybody! I'm an alien who's just replicated your friend, Bob, and I really hate to trouble you chaps, but I need a lift back to the giant UFO I have the intellect to fly around!--*. It's not unlike SUPER-8 or COWBOYS & ALIENS, where highly advanced gnarly-looking creatures would rather scream, howl, snap and chase people around instead of having a conversation. You know, RETARDED SHIT. The 1982 THE THING wisely just hinted at this when Blair's spaceship construction is discovered under the tool shed. This is why one must leave things like buried UFOs and alien thingys mysterious and unexplained, instead of being EXPLODED by prequels like these. Your mind just SHOULDN'T GO THERE. The VFX (my main reason for seeing this), credited many puppeteers, so Gillis and Woodruff must have produced a lot of practical effects, and their creatures are technically very well done. However, there is so much CG augmentation, they do feel digital, overall. There is one EXCEPTIONAL transformation which has the thing descend, almost rape-like, on a dude and begin a live replication of his face, in a double homage to Bottin's *mitosis face* and *detaching Norris head* creatures. Besides that, and a few *caterpillar arms* thingies, the new THING is just squishy, distorted, toothy-claw manifestations. Other bits from the 1982 version are cribbed outright, like the sputtering flamethrower, the autopsy on the burnt thing and the blood test, which is now an inspection for dental fillings (!). Yes, the thing's giveaway in the 2011 version is that non-organic metal bits such as fillings or metal limb braces are discarded. *Open your mouth!!!, Open your mouth!!!* Yeesh. There could have been a nice bit with one character's earring, but after its full-on close-up, it instantly telegraphs that character's upcoming thing-ation. The end credits intersperse how the last un-thinged Norwegian, and a somehow newly-replicated dog, head off from the Norwegian base. At this point we understand the 2011 protagonist was, at the end, a mere throwaway. It can only be assumed she has survived only to freeze to death, or die alone in the camp, as no activity was there when MacReady arrived to find *mitosis face*. No surprise, this 2011 THE THING didn't leave me properly chilled, but out in the cold. Bummer.

  • Oct. 17, 2011, 3:03 a.m. CST

    @kabookieslap Re; First Blood...

    by scrote

    ...You didn't read my earlier post. I know FB came out in '82. Asi is arguing the difference between decades of film by using First blood and Rambo as examples, which is erroneous. I know the book by David Morrell came out in the 70's but if Asi uses that argument then what decades are film adaptations of novels by Dickens and Austen supposed to be aligned with? Does that mean Jacob's Ladder is a seventies movie because the screenplay was written then? I could go on but I'd bore the ass off everyone.

  • Oct. 17, 2011, 3:11 a.m. CST

    Asi, oops on Apocalypse Now...

    by Mattman

  • Oct. 17, 2011, 3:14 a.m. CST

    And Asi

    by Mattman

    Your list of superficial 80s movies pales in comparison to my list of excellent 80s movies.

  • Oct. 17, 2011, 3:19 a.m. CST

    And the 70s had its fair share of shit movies as well

    by Mattman

    Not every movie was Chinatown (One of my all-time favorites, btw).

  • WTF? It WAS made in the 80s though... isn't that what we're fucking talking about? I suppose you have an excuse for why every good movie I listed was good. That door swings both ways; I could make up bullshit excuses why there were good 70s movies despite the multitude of exploitation movies and cheesy horror flicks and stupid dance movies.

  • Oct. 17, 2011, 4 a.m. CST

    I believe the decline of the good entertainment cinema

    by KilliK

    started with the 90s.You had the ending of the classic 80s action hero type,the cgi revolution and the first movies like Jurassic Park which had as their focal attraction their groundbreaking visual effects rather than their stories,characters and universe. Ofc as time was passing by a lot of other things happened which directly or indirectly affected the industry in Hollywood and ultimately lead it to its current state of decay.Such things as the telecommunications revolution (smartphones,social networks,internet,blogging,etc),the record-breaking success of movies like Titanic,LOTR,Harry Potter,the usa television entering a new golden age,the revolution in the digital formats,the boost in the consumer electronics market and the dynamic development of the videogames industry,and so on. All those things helped to change the american cinema and how Hollywood works nowadays.From how the studio suits are organizing their investments,to how the directors envision their movies,to how these movies are finally made,advertised and sold to the audience. No,the 80s are not responsible for the current decline of the american entertainment cinema. The 80s Thing movie is not responsible for the fact that a 2011s remake exists and that also that remake is a bad movie because it failed to realize what it was that made the original such an all-time classic masterpiece. No,if you want to find who or what was responsible for what is happening in HW nowadays,search somewhere else not in the 80s.Contrary to the general believe,the 80s was a fucking awesome decade for cinema and not only there.

  • Oct. 17, 2011, 4:22 a.m. CST

    No decade is to blame for another decade's failings

    by melonman

    The 90s were a great decade for cinema (Pulp Fiction, Trainspotting, LA Confidential, Fight Club, Starship Troopers - as with all lists it can just go on and on…) The focus on special effects could just as easily be blamed on Star Wars or CE3K, but that would be incorrect as well. Hollywood has always been obsessed with spectacle. There's a pretty direct line from Titanic to The Poseidon Adventure and The Towering Inferno of the 70s to the DeMille epics of the 50s like The Ten Commandments. See the wall of water! CGI is just the latest replacement for toys floating in a fishtank. it's just a tool. The experimental cinema of the late 60s/70s grew out of a rebellion against the bloated beast that Hollywood had become with dismal spectaculars like Cleopatra or Dr Doolittle. And if Hollywood is becoming bloated again, well maybe that's a good thing, because we've got another indie revolution coming. Smaller movies and younger more daring film-makers rising up through the ranks. For every Bay you get a Fincher or Nolan. For every McG a Wyatt etc Modern technology has put basic filmmaking tools in the microbudget hands of kids who can hone their craft on youtube before breaking into the bigtime. And when we get bored of some artsy pant-wetting teen angst Hollywood will bounce back with another OTT blockbuster wave to get our bums back on the seats. The big picture is like history, and it runs in cycles, and cycles keep on coming around and around again.

  • Oct. 17, 2011, 5:25 a.m. CST

    What horror movies has Harry directed?

    by Smashing

    Serious question, I'm assuming he has a back catalogue of amazing cinematic work that he has lovingly crafted. I mean only someone secure in the knowledge that they themselves are a cinematic directing genius would dare to slaver all over somebody elses work in this way. So where can I read Harry's directing cv?

  • Oct. 17, 2011, 5:30 a.m. CST

    mattman, about APOCALYPSE NOW...

    by AsimovLives

    ... you just had to name one of my all time favorite movies. Ops! hehehe!

  • Oct. 17, 2011, 5:35 a.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    Yes and no. In foreign markets, Blade Runner came cortesy of WB. The Ladd Company logo was still there at the start of the movie, but it was from Warners.

  • Oct. 17, 2011, 5:37 a.m. CST

    Empire Strikes Back is also a 70s movie.

    by AsimovLives

    It was scripted and filmed in 1979, and it's 80s acossiation was merely the year it was released. So, the greatest SW movie ever is also a 70s movie. Think about that when you guys go praising the 80s.

  • Oct. 17, 2011, 5:59 a.m. CST

    My point was all about Holywood studio movies.

    by AsimovLives

    How did you guys failed to understand that? I keep saying time and again about Holywood. Holywood. Holywood. The movies made by Holywood showed a general fall of quality from the 70s to the 80s. Ask anybody of that time, who lived through the transition. Watch the documentaries about it, it's all a long list of lamentation of the lost of artistic soul with the studio system. Craft and artisty making way for crass commerce. More examples? How about such sagas like PHANTASM? Take Phantasm and Phantasm II. The first movie, made in 1979, with it's moody tone and it's strange dream like quality, a movie that is it's own movie, nothing else like it. It had it's own identity. The came Phantasm II in 1988. Make no mistake, i like it, but see how the movie loses all the col moodness it once had and beames an action movie. The movie was ade by people who really took a lot of notes when they watched ALIENS. It's Phantasm by Aliens. The movie was also plagued with executive meddling who forced the action stuff. And this is the classic story with Holywood of the 80s: a constant parade of executive meddling, accountants telling filmmakers how to make movies. And it shows. The general attitude in the 70s filmmaking was that there should be some level of social comentary to theme to a movie, regardless. Even exploitation B-movies mananged to sheeze some theme or message to their movies. Where they misguided or naive is not the point, the point is that even exploitation movies felt a need to go futher then just shallow entertaiment. it doesn't matter if they achieved, but that they tried. And it felt genuine. The mood of the time was that there as a social conscience out there, and that movies should reflect concerns of the socieity, regardless of the topic at hand, regardless if a movie was mere entertaiment. Came the 80s, all that is thorwn to the bashbin. The philosophy of the holywood of the 80s is mindless escapism and treat audiences has if they have difficulty with the notion of walking a chewing a bubblegum at the same time. Shallow and vapid. You guys can't deny that there was much more ambiton and thoughfulness to the cinema of the 70s, compare to the vampiness and shallownes of the 80s in Holywood. Saying otherwise is deliberate blindness. And i'm sorry if i think thaqt making a movie intelligent and with thematic ambitions make them better. That was the general spirit of Holywood of the 70s, and that's why when their movies were good, they were not just good but exceptional. that far outweights some 80s movie that became popular because it has big ass explosions and lots of shooting done by a big muscled guy.

  • It didn't last for long, half a decade, but as a reaction to the 80s shallowness and vapidness, i was a treat. You have to find it curious that some of the best filmmakers today are people who are heavily influenced by 70s movies, and want to make their movies a bit in their image. To transpose some of that inspiration and style of the 70s movie to today. I think it's a noble task and it's also the right thing to do. Yes, every decade makes shit. 70s included. But the good stuff of the 70s was not just good, it was fantastic.

  • Oct. 17, 2011, 6:08 a.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    You are using the same fallacies you claim i have. Potato Putato. The great recent decline of cinema came when the Jerry Bruckheimer/Don Simpson/Michael Bay style of filmmaking made school and a host of others started to follow suit. The stalwarts of 80s cinema taken to its logical conclusion. That was the fall to the precipice that we are witnessing today. Fortunatly, not every filmmaker is stupid enough to follow the clue of Bay, and that's why some good movies keep on being made, even in Holywood.

