The Thing

Taken from me Blogsite!After reading all the lackluster reviews for the updated The Thing movie, I passed on the theatrical release and figure I'd wait for the DVD rental. Before picking up on the re-imaging, I thought it might be wise to watch the original 1951 Howard Hawking version along with John Carpenter's The Thing 1982 update.The Thing from another World (1951)I remember this B&W classic from my childhood and being creeped out by the huge humanoid monster stalking through the hallways like an unstoppable Juggernaut. You didn't need special effects or sophisticated graphics to turn a man into an alien beast. Giant hands and a helmet, along with good physical acting, was enough to convince anyone back then.Watching the dialogue now reminds me of the different deliveries and sense of timing actors used in those early days of cinema. The rapid fire speeches gave a sense of military formality, efficiency and added a rushed importance to every line. We have the classic commander who is respectfully chided by his men and who is in full command, but also willing to listen to solid ideas from the men under him. He comes off as not knowing everything, but still being the smartest. Yes, they chose a military officer who uses common sense.The scientist is still the early cliché of wanting knowledge of the unknown and is willing to sacrifice everything - including human life to get it. To his un-cowardly credit, he is willing to trade his own life in exchange for furthering our understanding of the universe. Of course, he does an ill-advised, morally questionable experiment that does give us our only look into the habits of the monster. In this case, the alien visitor is a humanoid beast that has apparently evolved from plant life and feeds on blood. The sled dogs are fodder and food and have little involvement with the creature besides attacking the intruder early on.This is a great movie that stands as a perfect example of our early paranoia about alien visitors and invasions. It ends with the memorable line "Keep Watching the Skies".The Thing 1982John Carpenter takes the basic concept and updates the science while keeping the atmosphere intact. He takes environmental factors like the cold and isolation and turns them into major plot points. He uses a research station as the backdrop and assembles regular men to go up against the threat from outer space. The monster has been turned up a few notches too. The original was a menacing brute and this version pits the humans against a shape-shifting alien that can impersonate any living organism it comes in to contact with. Assimilation after annihilation. Our paranoia over space invasions has been replaced with paranoia over who you can trust as it isn't clear who is friend and who is foe- who you can turn to and who's been turned.We still have the alien saucer under the ice as the initial point of contact, but even that idea is pushed further as the alien tries to build another ship using spare parts from around the base in order to make his escape. The original alien was pretty smart for cutting the power, but this guy is really sharp (no pun intended). The surrounding cast is composed of well crafted characters and the main protagonist is the helicopter pilot J.R MacReady played by Kurt Russel. The movie has more of a singular focus as we mostly follow MacReady and learn as he learns. Like the best of horror movies, our characters are placed in a near hopeless situation and it's only their spirit and willingness to live that keeps them going. If the original ended with the line Watch the Skies, this one should end with "watch the man next to you". This is one of the few times where a remake does justice to the source material.The Thing 2011The newest version is listed as a prequel and although the events of this film bring us within a few hours of the 1982 John Carpenter classic, it still feels like a modern translation since several key scenes are recreated. I'm not sure why director Matthijis van Heijningen Jr would choose to helm this movie as his first big release. It wasn't as though the 82 version was dated or The Thing represents some sort of big money franchise that needed to be restarted or reinvigorated like Star Trek.Most modern horror flicks reply on jump gags where there's a meaningless, but sudden action meant to deliver a quick jolt of fear. It's the old cat jumping out of the cupboard and unfortunately that's the engine behind this movie. It lacks the hard science and joy of discovery from the first movie and misses the `who can I trust?' paranoia of the second. There is a good attempt to recreate that tension, but it falls flat since all the characters are fairly generic. It's pretty much a few random Americans and a bunch of crazy Norwegians. When you compare this cast with stand-out characters from John Carpenter's take, you'll quickly realize why the deaths are meaningless. The writers Eric Heisserer, John W. Campbell Jr. never gave us any personalities to connect with. The main character, a Kate Lloyd played by Mary Elizabeth Winstead does a fine job as the one sensible character. It's obvious from the beginning that she deserves to live and everyone else deserves to die for being so stupid.The 1982 Thing did its best to show us a monster that was doing things on-screen that we had never seen before- from growing heads - to assimilating dogs- to, damn, just being gross and scary. The monster in this affair is a multi-lobster-limbed crawler and, I must admit, quite formidable. It copies the big punch-line or becoming a grotesque merging of all the victims it's absorbed, but in this case, it looks kinda silly. When you finally get the payoff of seeing a version of the monster in full light, it's a little disappointing and honestly, non-scary. Still, it does better to deliver the chills than the current crop of disposable horror-flicks Hollywood has been churning out in recent years.In the original movie, it's science verse the military when the army men want to destroy the dangerous alien and the mad scientist wants to be friends and preserve the monster at all costs. And although that was the same foolish opinion held by the upper branches of the military, it didn't seem so sinister. The 1982 film simply stands us up against a monster we don't understand and survival is the only goal. The 2011 thing brings us another dumb scientist, but you could argue that his interest also lie in a quest for personal glory. "We May lose this find" yes, he has a personal interest and is in it for his own immortality and legacy.The music/soundtrack borrows or pays homage to the 1982 score by Ennio Morricone. Those two ominous tones drop at the very start and at the end of the movie. It makes for a nice wrapper. Speaking of endings, 1982 left us with two characters staring at each other with complete distrust. This is an amazing stalemate and a good way to end a classic. This movie, in perfect step with the younger generation, cannot leave anything to the imagination and we get a big impact. Yeah, I must admit this is a welcome twist.Overall, I consider the 2011 The Thing to be a good movie. It's worth seeing if you're a fan of the original and the 1982 revisit. The original was a statement of our time and left a marker that exposed how we felt about first contacts. The second was a statement about the human condition and what it would take to break down the bonds that hold us together as a species. This third version details who we are in 2011 and beyond. Simply put: we are creatures that seem capable of holding on to every memory and experience while we refuse to let anything with $entimental value go. Once, we had a disposable culture, but now we have one of recycling: it's all old- fashion, phrases, influences and ideas. The big question for every revisit or re-imaging is what are you going to add? Are you going to give us useful background information? Are you going to develop a beloved character more? Are you fixing technical flaws or enhancing an experience? The problem I have with most rehashes is that the priority lies in bringing us the memorable moments while forgetting to include the WHY as far as why we chose to hang on to those moments to begin with. I think I'm going to watch the 1982 version again. Thank you John Carpenter for including the why.