  • Oct. 17, 2011, 6:14 a.m. CST nailed it

    by quantize

  • Their coke fuelled egotism led to their own downfall, ultimately making films as shallow in their pretensions as the 80s were in their rollercoaster ride mentality. To paraphrase a 60s icon - they "blew it". Art and entertainment have such a closely symbiotic relationship that to deny one is to destroy the other. The 70s auteurs self-aggrandising for intellectualism over entertainment swiftly created a public craving the calorific rush of a cinematic Big Mac over the nutrition of a lentil casserole. The obvious, and still brilliant bible documenting this is Biskind's Easy Riders, Raging Bulls. There are phases and cycles in cinema, so it's continually swinging back and forth like a pendulum between artistic integrity and commercial greed. And that's how should it be.

  • Everything is overlapping. Always.

  • Oct. 17, 2011, 6:44 a.m. CST

    And a Big Mac is tastier than a lentil bake

    by melonman

    It may not be better for you, but can be just as much what the doctor ordered.

  • Oct. 17, 2011, 8:02 a.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    For the last time, no you can't suck my dick, i wont allow it. Leave me alone and fuck off.

  • Oct. 17, 2011, 8:03 a.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    You seem to not understand either what intellectual and pseudo means. Contratalations on your ignorance, it's quite impressive. And you are a dick.

  • Oct. 17, 2011, 8:16 a.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    in their own way 70s auteurs become as equally bloated as any other decade's giants. Their coke fuelled egotism led to their own downfall

  • Oct. 17, 2011, 8:26 a.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    There are phases and cycles in cinema, so it's continually swinging back and forth like a pendulum between artistic integrity and commercial greed. And that's how should it be.

  • Oct. 17, 2011, 9:37 a.m. CST

    The 1980's-Best decade for sci-fi/fantasy genre movies

    by Samuel Fulmer

    Because we got interesting talents given big budgets and using them correctly. Robocop, Back to the Future, Indiana Jones Trilogy, a Nightmare on Elm Street, Blade Runner, The Thing, Predator, Aliens, Batman, the list could go on forever. What the decade was truly lacking in were decent dramatic films, but the pushing of big formula high concept films helped give us the American indie film scene (Blue Velvet, Stranger than Paradise, Sex,Lies, and Video Tapes, She's Gotta Have it), that made the 90's such a great decade for dramatic films.

  • Oct. 17, 2011, 9:45 a.m. CST

    I'd also like to add to my last comment.

    by Peter

    The Thing imitates every cell in an organism. By doing this, it inherits the organism's knowledge. This is easy to ascertain because if it didn't then if wouldn't be able to communicate in english and act human in front of the crew. The whole argument that "The thing was just learning" just doesn't hold up. At the point of assimilation it would understand human behavior from the learned experiences of its victim. By the way, I don't know if anybody posted this yet but I thought it was pretty funny.

  • Oct. 17, 2011, 9:55 a.m. CST

    samuel fulmer

    by AsimovLives

    With the exception of Batman in that list, you make for a very good point. I just grew very weary of Tim Burton's Batman (and Tim Burton himself) by now. And after Nolan's Batman movies, i have absolutly no desire whatsoever to revisit them for the rest of my life. Saying that, it's undeniable that without the Burton's Batman movies there would be none of today's for they were the ones that started the ball rolling. I acknowledge their importance, as i must, i just don't like them anymore.

  • Oct. 17, 2011, 10 a.m. CST

    samuel fulmer

    by AsimovLives

    Certainly there was a push for fantasy and Sf in the 80s. Many interesting movies which fortunatly were given confortable budgets and with expert SFX, which helped their storym were made inthe 80s. But i also remeber the legion of cheap knock-offs that were produced in their wake, and not all of them just mere cheappies from low grade studios like Cannon, but from the big ones as well. THe 80s truly put to practice the concept of formula. And some of those goofy knock-offs were even those movie's own sequels. It's not unusual today to have a sequel that can match the original or even improve it. In the 80s, the inverse ws true, so muc so that the phenomemum of inversed quality to the sequel number was a fact more then well known, and too often remarked.

  • Oct. 17, 2011, 11:11 a.m. CST

    I blame Tom Cruise

    by melonman

    For everything. Ever. He's the real life Thing who assimilated himself into cinema. He made Cocktail. The 80s were going fine up until Cocktail. We had Salvador, Platoon, 48 Hrs, Amadeus, The Killing Fields, No Way Out, The Untouchables. Cinema may have been flawed, but essentially it was healthy and ready to fight. Then came the loaded gun in the form of unrealistically white teeth and a shit eating grin. and a conscious clean of reason or empathy. Not even the raw power of Elisabeth Shue could stand in that cunt's way. Cinema had no choice but to blow it's brains out. Fuck you Cruise. Fuck you and the alien mothership you rode in on.

  • Oct. 17, 2011, 11:28 a.m. CST

    It's not _that_ bad.

    by rasok19

    I love Carpenter's "The Thing" above all others. I'm middle-aged now, and that's still my all-time favorite movie. I can recite it nearly verbatim. I have the script. I even have a good back story about the first time I saw it. Over the years, I've watched JC's flick well over 100 times. There are problems with the prequel. Harry is correct about that. But I think he's being overly harsh. What JC understands, perhaps more than any of his contemporaries, is how scary silence can be. In both of his masterworks, "The Thing" and "Halloween," silence is more common than noise. Shadows pass in hallways. Small things build to a larger picture. One of the creepiest scenes in "Halloween" is the horde of silent mental patients milling about in the dark outside the psychiatric hospital. In "The Thing" one of the scariest moments is the shuddering shadow of someone being overtaken by the creature. When Bennings, half-thing, half-man, is found out in the snow, unleashing an inhuman scream, there is no need for conversation. MacReady and the others know what needs to be done, and they do it. Likewise, no one has to cry or babble about losing a friend; we see the shock in all their faces. Arguably, the finest scene in JC's film is the one that centers on the blood tests. By then, suspicion and paranoia has swelled to almost suffocating levels. The men, once friends, now stare at each other through narrowed eyes. When the thing's blood interacts with the hot wire and leaps out of Mac's hand, it's a jump-out-of-your-seat moment. What follows is a masterful scene of over the top horrors, each one shockingly imaginative. The Norris head spider is unforgettable. When it ends -- when Garry's conversational tone erupts into a yelled demand to be freed from his bindings, it pulls the grotesque insanity of the situation back into human terms. Maybe we can't fathom what it would be like to see such horrifying violence, but we can understand what Garry feels like, trapped and angry and oh so scared. It is this sort of thing that is lacking in the prequel. The set-up is fine. As Harry said, the first 40 minutes are by the book, but they're not disappointing. In fact, there's much to like about it. The sets, in particular, are a perfect match for the ones in JC's film. That was important to me. My biggest fear was not that this movie wouldn't live up to its predecessor; I figured that was an impossibility from the get-go. My fear was that we'd see another horrible re-imagining like Rob Zombie's "Halloween" movies, which weren't just terrible but which urinated all over the originals. I wanted the prequel to respect the source material, and in that regard, it succeeded. I began to concerned toward the middle of the film, when it seemed as if the prequel was turning into a remake. Some of Harry's complaints are accurate here, too. When the scientists started working on a blood test to detect who among them was alien, I shifted uneasily in my seat. I was pleased, then, when the cast passed beyond that moment and began to consider a new way to tell who was human. Unlike Harry, I don't think that checking the teeth was a bad plot point. Mouths are scary and dangerous. To peer closely into someone's mouth requires you to stand close to them, closer than is comfortable to most Americans. Being that close to a dog's mouth is unsettling; imagine how much worse it would be to stand there, inches away, staring into the mouth of a possible thing. It'd be scary and creepy as hell. Where the film fails is ... well, there are a few things. This is a loud movie. Because of that, there's no time to step back and be scared. It also has the effect of removing Antarctica from the script; in JC's movie, the imposing, unforgiving nature of the territory becomes a character. It adds to stifling atmosphere. A bigger problem is the creature effects. One of the things that makes the Norris monster scary in JC's version is the brilliance of the mechanical effects; the camera lingers, letting us watch the head detach and pull free. The tongue somehow lashes out, tugging the head across the floor. In this regard, CGI does the new film a disservice. Things happen too quickly, too smoothly. They don't stand up to close inspection. If nothing else, they prove the phenomonal success of Rob Bottin's work for JC. The missteps do add up. And Harry isn't wrong when he says the deaths devolve into something out of a lower-brow slasher movie. Despite all of that, though -- despite its failings -- I don't consider the prequel to be a bad movie. I enjoyed it. I appreciated the homages to Carpenter's film. I liked having the back story. The prequel is in many ways the film JC fans have been waiting for: It advances the story. It doesn't damage JC's film. It's respectful of its source material, and it gives us what we've wanted for 30 years: more of the the thing. Anyone who expected it to be amazing went into this expecting way too much. The best we could hope for is an acceptable film. Too many things conspired to go right for Carpenter for that recipe to ever happen again. I mean, think about it. JC made "The Thing" and "Halloween," but he also gave us "Ghosts of Mars" and the remake of "Village of the Damned." We couldn't expect to collect lightning in a bottle twice. All we could hope for was something respectful and professional. That's we got. I, for one, will be seeing it in the theater again. And I'll definitely buy the Blu-ray.

  • Oct. 17, 2011, 11:32 a.m. CST

    Tom Cruise Saved Cinema

    by Samuel Fulmer

    Three Words-Days of Thunder. The only thing that will save modern cinema will be a 3-D shot for shot remake directed by Gus Van Sant starring Zachary Quinto.

  • Oct. 17, 2011, 11:40 a.m. CST

    Should've had the "Thing" in a different environement

    by Samuel Fulmer

    Like a warm weather Island or something. Skip the whole prequel/connection to the Carpenter film and try to do something at least a little original with the concept.

  • Oct. 17, 2011, 11:50 a.m. CST

    by Johnny Hicks

    Haven't seen it yet and now I don't plan to..I wanted so bad for Hollywood to do something right this time, ESPECIALLY for this...and from everything I've read on the web so far-they screwed up yet again..I shouldn't be suprised I know..but damn. So my question is this..does anyone here think that they could have pulled this off using all practical effects had they used a combination of animatronics coupled with rod puppeteers wearing chroma suits? you see what I'm getting at? the puppeteers and rods could have been removed digitally and we could have possibly ended up with a much better result. I realize that some of the "tentacle" work could have used CGI (done really WELL-not half-assed) but it seems to me they could have made everyone a lot happier with the FX had they gone the route above. Of course,..this doesn't address the other problems associated with the film-and there seems to be plenty. Idiots.

  • Oct. 17, 2011, 11:52 a.m. CST

    What about this?:

    by Johnny Hicks

    Haven't seen it yet and now I don't plan to..I wanted so bad for Hollywood to do something right this time, ESPECIALLY for this...and from everything I've read on the web so far-they screwed up yet again..I shouldn't be suprised I know..but damn. So my question is this..does anyone here think that they could have pulled this off using all practical effects had they used a combination of animatronics coupled with rod puppeteers wearing chroma suits? you see what I'm getting at? the puppeteers and rods could have been removed digitally and we could have possibly ended up with a much better result. I realize that some of the "tentacle" work could have used CGI (done really WELL-not half-assed) but it seems to me they could have made everyone a lot happier with the FX had they gone the route above. Of course,..this doesn't address the other problems associated with the film-and there seems to be plenty. Idiots.

  • Oct. 17, 2011, 12:22 p.m. CST

    I shit in your different hats, Harry

    by Queefer Sutherland

    Don't know what your pedigree has to do with a movie review. You must have felt some need to legitimatize yourself? Was some low self esteem creeping up on you? Please try to remember that just because you're a "co-creator/founder/programmer," a writer of comics and head honcho of a website for fat ugly losers, doesn't mean you aren't a talentless hack who's had a lucky streak. But I LOVE Carpenter's The Thing and had no intention of watching this new one even before I read your review, because your reviews never do anything to persuade or dissuade me. In this particular case I'm thinking you just weren't offered a bribe to gush over the film, and so you've had your revenge. Careful when putting one of your hats on. Look inside first. I hope you like corn.

  • Oct. 17, 2011, 12:33 p.m. CST

    If anything it should be easy to make SFX look realisitic now

    by Samuel Fulmer

    Because it's so easy to manipulate the lighting and color in postproduction of things shot on set and the effects added in later. The reason why many effects shots in pre-cgi films look so bad is because of the degradation of image of the effects shots because they had to be printed multiple times. You have no such problem now, especially when things are shot on set and in post digitally. I guess the reason things look shittier than ever is that the current CGI FX artists are more interested in scale than they are in the actual look and believability of what they are adding in. Plus the fact that even when you have a big budget movie they farm the FX work out to a variety of FX studios and it's probably hard to get consistent quality that way.

  • Oct. 17, 2011, 12:34 p.m. CST

    @Asimov save it boy

    by KilliK

    =You are using the same fallacies you claim i have. Potato Putato.= No sir i dont.What i use are simple facts which prove the fallacy of your claims.Rambo2 and Top Gun 2 are two movies,TWO movies which you used as an example.thus the sample that you are referring to in order to support your opinion is almost non-existant. You set a generalization for a whole decade and again i use the fact that this generalization of yours has a lot of exceptions: regardless if you like them or not,there are hundreds of great movies from the 80s,hundreds. so your generalization is invalid. Finally i made a simple question for which you still havent provided a proper answer: what the fuck has the popularity of some bad movies ,to do with the excellence of the other good movies from the 80s? how exactly the BO numbers of the bad movies dismiss the existence of the good ones? can you elaborate on this please? As you can see i am not using arguments because i am not expressing some opinion here.The 80s did have great movies,it is an undeniable fact,there is no need at all to prove that to someone.Now if that someone doesnt like anything coming from the 80s well that's his problem,but no matter how much he rants he cant change this simply fact: the 80s were great. Now if you have something else of worthy to add to this conversation please do so,but if you are going to repeat the same empty and meaningless statements of yours,it is better to stop this now.

  • Oct. 17, 2011, 12:36 p.m. CST

    The only Carpenter remake that's going to work

    by Samuel Fulmer

    Would be They Live, especially with today's current political climate. Get a director with a solid vision and don't go overboard on the special effects you could have a film better than the original.

  • you are preaching the truth brother.the question is when the new renaissance of the cinema is going to happen? i hope soon.

  • Oct. 17, 2011, 12:42 p.m. CST

    I think 1980's and 1950's American cinema have a lot in common

    by Samuel Fulmer

    I think when you go back and look the best Hollywood backed films of both decades are the sort of pure entertainment films that we come to think of when we think of Hollywood filmmaking. Probably the best "popcorn film" decades. And much like Hollywood started dropping the ball on these types of films in the mid-60's (all the flop musicals), I think the same thing has been happening in recent years (all the flop remakes).

  • Oct. 17, 2011, 12:52 p.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    You tom cruise accusation for the destruction of 80s cinema.. you might be inot something. Bloody hell, i think you kift the veil and saw the truth! 1980's Tom Cruise was the manifestation of Satan on Earth. I'm not suprised.

  • Oct. 17, 2011, 12:53 p.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    I bet your "tied to this fucking couch" speech is the live of any party.

  • Oct. 17, 2011, 12:54 p.m. CST

    samuel fulmer, The Thing in Hawaii doesn't seem to work all that well.

    by AsimovLives

  • Oct. 17, 2011, 12:56 p.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    Potato putato.

  • BWAHAHAHAHAHA. oh my good,you are indeed a clueless little cunt,arent you? Phantasm 2 was deeply and directly influenced from Evil Dead 2,EVIL DEAD 2 FFS,you ignorant boy. Have you seen the damn movie? have you not noticed how the movie resembles a lot the style,atmosphere,tone,mood and the lead hero type from the ED2 movie? not only it has a whole sequence ripped of/homage to ED2 but even the director himself has acknowledged that P2 was influenced a lot from ED2. Another movie which took a a lot from ED2,was Peter Jackson's Braindead horror flick,he even had the same rip off/homage scene that P2 had.and that was a movie from the 90s. Do you know why ED2 had such a great impact to a lot of other films? because that movie happens to be one of the most groundbreaking films in the horror genre,a movie coming directly from the late 80s,the same 80s that you abolish as the most shitty,dumb decade in the cinematic history of Hollywood. I know you are not going to listen to this,but please next time get your fucking facts straight before using your time to make one more completely false accusation or useless opinion of yours.

  • Oct. 17, 2011, 12:59 p.m. CST

    Your telling of the helicopter scene is completely wrong

    by joevfx

    It made total sense that the thing came out of hiding and attacked the dude on the helicopter. if you have watched John carpenters The Thing as much as you say you have , you totally didn't point out that The thing comes out of hiding whenever it's threatened to be found. Just like he came out of hiding in the original test scene, he came out of hiding on the helicopter because it knew the people knew it was on the helicopter and it didn't want to get brought back to base. If it could replicate the dudeS on the helicopter before they could land, it could get away. It was established in the original that the thing just has a fight or flight mentality. It isn't that smart. Your being way to hard on this movie. It actually isn't anywhere near as bad as your making it out to be. Your review sounds a bit fanboyish.

  • Oct. 17, 2011, 12:59 p.m. CST

    samuel fulmer

    by AsimovLives

    Funny you equate the 50s musicals with today's blockbusters, because John Woo once said something of the like, that today's action movies fill the same spot in entertaiment that once was the province of the big musicals. He even asaid that his movies and the way he edits and shots his action scenes are directly inspired by the big musicals of old.

  • Oct. 17, 2011, 1 p.m. CST

    =Potato putato.=

    by KilliK

    you should become a lawyer boy.your rhetoric skills are so phenomenal that you could turn the virgin Mary into an unsatisfied for cock whore.

  • Oct. 17, 2011, 1:01 p.m. CST

    The Thing in Hawaii would just kill

    by Samuel Fulmer

    A bunch of stray cats that live on the beach of the North Shore in Oahu and use it as a litter box. Or maybe have a self reflexive postmodern Thing that shows up on the set of a thing remake, but nobody notices when people start acting weird because they're too doped up on drugs (legal and otherwise) to even notice.

  • Cinema, don't run away, there is no escape.

  • Oct. 17, 2011, 1:22 p.m. CST

    Just because it's warm outside doesn't mean hearts won't melt

    by melonman

  • Oct. 17, 2011, 1:37 p.m. CST

    Nolan = boring

    by p0llk4t

    Few of his movies are worth revisiting. Consume once and that's it. No ability to film action or give the feeling of true tension. It takes a skillful director to have a huge set piece action ski/snow/fight scene fall flat and feel completely meaningless and boring. Poser was trying to one up Cameron and Bond and completely failed. Keep sucking his cock though loser.

  • Oct. 17, 2011, 1:45 p.m. CST

    Wow, for a second there I thought I had clicked on the wrong link ...

    by Vince Ricardo

    ... as the first few paragraphs weren't filled with the horrible grammatical mistakes and basic lousy writing that most of Harry's reviews are full of from the get go. However, a few paragraphs down ... BOOM! Back to normal. Hah! Ya got me, ya got me good.

  • — "Born on The Fourth of July" and "Risky Business". He's excellent in both.

  • Oct. 17, 2011, 2:12 p.m. CST

    RE: "The 80's were shit"

    by Stalkeye

    Hey that's no way to reward the same decade that gaves us Terminator, Blade Runner, EFNY, Robocop, Die Hard and of course The Thing which you often refered to as a smart film. What the hell happened to you Asi? First you unload a spoilers from various films on one of the boards and now this? It's one thing to be contrarian, but to go this route is very different from someone who I deemed a major cinema enthusiast. Are we havin a bad day or what?

  • Oct. 17, 2011, 2:13 p.m. CST

    Oh, I also forgot to mention Aliens and The Fly (remake)

    by Stalkeye

    Viva le 80's!

  • what happens then? do they merge? does the one consume the other? or they remain individuals entities in the same human body?

  • Oct. 17, 2011, 2:28 p.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    Got to agree with you on that.

  • Oct. 17, 2011, 2:31 p.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    I don't like the 80s. I don't like it to be a contrary, i never liked the 80s, even when i lived during that decade. Yeah, some good movie stuff was made back then, including some of my most well liked movies and music (my Vangelis favorite albums were all released in the 80s). They are, however, what's usually called, the exceptions.