THIS MOVIE IS 10/10 IN MY OPINION, ITS LIKE MY COMFORT MOVIE. PROBABLY 1 OF THE BEST REMAKES OF A CLASSIC. PERFECT BLEND OF SCI-FI, SUSPENSE, HORROR AND ACTION. THE CHARACTER DESIGN OF THE "THING" PERFECTO

I liked everything about the shopping experience

Only good movie. I enjoyed it

what a movie !!!!! wow

Matthijs van Heijningen, Jr.’s 2011 film, “The Thing,” follows a script by Eric Heisserer based on John W. Campbell, Jr.’s “Who Goes There?” The film is the third adaptation of Campbell’s novella, after Christian Nyby’s 1951 film, “The Thing from Another World,” and John Carpenter’s 1982 film, “The Thing.” This film serves as a direct prequel to Carpenter’s film and stars Mary Elizabeth Winstead as Kate Lloyd, Joel Edgerton as Carter, Ulrich Thomsen as Dr. Sander Halvorson, Eric Christian Olsen as Adam Finch, Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje as Jameson, Paul Braunstein as Griggs, Trond Espen Seim as Edvard Wolner, Kim Bubbs as Juliette, and Jørgen Langhelle as Lars, who the film reveals is the Norwegian shooter in the original film.The film begins with members of the Norwegian research station Thule discovering an alien spacecraft buried in the ice. Dr. Sander Halvorson recruits American paleontologist Kate Lloyd to investigate. The Norwegian team excavates an alien body from the ice, where the ice begins to melt in their base. Naturally, the creature breaks free of the ice and begins absorbing and attacking the scientists. The discovery that the creature cannot assimilate metal, such as filings or pins to support bones, offers a clue for discovering the creature’s identity. One by one, the station crew begin to suspect each other of being the creature, turning on each other in the process and debating whether or not to seek help from one of the other research stations, until the Thing escapes.As a prequel, the film fleshes out some details prior to Carpenter’s original as well as the background to the scene in which Kurt Russell goes to the Norwegian base, though it is not necessary to enjoy Carpenter’s 1982 film. It’s entertaining in it’s own way and doesn’t tread on the legacy of the original, but it also doesn’t do anything particularly new other than use CGI in place of Rob Bottin’s practical effects. The self-contained nature of Campbell’s novella has made it easy to adapt three times, but it also limits the possibility of turning it into a horror franchise. The underperformance of this prequel further limited opportunities to create films set in this same series, so Universal Studios and Blumhouse Productions announced in 2020 that they would remake Carpenter’s film. Like its 1982 predecessor, Dark Horse Comics created a tie-in comic book for van Heijningen’s film.Bonus features include deleted and extended scenes, “The Thing” evolves, Fire & Ice, and feature commentary with director Matthijs van Heijningen and producer Eric Newman, whose production credits include “Dawn of the Dead,” “Slither,” “The Last Exorcism,” and more.