  • Oct. 17, 2011, 2:35 p.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    Maybe the thing can sniff out some from his own spieces. But i think that in Carpeter's movie, it's implied that the thing mimicks their victims so well that each mimick creature is not aware which other is a fellow thing. I think the movie evne implies that, on some ocasions, the copy is to good, the thing itself doesn't know it's a thing and believes to be a human, the very person which copied, and only kicks in when it gets threatned with death. Which would explain some of the behavior of some of the copied, namely the stoner.

  • Oct. 17, 2011, 3:08 p.m. CST

    glad to see my post inspired so much conversation

    by Billy_D_Williams

    its whats great about filmmaking asimov i think you misunderstood my original post...i didn't say the 80s was a perfect decade for cinema or entertainment, i said it PROBABLY (and i could be wrong) had more PERFECT films than any other decade, perfectly executed in every aspect. it's a personal opinion not meant to be set in stone. i do think you've been reading Easy Riders Raging Bulls too much as far as a decade being one thing versus another, yes the 80s was the beginning of the end of cinema in terms of quality, but that didn't seriously beging until the 90s. The 80s was the height of filmmakers from the 70s being given access to the fantastical tools to tell great stories on a big canvas...and that's why its such a great decade...on the flip side we got the formula that destroyed Hollywood, ironically from three men who came from the 70s studio system: Don Simpson Barry Diller Michael Eisner Diller and Eisner came from TV and started applying that medium's assembly line method to cinema and that's pretty much what destroyed the whole thing. BUT, there were plenty of other amazing filmmakers who were NOT using that formula in the 80s, guys who survived of the 70s, like Spielberg, Scott, Lucas, Zemeckis, Hooper, Milius, Scorsese, Miller, Cronenberg, etc... there WAS still really amazing work being done. So to write off the 80s as a decade of shit is extremely naive. There was FANTASTIC films that came out of that decade and that is undeniable.

  • Oct. 17, 2011, 3:42 p.m. CST

    Well no surprise there

    by disfigurehead

    I knew it would suck and I have been saying that. Thanks Harry. Back to watching Carpenter's version. I saw it in the theater originally.

  • Oct. 17, 2011, 3:42 p.m. CST

    So I looked at the 2011 box office chart for 2011

    by Samuel Fulmer

    And it looks like preaty much every remake has either barely made it's production budget (which doesn't mean it's profitable), or flopped outright. It's been a preaty bad year for remakes at the box office, even ones that got some critical support (like the Fright Night one).

  • Oct. 17, 2011, 4:08 p.m. CST

    sam fulmer, yes remakes are bombing

    by Billy_D_Williams

    LOVE IT!!!

  • Oct. 17, 2011, 4:08 p.m. CST

    Harry the talkbackers are 99 percent idiots

    by Extr3m1st

    I surely hope you don't let them get under your skin. You did however, create them.

  • Oct. 17, 2011, 4:29 p.m. CST

    extr3m1st why don't you just blow Harry?

    by Queefer Sutherland

    And while you're at it, give his taint a good round of attention as well, including its close anatomical neighbors.

  • Oct. 17, 2011, 4:56 p.m. CST

    Harry the talkbackers are 99 percent idiots

    by scrote

    Yeah, and you're one of them...

  • Oct. 17, 2011, 5:01 p.m. CST


    by scrote

    ...there's a hell of a lot of skin to get under btw...

  • Oct. 17, 2011, 6:07 p.m. CST

    Harry can`t be bought? Has he forgotten.....

    by gabbygall

    ....the stupid fucking ring he got for Green Lantern and lo and behold - it got a glowing review from Harry... Harry, don`t try to kid us that a set visit and goodie bag full of plastic shitbits doesn`t rose tint your view on certain films.. Its does - good for you as well for creating this world for yourself - but please, do us a favour and dont treat us like cunts. Set visit = good review regardless of quality of film. Show me a bad review of a film where you got some fucking merchandise or kickback and I`ll show you five where it got praise for no other reason than you was bought. You`re a fucking stooge - plain and simple.

  • Oct. 17, 2011, 7:21 p.m. CST

    Politicians will tell you they can't be bought

    by Queefer Sutherland

    But they all are. Every one of them. They just lie to us about not being bought, and we can see that lie. Harry is a politician.

  • Oct. 17, 2011, 7:29 p.m. CST

    NEWS JUST IN : AssholeSucks claims he actually HAS a dick

    by quantize

    which i would only laugh at if he could find it... I'll leave the morons to suck it... UGHHH NOW THERE'S a HORROR MOVIE CONCEPT

  • Oct. 17, 2011, 7:52 p.m. CST

    The 80s were a very creative time for sci-fi and fantasy

    by Mattman

    Hollywood wasn't afraid to take chances. They weren't afraid of fantasy (unlike much of the 90s), and they weren't afraid to be dark (Return to OZ, Dark Crystal, Labyrinth, etc). They weren't afraid of tits and violence (Conan and many more). Sci-fi was at its creative peak. Directors were allowed to be creative. Genres were mixed. Sci-fi made us laugh (Ghostbusters, Back to the Future, Robocop), made us cry (E.T.), terrified us (The Terminator, Aliens), and intellectually engaged us (Blade Runner). We got some amazing war movies with Platoon and Full Metal Jacket. There were hilarious quirky movies like Beetlejuice and Gremlins. The dark comic book movie was born with Batman. Chances are everyone likes at least one Indiana Jones movie, if not all of them. Spock died. And of course one of my favorites: Empire of the Sun.

  • Oct. 17, 2011, 7:55 p.m. CST

    And let's not forget comedy...

    by Mattman

    Three Amigos, Ferris Bueller, Raising Arizona, Breakfast Club, Christmas Story, Fast Times, etc.

  • Oct. 17, 2011, 9:12 p.m. CST

    What the hell did you expect?

    by TheMovieTruth

    Seriously. What the hell did you expect? The whole movie was meant o be tied to go right into the 1982 version. Plus the helicopter event? What movie did you watch? The helicopter was at first taking off but than they started to land back at the base and that is when the Thing attacked. Everything was fine with this film. It was not prefect and no where near the 1982 film but it fit nicely. What were the reviews in 1982. Hmmm Roger Ebert -criticized what he felt were poor characterizations and illogical plot elements, ultimately giving the film 2½ stars out of 4. Vincent Canby New York Times -called it "a foolish, depressing, overproduced movie that mixes horror with science fiction to make something that is fun as neither one thing or the other. Sometimes it looks as if it aspired to be the quintessential moron movie of the 80s". Go to wikipedia and read the rest of the reviews. I think you were being way to harsh with your review Harry. The film works as what it was meant to be. To set up the great film that Carpenter made in 1982.

  • Oct. 17, 2011, 9:15 p.m. CST

    One more thing.....

    by TheMovieTruth

    Harry you dis this film like it was well to use your words.. the warmest load of shit on screen in ages.....Hmmmm...Do you remember how much you liked the movie SPLICE? You are not going to tell me SPLICE was better than this film? I am sure alot of you have seen Splice and agree.

  • Oct. 17, 2011, 10:34 p.m. CST

    So why do they always get it wrong?

    by SexyBeast

    I think most people predicted the prequel would be a bad film. So how do they do it right?

  • Oct. 18, 2011, 3:28 a.m. CST

    "An unmitigated loaf of wet stinky shit".

    by The_Dark_Shite

    They should stick THAT on the poster!

  • Oct. 18, 2011, 3:39 a.m. CST

    This movie isn't for us.

    by The_Dark_Shite

    That's the problem. The very fact that they're calling it "The Thing" is evidence of that. It's only a prequel to appeal to fans of the first movie (therefore potentially earning more kerchings), but mostly it's aimed at kids who've never seen or heard of the original at all.<p> It's a remake/reboot, under the pretence of a linked story. A bit like Star Trek. A total reboot with a bone begrudgingly thrown to the older fans who tend to waste less money than teenagers.

  • Oct. 18, 2011, 9:29 a.m. CST

    I dont get it...

    by ZodNotGod

    when they spend time to make a crap movie instead of using that same amount of time to make a good one....

  • Oct. 18, 2011, 10:07 a.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    Firsts things first: why the hell are you calling me "assimov"? People call me that as an insult. Was that intended? Because the rest of your post is far more friendly. I'm at a loss here. Some movies are visceral. Others aren't. I don't think movies should all be visceral. Movies should be visceral or not depending on the filmmaker's intentions. Movies are what the filmmakers (or their bosses) what them to be. Me, i believe in only on rule of cinema: make thy movie good and the best of thy ability. The second part is why i'm so very forgiving of intereting failures, when they are made with ambition and love.

  • I fully agree with that statement. Everybody goes to the movies to be entertained. The difference, as such, is that some people want to be entertained well, and not every thing will do (no pun intended).

  • Oct. 18, 2011, 10:21 a.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    If i understand you correctly, your point is that given the fact the original movie flopped commercially, and it was people like us in the geekdom who have supported the movie for all thims time, until it became recognized as the classic it is, we have gained a sense of ownership of the Carpenter's movie. And i would agree, because i feel something like that to the original movie. I feel very protective about it, and i always feel a urge to defend it like as if it was a child in danger. I love it since the very day i saw it in VHS in the mid/late 80s. Yeah, i guess it's pretty obvious by now that the new THE THING is a movie made for the mainstream. But, as the Nolan batman mvoies proves, i think it's possible to sucessfully make a movie that can both please and accomodate the geeks and the general public, and make them both happy. It does take some effort, and executive meddling (of the usual kind) could rerail it.

  • Oct. 18, 2011, 10:23 a.m. CST

    and another thing, the_dark_shite...

    by AsimovLives

    .. you should have come with a better handle, because it's kinda awkward to call you that to a fella who writes quite some intelligent and well writen posts.

  • Oct. 18, 2011, 10:25 a.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    Jesus Christ, how many times do i need to tell you this: no, you can't suck my dick, you are not allowed, you never will, you pestilence spreading miasma. Stop bugging me, fucker. Desist already.

  • Oct. 18, 2011, 10:57 a.m. CST


    by Katet19

    You have just dropped what might be the next hottest talkbalk username, "pestilence spreading miasma" Get it while its hot people.

  • Oct. 18, 2011, 11:02 a.m. CST

    Ah so it's a prequel !

    by corplhicks

  • Oct. 18, 2011, 11:52 a.m. CST

    movietruth, Splice did indeed suck hard


    I actually felt embarrassed for Adrien Brody. And if you saw the movie you know the scene I'm talking about.

  • You wanted to root for the American helicopter pilot, but nothing in the film suggested you should be doing that. Remember, this wasn't a remake. If you weren't so set on this movie being the same type of film as Carpenter's, you wouldn't be so upset this. JC's The Thing is my favorite movie of all time. I thought this movie was actually pretty great. It is certainly the best of the Carpenterless Carpenter remakes (or prequels) that studios have puked out so far.

  • Oct. 18, 2011, 2:14 p.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    I liked SPLICE. And the scene is supposed to be fucking embaracing, it's supposed to be hard to watch, hard to take, hard to accept, if at all. I mean, after that scene, everything goes to shitter, worst then it already was. Quite Cronenbergian, really. You know when in the past people called Cronenberg's movies depraved and deranged and that he needed to be institutionalized as a maniac and a depraved fuck? Well, now you know how those people felt.

  • Oct. 18, 2011, 2:44 p.m. CST

    I also liked Splice for the same reasons Asimov mentioned

    by Mattman

    It was like a merging of Cronenberg and Guillermo Del Toro, but it also managed to feel original. And it unflinchingly delivered dark and disturbing scenes without pussying out, as most horror films do.

  • That is fucking bullshit right there.

  • bantuwind, mo_rephus, i am not a number, dark knight lite, dreadmethod, shanedugg2000, liquidsnakekill, pop_aristocrat, captain_crunch, etc... Chiding "us nerds" for embracing our nostalgia instead of remakes... Shills, all of ya! (particularly for anything under the Viacom/Paramount/SKG umbrella, for shame)

  • Oct. 18, 2011, 4:21 p.m. CST

    but grown up Lucy McClane (Gennaro!!) is soooooo damn adorable!!

    by TheSeeker7

  • Oct. 18, 2011, 4:34 p.m. CST

    The Thing...

    by andy99206

    Harry, you are the MAN. I share the apprehension, and you TOOK ONE FOR THE TEAM BROTHER!

  • Oct. 18, 2011, 5:25 p.m. CST

    Damn it, daaamn damn damn IT

    by RichardLuzT

    I wanted this fucking movie to be fucking good, fuck. What are we to do now? wait another 25 years for a good remake/sequel/spiritual succesor? FUCK.

  • Oct. 18, 2011, 7:01 p.m. CST

    This was actually not that bad....

    by MST3KPIMP

    saw it today and aside from the redundancies to Carpenter and Aliens it was rather entertaining and even scary which is far more than I can say for the NOES remake. You'll definitely be wanting to rent.

  • Oct. 18, 2011, 7:32 p.m. CST

    Carpenter's The Thing is only okay. It's not a masterpiece.

    by Kevinicus

    I've only seen it once and I was probably about 25 when I saw it (33 now), but I watched it because of...well because the game was coming out at the time and I had heard good things so I gave it a shot. I wasn't that impressed. It wasn't bad or anything, it just didn't seem like there was anything special about it. It felt like I had seen all that stuff a lot before in other movies with similar creature/clone type movies. It just didn't make a very strong impression on me. I imagine I'll probably feel about the same with this new one. Really, I find horror to be an incredibly weak genre as a whole, and with very, very, VERY few actually good movies that are worth anything more than a cursory glance.

  • Oct. 18, 2011, 10:11 p.m. CST

    I Saw It and Liked It

    by rabiddog6708

    I went on Saturday and watched this and it was pretty good. I saw the Carpenter film in the theaters and have seen it many times since. Harry is full of it and I rarely agree with his reviews anymore.

  • Oct. 18, 2011, 10:22 p.m. CST

    I enjoyed the ever loving shit out of it.

    by fanboy71

    and Harry, the Thing in the chopper didn't start freaking out until the chopper was turning back to land. That is a huge plot point you seem to have missed. I thought it was very well done, and led up perfectly to the beginning of the original... which I rewatched after the prequel, and which IMO has an extremely weak opening. That chopper pilot could have easily hovered over that dog and held the chopper steady so the dude could shoot it, but instead it was swooping back and forth making runs at it like it was a fighter jet on a bombing run. And how could anyone be looking through a scope and still miss that dog? Come on. I could have thrown a rock at it and killed it.

  • really...n00b AHOY

  • Oct. 18, 2011, 11:01 p.m. CST

    Hey assholestinks, you found that micro dick yet?

    by quantize

    Also, i didnt realise ur gay. I'm not as it happens so ur 'joke' is beyond flat pindick

  • Oct. 18, 2011, 11:52 p.m. CST

    If it didn't have to live up to the Carpenter version...

    by jimmy_009

    ... I think this would actually be considered a very solid horror movie. Prop it up next to a modern classic and of course it can't hold up. Still, I've seen a lot worse in terms of horror lately, so seeing a review calling it a warmed over piece of shit is surprising to me. It's not that. I thought there were a lot of nice touches. My biggest gripe were the CG effects. They were competently done but the problem is horror CG is inherently unscary. This is where I would have like to have seen the filmmakers REALLY make an ode to the original and use practical effects. The few scenes where they do (like the autopsy) are immensely more effective than the CG. Why Hollywood doesn't get this is beyond me. CG just does NOT work for horror and never has.

  • Oct. 19, 2011, 12:37 a.m. CST

    once again, Harry screws it up

    by WizardandGlass

    i just got back from seeing this movie...and once again I'm convinced Harry doesn't even pay attention to some of the movies he sees. Once he gets it in his head that he's not gonna like a movie, I think he just keeps looking for excuses as to why the movie sucks. Like his description of the helicopter scene...were you even paying attention to the movie, Harry? The "Thing" wasn't killing the guy for no knew something was wrong and they weren't leaving anymore; the pilot was now landing the helicopter immediately after take-off and "it" knew someone on the ground had found something that might expose it. So it attacked...simple as that. If Harry, or anyone else for that matter, doesn't like this movie, that's your business...but as head writer for this site, Harry has a responsibility to pay attention and get his facts straight. I really enjoyed the definitely had its faults (too much CGI for one), but overall I was vey impressed.

  • Oct. 19, 2011, 12:43 a.m. CST

    To fanboy 71

    by WizardandGlass

    Thank you! How does Harry miss something that obvious! This was a pretty damn good movie, and when I first read Harry's review, he almost convinced me not to see it. Now I've learned my lesson and will ignore his bullshit in the future.

  • Oct. 19, 2011, 2:40 a.m. CST


    by gabbygall

    100% agree on opening of original film as well - a highly skilled chopper pilot could of easily dropped the helciopter metres away fromt he dog and the guy with the rifle blown it away - something Harry singularly fails to see in his somewhat clouded view of the original.. As I said, the guys a fucking shill - all the producers needed to do was send him some plastic taiwainese shit and fly him out for a set visit and the `review` would of been far more favorable.

  • His mind and his eyes are only ever going to be half focused at most at what's happening on screen. There's a hell of a lot of "cinema lovers" who just enjoy sitting in a dark room surrounded by people eating a meal while some lights and sounds flicker in the background.

  • Oct. 19, 2011, 3:40 a.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    Thanks for the clear up. I figured as much. Call me a fool, but i take a bit of pride of my nick, if only for it's reference to the grereat Isaac Asimov, of which i have always bene in awe. Anyway... I'm with you in that the studios will take the wrong conclusions of why the new THE THING movie flopped. It seems their speciality, to always take the wrong conclusions. Why was Carpenter not involved, or why he is not allowed to make the sequel he always wanted? The best answer to that is a famous quote atributed to him: "In France i'm a respected autheur. In the UK i'm a good genre director. In the USA i'm a bum". The story of Carpenter's career is heartbreaking to me. His latest was a very enjotyable movie, called THE WARD. It is what SUCKER PUNCH wanted to be but couldn't. It's an unpretentious and simple movie,and yet has more intelligence to it then what Zack Snyder can ever drsam it's possible to exist. And it had a bunch of very attractive actresses who looked good without the need to look like whores, like in Snyder's masterpiss.

  • Nowdays, blockbusters need to have huge imediate suceeses. Why is this so? I don't know eactly the reason why, but i suspect one has to do with interests. All movies ar emade through bank loans. That's where the money cames from. And the fattest a studio can recoup the investment, the faster they can pay up the loan, and the less interests they pay up. That's my theory for a possible reason why all is so hurried this days.

  • Oct. 19, 2011, 4:02 a.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    If SPLICE has not that sex scene, despiste all the indications throughtout the movie that one would happen, then peope would say the movie pussied out. The movie follows it's story to it's logical conclusion, and still people complained. I just don't understand. So Harry loved the NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET remake, hem? Well, Harry does seem to have a weak spot for Platinium Dunes. Me, i cannot forgive, ever, what they did to one of my all time favorite 80s movies, THE HITCHER. The begining of that movie for me works as a perfect metaphor for the Platinium Dunes attitude toward horro and their remakes; it shows a CGI rabit crossing a road and gets roadkilled by a speeding car. Right there is the perfect image of the attitude from Platinium Dunes: Needless overspending on a remake of an horror movie who used to be a lesson in economic filmmaking, with added gratitiousness, and all for a banal shock effect.

  • I'm not a religious person, but that's fucking heresy! Cinematic blasphemy! The Gods Of Cinema are not pleased!

  • Oct. 19, 2011, 4:11 a.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    You are really obsessed with my dick, aren't you? And you call others gay!! Haha!! I know what you are doing, it's called the fury of the woman scorned. Hell hath no fury!

  • Oct. 19, 2011, 4:21 a.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    Any professional will tell you that it's very hard to hit a target from a moving vehicle. And that wold be a stationary target. In THE THING, they are trying to hit A MOVING TARGET (the running dog, who also does dodges, while being shooting from an helicopter. An helicopter adds another difficulty, in that unlike just a car which movies in two dimentions, the heli movies in 3 dimentions. The slightest correction would imply a huge deviation for the shooter's aim. And least we forget, the people doing the shooting are scientists, not hard core highly trained special forces militare. Also, they are norwegians. Norwegians, like most europeans, their only contact with guns was during their obligatory military service. There's pratically no civilian gun culture in Europe, excluding Crete or the Balkans. It's common for american civilians to have extensive gun knowledge and use pratice, not so with europeans. If anything, the norwegians having difficulty shooting the dog is one of the most realistic aspects of Carpenter's THE THING.

  • ghj

  • fdg

  • Oct. 19, 2011, 8:06 a.m. CST

    How can I be obsessed with something that doesnt exist?

    by quantize

    You have a vagina asshole

  • Prometheus, from the brief visuals I've seen, seems to explore metamorphosis - using humans as guinea pigs to create a new species. One pic of a female staggering in agony out of the mess hall with HIND legs gave me the total shivers. Looks like something out of classic 70's horror and sends your imagination wild. The theme of internal changes and rebirth have been cleverly twisted - so not so much chestbursting more "body bursting". It will be enormously scary - unlike The Thing remake. Nuff said.

  • Oct. 19, 2011, 9:05 a.m. CST

    How can you NOT love Carpenter's Thing?

    by pestilence spreading miasma

    Really it's just flawless to the point where it's imperfections are part of what makes it so great.

  • Oct. 19, 2011, 10:15 a.m. CST

    No Americans needed....

    by IamZardoz

    this movie would have been much more nteresting if they just used all those norwegien dudes and did the language like they did in the 13th Warrior where the switch from subtitles to english was done very well in about 30 seconds. Other crappy things: I didnt want to see the thing walking around or moving quick, most of it was slow and methodical in Carpenters movie. Also, it just didnt look like anyone was cold in this one, in Carpenters movie it looked real cold, frozen beards, wind ect... I say it was a D+ effort.

  • Oct. 19, 2011, 10:18 a.m. CST

    I am getting so tired of your reviews

    by matt

    I was very happy with the film. It wasn't as good as the 1982 version, but what film could be? That film was a masterpiece. You went into the film with your prejudice, just like you do to so many other films. I believe you already have your mind made up on a film before you ever take a seat in the theater. Why waste your time? The film was definitely entertaining for those that enjoy a good sci-fi/horror. Don't blow it off because someone with an overinflated ego didn't give the film a chance.

  • Howard Hawks directed the Original - unless you buy into the ass-bag debate.

  • Oct. 19, 2011, 12:10 p.m. CST


    by NightArrows

    Turn in your geek card and leave the room. You'd seen all those types of elements before because they fucking came from The Thing. The Thing succeeds for so many reasons, but above all else it's this: You could take the creature out and it would STILL be a kick ass film based on the dialogue and performances alone. It's basically Jaws on ice. That you failed to be engrossed based on the performances alone is just sad. People who've never seen big films, films that hit during their lifetime, then wander in later and say "It wasn't that great, I've seen it all in other movies before" piss me off. Relevance, context and an ability to appreciate what is before you goes a long way. That's a skill lacking in more and more people and thus we get bullshit fed to us because the herd is getting dumber.

  • Oct. 19, 2011, 1:14 p.m. CST

    Who hasnt seen The Thing? I must've seen that film 50 times...

    by grendel69

    Fucking noobs

  • Yes Asimov, just like Hack Abrams Shit Trek

  • It's not the load of shit you've been led to believe it is. Nowhere near. There is a nerd campaign to snuff this movie out before it has a chance to breathe. It's really not bad. I'd even call it a good movie. (GASP!). It won't ruin your nostalgia.

  • Harry, I have to agree - when I think of the best nation in the world to bring a level of authenticity about an alien killing Norwegians in the Antarctic it's always the Dutch that I first think of. Um...

  • Oct. 19, 2011, 3:37 p.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    Nice nick.

  • Oct. 19, 2011, 4:34 p.m. CST

    This movie no where NEEEEAR bad...

    by Kirbymanly

    ...not even CLOSE. It gets so many things right. The tone, the tension, solid acting, faithfulness to the Carpenter original... I'm a huge fan of the Carpenter version and this PREQUEL (don't let anyone fool you, it's not by any ways or means a re-make) satisfied me 100%.

  • Oct. 19, 2011, 5:05 p.m. CST

    Uh-oh, Asimov and me are about to disagree!

    by Kremzeek

    HAH! I know I'm one of the few who actually agrees with you on most of your points, but this whole 80s were shitty for film is just...well, NOOOOOO. No way, man. I completely understand what you're saying about the studios in the 80s, etc... but c'mon! The 80s were not shit for movies. They weren't the 70s sure, but shit? I say again, hell no. Fuck man, Back to the Future and Labyrinth alone make the 80s kick ass - those are CLASSICS in my eyes. No different than the Godfather - in respect to how much I love them and appreciate the skills it took to make the films what they are. John Hughes? Surely you're not of the minority in thinking that his films were shit, right? I'm surprised by your attitude towards 80s films, my friend. Very surprised.

  • Oct. 19, 2011, 5:07 p.m. CST

    I will concede one thing tho:

    by Kremzeek

    I agree that the exec/studio attitudes that were birthed in the 80s led us to where we are now : SHITTY FILMS. At least in the 80s (speaking generally here, of course) people still knew how to edit action, or write a script that made coherent sense. Movies now, not so much. ...But on that we already agree. =)

  • Oct. 19, 2011, 5:11 p.m. CST

    As for Harry's review:

    by Kremzeek

    I've been known to call him out on sharing waaaaaaayyyy too many personal sob story elements in his "reviews", but I have *never* doubted is sincerity. Actually, just the very fact that he shares so much personal info about each and every film shows he's not just making shit up to please someone else. I don't agree with his reviews very often, but - as I said - I've never doubted his sincerity. Good for you, Harry! Stand up for yourself, dammit! =)

  • Oct. 19, 2011, 5:25 p.m. CST

    An Open Comment To Harry Knowles

    by Mike J

    Mr Knowles you know nothing about film beyond one sheets and silly children's toy tie ins. It is also totally obvious to anyone with an IQ higher than yours (i.e. an IQ which can be measured in integers) that your opinion on a movie is largely based on whatever crap or "pwesents" a studio is willing to send you. You are a joke in the film community. You are a fraud. And your writing would shame a six year old. Seriously, do the film community a favour and sell AICN to someone who actually wants to run a decent website. You can make some money and then go off with plenty of time to fuck up the Famous Monsters website.

  • Oct. 19, 2011, 7:36 p.m. CST

    mentaldominance... I never said any of those things

    by Mattman

    If you read my posts, I said I had a good time in this movie, but it is not the masterpiece Carpenter's movie is. I would never diminish that movie in favor of this one. However, I think this one is being unfairly bashed because of the nostalgia of Carpenter's movie. This is a perfectly competent movie and hardly the "piece of shit" that Harry would have you think it is.

  • Oct. 19, 2011, 7:38 p.m. CST

    And I didn't have a problem with the CGI in this film

    by Mattman

    I thought the monster looked great. Very threatening. Yes, I knew it was a special effect, because I know that a human with teeth in its belly and stringy tentacles shooting all over the place doesn't exist in real life. Of course I knew it was a special effect. It still looked great. (Most people who ACTUALLY SAW the movie have admitted this).

  • Oct. 19, 2011, 7:41 p.m. CST

    Nor does it over-use CGI

    by Mattman

    There is probably about as much CGI in this movie as in Jurassic Park, honestly. It's mostly quick shots. But, once again, I'm arguing with people who haven't even seen the movie.

  • Oct. 19, 2011, 7:42 p.m. CST

    Many of you will catch this on video one day

    by Mattman

    and you'll be surprised at how much it doesn't suck.

  • Oct. 19, 2011, 9:31 p.m. CST

    The prequel was REALLY bad...

    by SunTzu77

    The prequel... just simply went against every single element that made the original so engaging. How? I'd recommend everyone to view the old interview John Carpenter did that was part of a roundtable known as "Fear on Film" circa 1982. <br> <br> <br>

  • Oct. 20, 2011, 7:14 a.m. CST

    The Thing Is A GOOD Movie

    by luis carvalho

    Say goodbye to decent films if we can't see past our noses. Best Damn Monster Movie of the Millennium and the "fans" jump on the Pan Wagon without even seeing the film for themselves. The film is a solid entertainment that sadly, like the 1982 Thing, will fail to find its audience at the Box Office.

  • Oct. 20, 2011, 7:34 a.m. CST


    by NightArrows

    I'll be checking this film out on the weekend, though it's a catch-22 for me. I love the mysterious aspects of the 82 version: How did that guy end up bleeding out? Why is the axe in the wall? Why are there big holes IN the wall? Seeing this will no doubt shed light on those mysteries and in that I'm a little hesitant to see this film and spoil those mysteries. On the other hand, it's a new Thing film and I want to give it a look and more importantly, give it a chance.

  • Oct. 20, 2011, 10:30 a.m. CST


    by Scott

    Who the hell said Brian Cox was in ALIEN?? Go lick a window you Retard!!!! Now Brian Glover was in the underrated Alien 3, whose only fucked up mistake was not doing it Geigers way. Oh dear for the THING prequel though, pity you can't try it again and go with better practical effects and a more focused Director who says "FUCK YOU STUDIO. I'M DOING IT RIGHT OR NOT AT ALL!!"

  • Then come back and voice your opinion. It's pretty shitty to crap on a film you obviously haven't seen. In fact, I dare Harry to see it again to see if his opinion has changed.

  • Oct. 20, 2011, 6:59 p.m. CST


    by Kevinicus

    I realize that a lot of the stuff came from The Thing, but just because something does something first doesn't make it better. I'm not a huge fan of the concept to begin with, so the fact that things were copied from The Thing doesn't make me like it any more. You can stick to living in the past and limit your appreciation to things that only start trends instead of those that perfect them (not that I think horror is worth the effort to perfect). Nothing really stood out from the performances. Not that I really remember it that well, but I don't recall anything jumping out at me as being all that great. Decent sure, probably even good at times, but absolutely nothing screamed, "Great!"

  • Oct. 20, 2011, 7 p.m. CST


    by Kirbymanly

    Please show me the part in this article where it says that he's seen the film twice....

  • Just sayin....

  • Oct. 20, 2011, 7:56 p.m. CST

    And mentaldominance, re: The Thing 2011...

    by Mattman

    The effects are surprisingly detailed. Though, it is often clear it's CG... but there are some shots that are downright alarming. I didn't have a problem with the ending because I'm glad it wasn't a retread of the original movie's ending. It actually expanded upon the creature a little bit and took place in a new environment, so that was kinda cool. Of course, it pales in comparison to the original lowkey and downright brilliant ending between Kurt Russell and Keith David. That is one of my all time favorite endings. The middle act is the weakest part of this film because it's far too similar to the original BUT it's not poorly done by any means. It's a competent retread. But Harry's acting like this is razzie material and that is just over the top. This is a well made film that doesn't shit on the original by trying to surpass it or do things bigger and better. Some Thing scenes work and some don't. It's not exactly a necessary movie, but it's also not a waste of two hours. But I agree with you that no one should downplay the original in order to elevate this one. That's uncalled for. The original is one of the greatest b-movies of all time. That dog scene? Jesus man. I watched it the other day and it still makes me squirm. The scene where the guy's chest opens up... it's amazingly effective. Love that movie.

  • Oct. 20, 2011, 10:01 p.m. CST

    1st Thing CGI transforming seq on the helicopter blew the load!!!

    by the_shitweasel_with_a_quizzical_brow

    After that first CGI shitfest of a reveal near the beginning?? I put my head in my hand and spewed into my popcorn. If it looks shit trim it short or lose it, just because it cost shitloads and went wrong don't keep it in the movie!! After that, the rest of the thing effects were very good but that helicopter thing bordered on SyFy movies quality! Still doesn't really make up for the run of the mill plot similar to the original Harry was so right about. But detached..there was still fun to be had.

  • Oct. 21, 2011, 11:52 a.m. CST

    mentaldominance: No way on Alien3

    by Kremzeek

    I agree the theatrical cut sucks, and I also think Fincher is overrated. I don't really like any of his films. There's just something about them that doesn't quite sit right with me. Not sure what it is exactly, but he lacks soul or something. But the A3 Assembly Cut is great. Completely redeems the story and characters, and just the plot in general. To me, it saves the film. Bummer is doesn't for you. =\

  • Oct. 21, 2011, 11:55 a.m. CST

    mentaldominance: I agree on the laziness of filmmakers and CGI

    by Kremzeek

    I'm all about practical effects. 90% of the time they're just BETTER. I don't care how you try to sell it. Definitely agree there. CG can be cool if used as a tool and not for every single bit of the production. Think Hellboy 2 or Dark Knight. Both used CG as an extra tool to accent the practical effects. But it's become the lazy/easy way to do everything. It bums me out.

  • Oct. 21, 2011, 2:58 p.m. CST

    From a guy who thinks Thor is the Modern Day Citizen Kane

    by Juice

    The Thing could be warm over turds and it would still be better then THOR, my gawd what universe does your judgement come from???

  • Oct. 21, 2011, 2:58 p.m. CST

    Wow... You got into my brain or something...

    by Kremzeek

    Maybe you really *do* have mental dominance! Ok... horrible jokes aside: It's like you got into my head and typed all the things I think of when I come across "bad art". I'm also a musician. And I love "real" music. Let's look at Zeppelin for example. Jimmy Page is probably the greatest rock guitarist to ever live, but... take a listen to their recordings. He flubs up here and there - he's human, not a machine. The same with Bonham. I mean, the guy literally speeds up and slows down the songs' tempos - all the time! It's not noticable to the average person, but it's still there. It's not absolutely perfect (aka soulless) like today's music. And, ya know what... it's fucking AWESOME because of that. Now, I'm not some old fogey who won't listen to music just because it's new. I love newer music as well. But the vast majority of "artists" today SUCK ASS. There's too much synth crap. And I don't mean synth like in the 80s. I actually love Depeche Mode and those bands as well. But guess what? Martin wrote all their songs himself. They played their keyboards themselves. They went out and recorded their own sound effects to use as samples. And they actually SING with their real voices! It's not this bullshit we get now where everyone's voice is digitally fixed so they're perfectly on tune. I HATE IT. And it's the same with film. I can't say I'm an aspiring filmmaker or anything, but it's my first love after music. I've written scripts, been involved with indy films, blah blah blah. But, its the same as you're saying: Why do I know how to construct a coherent story when the "pros" seem unable to do so anymore? There was a time when fiilmmakers knew how to incorporate story, characters, and effects. The tables have turned now where, IMO, there are only very few who still understand what to do. And it also infuriates me to no end that we as people keep letting the Corps shovel down our throats over and over. It's pathetic really. =\

  • Oct. 21, 2011, 5:17 p.m. CST


    by Kirbymanly

    You still haven't answered my question. Where in this article does Harry say that he's seen the film twice? I'd love for you to point that out for me. You know.... in order to back-up your name and all. I think it's pretty unfair for Harry to judge this film based on a cut that he saw "earlier this year" and not the final product.

  • Oct. 21, 2011, 6:15 p.m. CST

    I mis-said "synth" the first time

    by Kremzeek

    I was merely abbreviating for "synthesized". Sorry about that - I see how it was a bit confusing. I've been writing and recording for over 20 years now, so I'm definitely aware of what Synth (the genre) is vs. looping, etc etc. Seems like we're in agreement with pretty much everything on this. I'm slowly learning to stop being so angry about it all the time, but when someone stirs up the subject, I get all pissed off like I'm some angsty teenager again, hah.

  • Oct. 21, 2011, 7:38 p.m. CST

    mentaldominance needs to change his/her name

    by Kirbymanly

    Where in that paragraph does he say that he has seen it since "early this year"? It DOESN'T. In fact, the context of the paragraph is that he's trying to defend the fact that he hasn't seen it since that work print. He's claiming that the film hasn't changed since then only based on the fact that there was a single effects shot that wasn't finished. It's completely ridiculous to claim that there wasn't additional work done on the film between that time and October 14th.

  • Oct. 21, 2011, 10:28 p.m. CST

    Harry is full of it! 2011 Thing was good! 1982 Thing Classic!

    by Drunken Busboy

    I really liked it! No it wasn't as good as the John Carpenter/Kurt Russell 1982 classic but this was a really good sci fi/horror movie. I reccomend it. Better than most horror releases now a days. Like I said it is not as good as the Kurt Russell one but it is good. One scene stands out and was very very cool. Then there is one lame scene where they show the inside of the Thing's ship. It didn't fit with the rest of the movie. There was some very very good effects. One very fake looking CGI effect. They show the Thing breaking apart into other little things that was very cool. I came away thinking that the film makers really cared about the 1982 version. It could have used a little more character development but it is worth seeing in the theater I think. Now I want a straight up sequel!

  • Oct. 22, 2011, 1:59 a.m. CST

    Harry liked TWILIGHT. Never Forget...

    by Dave

    I'll judge for myself whether Thing 2011 is good or not. I'll never take Harry's word seriously. MEW? Count me in. Aliens? Count me in. Fuck Harry's reviews.

  • Oct. 23, 2011, 12:45 a.m. CST

    Is anyone really surprised?

    by thebastard

    I knew from the moment they announced this movie that it wouldn't live up to John Carpenter's. That movie is perfect. The cast should've been completely Norwegian, no stupid reason to have Americans anywhere in this script. The only reason they were is because Hollywood made this, if it had been done by someone overseas, in close cahoots with John Carpenter to make this the movie it needed to be...then maybe this would've been worth it to go see. Maybe I'll watch it on netflix someday...

  • Oct. 23, 2011, 3:10 a.m. CST

    Freez turkey's!

    by J

    Asking for "The Thing" Prequel to be as good as Carpenters "The Thing" is like asking Muhammad Ali to fight George Foreman again and doing it the same exact way. There's no way in hell, it was too good, too perfect, a diamond in the rough, a rare encounter when all the planets came into line with each other balancing heaven and earth, cats and dogs living together! You get the point, it shouldn't even be in question, the same sentence, no way no how.

  • Oct. 23, 2011, 3:19 a.m. CST

    by J

    I Agree 100% But unfortunately all the 10 year old's that drag their parents to see Transformers and pirates of the fucking Caribbean don't give a shit. They're given a CG shit plate with an extra side of penis discharge. They say uww yeah that looks good take me to the theater's mommy so I can get a CG penis in the ass! Long story short its the fucking new norm, its sad, but Hollywood doesn't care about art, or looks, or feeling, they care about Jackson, Grant, and Franklin. Direct deposit to their bank accounts. Cha-ching! $$$$$$ CG, CG,CG. We Humans deserve better... a fucking bullet to the brain... head explosion... "Scanner's" style. _Raptor Out!

  • Oct. 23, 2011, 10:37 a.m. CST

    No free shit = bad review

    by Goodplacetoshoveit

    Harry, you fat bag of shit. Stop fucking reviewing films. Forever. If a studio doesn't shower you with free shit, you hate the film. Fact. Die, you fat cunt!

  • Oct. 23, 2011, 10:43 a.m. CST

    1982 "The Thing" is great... but...

    by ufoclub1977

    I love "The Thing" but it just barely misses the mark of being a classic movie in my opinion (outside of the genius effects work), not like Carpenter's "Halloween" or the example I list below (that obviously influenced 1982's "The Thing"). Don't get me wrong. There is nothing in the movie I consider weak. It's what's not there. I think here is something missing from the narrative, on the basic storyline level that kept it from being a huge draw back then. It needed one more injection of seriously dynamic writing to create more of a campfire/slumber party type linear scary narrative of unfolding events propelling towards a hard conclusion. Then it could have been as big a hit as ALIEN. to me, a more successfully paranoid thriller/horror film put to film is the 1978 Phillip Kaufman's "Invasion of the Body Snatchers". It's so good. I got both of these on blu-ray, and show them both to new viewers from time to time, and "Invasion…" plays out more spooky and more successful as a storyline than 1982's "The Thing". "Invasion…" also had some fairly revolutionary effects that are almost little precursors to the undeniably genius influential effects art of The Thing. Blooming flower shapes, writhing wet forms, unearthly noises, tendrils, breathing, meat mixed with plant… Search your feelings, you know it to be true.

  • Oct. 23, 2011, 4:37 p.m. CST

    Should've had Brad Thorn in it!

    by Habrax

  • Oct. 23, 2011, 8:49 p.m. CST

    Last time I listen to Harry

    by Brian

    Sorry, man. I don't know what crawled up your ass on this one, but I dug it. I'm a HUGE fan of John Carpenter's The Thing. I got to see MOAR Thing and it didn't suck. The only thing that could have been better would be if John Carpenter's The THing had another 90 min that they found and released.

  • Oct. 23, 2011, 10:17 p.m. CST

    Thing 2011 is Good! Go See It! Screw Harry's Review!

    by Drunken Busboy

    <SPOLER ALERT> It is good. Not as good as the 1982 but still pretty good. One lame CGI effect but it had one transformation scene that really kicked ass. People are too stuck on the Carpenter movie to look beyond for another take on the material. This movie has the honor of not following one but two movies before it that are considered Sci Fi Classics! My girlfriend and her friends that went with us never saw any of the previous two THING movies. They LOVED this one! It freaked them out a couple of times because this wasn't a guy in a suit type alien movies that they were used to like ALIEN(S) & PREADATOR. This alien was very freaky to them. What sucks is warmed over leftover shit like Paranormal Activity 3 will be the darling of the Halloween season. THE THING could use some support! This is the Godfather III of the 3 movies. It's still good just not a good as the previous two. You could tell the film makers really cared about the 1982 version. Harry's point about the Helicopter crashing over the mountain and not showing the inside at all is a little off. Yeah maybe the viewer could have used a few seconds more of the chaos in the Copter interior but the whole point was to make you wonder how these two guys made it out of the chopper if they weren't things. It was a Red Herring! The only lame part was showing the interior of THE THINGS ship. Somethings are better left unshown. Yeah a it could have used a little character development but when you get down to it, aren't we all there to see an alien take out the whole team? I would give it 3 stars while giving the 1982 version 4-5 stars. I also find it ironic that Roger Ebert gave the movie 2 1/2 stars the same rating he gave Carpenters 1982 version! I would love to see a sequel where The THING makes it to a populated area. But sadly due to off kilter reviews like Harry's we won't get one now. I really don't see the basis for the hatred here. Oh Yeah when we got home my girlfriend & her friends made me put on the 1982 version! They loved it too! So you can still love two movies about the same THING (no pun intended) at the same time! ;)

  • Oct. 23, 2011, 10:18 p.m. CST


    by Drunken Busboy

    I used brackets and the system removed my SPOILER ALERT tag altogether! Sorry!

  • Oct. 24, 2011, 9:29 a.m. CST

    Ignore this review

    by PinkFloyd7

    Just saw this movie yesterday and it's not bad at all. Not great, but way better than Harry gives it credit for. His critique of the helicopter scene is completely off. The Thing only decides to reveal itself because they are going to land the helicopter. Harry liked the remakes of Nightmare on Elm Street and Fright Night, so I can't really trust anything the dude says anymore.

  • Oct. 24, 2011, 10:39 a.m. CST

    Yeah I hear it's not so bad. I'm gonna check it out.

    by UltraTron

    Remember Harry didn't even understand Inception and Matrix 2. He can't be trusted. I do enjoy his little wonder years stories-

  • Oct. 24, 2011, 2:46 p.m. CST

    Carpenter's Original Wasn't THAT Good...

    by Jack Desmondi

    It was well directed and well acted. But the characters were cold (no pun intended) and unsympathetic. I really didn't give a damn what happened to any of them--including Kurt Russell. As for the effects, Carpenter ran into the same problem that Cronenberg did on Videodrome--he fell so in love with his FX guy (Baker in Cronenberg's case, Bottin for Carpenter) that he gave them a pass to film whatever they fucking wanted to whip up. As a result, the effects were overused, overlit and fake-looking. For sake of comparison--look how marveously Freidkin showcased Dick Smiths effects in the Exorcist utilizing quick cuts and editing.

  • Oct. 24, 2011, 10:35 p.m. CST

    Reluctantly saw it two days ago, not as bad as expected.

    by pelos_locos

    The movie is not as bad as some people sound it to be. Whenever you compare a remake/prequel/reimagination of a great movie, it will never be as good (i bet there are exceptions, can't think of one right now) as the original. <br> I believe the main difference between the movies are as follows: The original was a movie about paranoia and suspense, with a monster in it. The new Thing is a monster movie, with suspense and slight touches of paranoia.<br> It is a fun movie overall> I enjoyed the nods and connection to the original. Once I got home, I popped in the Blu-ray on my player and began looking for all the things mentioned on the new one that connected it to the original. There were plenty of them.<br> Wait for the matinee or special Tuesdays (or whatever it is where you live) and watch it. It will be fun.

  • Oct. 26, 2011, 4:45 a.m. CST

    re: by mentaldominance

    by DementedCaver

    I agree with you, but chill a bit.

  • Oct. 26, 2011, 6:57 p.m. CST

    HARRY, you are what's loaded with shit

    by bruce

  • Oct. 27, 2011, 4:13 p.m. CST

    everyone involved in this film should be fucked in the eyeballs

    by satansteve

  • Oct. 27, 2011, 4:14 p.m. CST

    oh, and HMV UK has Carpenter's The Thing on Blu Ray for £5...

    by satansteve

    when you buy anything in store. I bought a Twix.

  • Oct. 29, 2011, 2:49 p.m. CST


    by Robert G Griffith

    It was ok :(

  • Nov. 7, 2011, 10:30 a.m. CST

    Remakes To Remakes

    by Mr Hoopla

    These never seem to turn out right. Remakes are a good idea. But an Awesome Remake will never have a great remake. Think of Multiplicity when the clone makes his own clone.

  • Nov. 9, 2011, 9:20 p.m. CST

    I disagree

    by Cassie4486

    Sorry Harry, though it was a prequel, I still liked it. Why would you even compare the two? It's like comparing Toyota with Ford just because they are vehicles? Of course they would be different! Why would you even want to copy an original movie? Boring....

  • Nov. 27, 2011, 1:56 a.m. CST

    There's a lot to hate and dislike about this film


    But I kind of liked it anyways. There were some moments when the film did a good The Thing impersonation and mimic'd the original in a good way. Even though I was sitting there thinking about how I was watching an amateurish carbon copy remake which was supposed to be a prequel, it was still entertaining. We'd all love another brilliant Thing movie of course but what are the odds of that? The same as the Oakland Raiders winning the Superbowl?

  • Dec. 4, 2011, 3:36 p.m. CST

    Here in the UK at long bloody last!!

    by david starling

    I went to see it yesterday, with my younger brother (we both love the John Carpenter movie!!), and we both thought....... .......Okay, its not anything to take-on the original, but a damn good job had been done. Considering the moaning about the FX, there was a lot of practical FX going on (poor, poor Jonas - I still cannot remove his fate from my head!!), and some real imagination going on with the transformations (the "Juliette" creature was quite beautiful in a visceral kind of way). The film did have some wierd lot threads that didn't connect (why wasn't Lars upset about his dog?), and the pacing seemed to motor throughout at a steady pace, without stopping for pauses of thought, but throughout the movie was heavily entertaining. A lot of the Nords made me laugh (Lars is the star of the pic!! His face, when holding the flamethrower to the others, was a picture!!), and I was easily able to tell who was who. I also like the fact that obviously there are the "visually interesting" characters in the movie (read:fit!!), but they're "uglied-up" (made to look knackered, wear tons of clothing) - it echoed my thoughts that throughout there was a serious attempt to make the film serious, and not give-in to current movie conventions. I was really pleased by the prequel. Perhaps I'm rueing what could've been from that awesome script I read a while ago (which also had extra stuff regarding the ship, and had a "dog" sequence too, of a kind), but it felt like the director knew what he was doing, and knew to take some care, at least. I feel that Universal perhaps dropped the ball with the advertising (and the film has paid for it in the US already), but like John Carpenter's classic, it'll find its feet on DVD and Blur-Ray.

  • Dec. 5, 2011, 6:36 a.m. CST

    Im a huge fan of the original

    by ShaneO

    And i thought the prequel was decent. 7/10. The end was pretty lame. The Sander thing was disappointing(bad cgi). However the studio did fuck it up. They cut out about 30 minutes of footage which would of added to the slow burn aspect of the film. The soundtrack was good as far as the music was concerned, but did not fit the film at all(except the opening music which fit nicely.) The cgi wasn't THAT BAD. I've seen far worse in bigger budget films. They made practical effects for ever transformation but universal copped out because retards these days need their CG. Hopefully when the dvd comes out there is a directors cut.

  • Jan. 24, 2012, 8:31 a.m. CST

    It wasn't that bad, but fairly good

    by pietro

    Harry has totally mislead us all. It wasn't a great film, but it was entertaining. Most of it fitted around the original so that you can watch both films and feel that they tell one story. Most of the things you see in the '82 film are explained in the 2011 version. CGI wasn't that bad either. But not amazing. When the Norway dudes talk together they speak Norwegian. When they speak to the American dudes, they speak english. Europeans are quite good at this! It really was unfair to say this film was as bad as you did, Harry. Sorry. I'd give 7/10 for a solid effort. It was always "up against it".

  • Feb. 2, 2012, 1:10 p.m. CST

    A lot better than I was expecting.

    by Dennis Chimelis

    Sorry, Harry, but when you love a film I approach with caution, when you really hate a film I know have to judge for myself. I'm also a huge fan of Carpenter's 1982 film, having seen it for the time on VHS in 1984 or so after getting brief glimpses of it in 1983's "Terror in the Aisles". It was a must see and once we were able to convince one of our parents to rent it for us it exceeded our expectations. So, the idea of doing a follow up to Carpenter's film is a bit daunting and they took the correct route, originally suggested by Ron Moore many years back. You can't do a sequel. It just wouldn't work. A prequel, however, allows the film to stand on its own and it does, flowing seamlessly into the 1982 film. You can tell that they put a lot of care and effort into creating this movie and, overall, it works (the production design team did a hell of job recreating what little see of the Norweigian base in the Carpenter film). Everyone involved with this movie knew what they were up against and created something that actually feels like a predecessor to the 1982 film. i suspect that over time there will be a greater appreciation for what they managed to pull off here. Is it as solid as Carpenter's? No, but on it's own it's a pretty damned good movie.

  • Feb. 15, 2012, 7:31 a.m. CST

    Saw it in the theater and I dug it...

    by Russman

    Then I see this bad review of it and I'm shocked. I guess if you break it down one could find a lot wrong with it, but I kind of checked out and it scared the crap out of me and I had a good time watching it.