I stayed away from watching this as I'd heard it was a modern remake of John Carpenter's 'The Thing' and not a very good one. And this is the problem when you listen to reviews from morons with a chip on their shoulder (and there's quite a few!) or those who haven't actually watched the movie. Firstly, it's not a remake or reboot, it's a PREQUEL. Secondly, it's a bloody good movie. Why some people have difficulty understanding the concept that this movie is set prior to Carpenter's film, yet understand perfectly that Rouge One (with no Bothan spies in sight) is an immediate prequel to Star Wars A New Hope, sure beats the heck outta me. Okay, maybe it's the title that has confused these dribbling dullards, which admittedly was a very lazy and poor choice on the part of the film-makers to call it 'The Thing' when they could have better (and just as easily) called it 'The Thing: Norwegian Camp' or 'The Thing: Beginning' to tip people off that it's NOT a remake, re-envisioning or reboot of Carpenter's classic. So, now I'll repeat myself to be clear (I hope), the story here is set immediately BEFORE Carpenter's The Thing. The Thing is a precursor to The Thing. Let that sink in for a minute, or ten....Take your time, no rush. Alright, hope you get it now? OK. This dvd has some bonus features like deleted scenes, cast interviews, director's commentary and behind-the-scenes featurettes which are great. The only downside is the heavy reliance on cgi to augment the practical effects and the choice of not keeping fully with the aesthetic of the early 1980's (complete with ugly sweaters and equally ugly hairstyles) established by Carpenter's film, which is when this prequel was set.

CONTAINS SPOILERS CONTAINS SPOILERSWhilst watching this remake/prequel of John Carpenter's The Thing (1982)--which in itself was a remake of the Christian Nyby(Howard Hawks) original.I was struck by how much it adherred to both Carpenter's complete belief in "The Thing" as a real creature--and this perhaps explains the loyal fanbase that the 1982 version has...This Prequel is surprisingly a worthy movie, playing (again)on diffrent fears eg, exclusion & been excluded by a diffrent language, isolation -Kate (Winstead's character) discribes the thing as a virus--and making the often (read into) virus that many saw Carpenter's Thing to represent.The Thing (2011) is in actual fact bleaker than its 82 version, as we know from the outset, there isnt going to be a happy ending.Having characters speak and relate & deliberately exclude other characters builds up both the tension and uncertainty, of both the situation & which character is going to get killed next.On the downside The Thing (2011) lacks the Humour of Carpenter's version.After saying that this is both a quite decent movie on it's own terms and in context of Carpenter's superb movie.Others have written that knowing what happens prior to this version has taken away the "Mythos" of the original? I would have thought the opposite was true. I'm an avid movie fan, but dont believe that as a movie fan, all movie's that have prequels/sequels will have the real (movie/dvd/blu-ray)but the version you imagined still plays in your imagination....

I am a long-time HUGE fan of John Carpenter's classic 1982 film... I was thus highly sceptical of this new film. But, having finally taken a deep breath and given it a chance, I discover it to be surprisingly good. A prequel to Carpenter's film, detailing the discovery of the alien ship - and it's loathsome occupant - and the subsequent destruction of the Norwegian Outpost... This has clearly been made with a huge amount of respect for and love of Carpenter's film and captures its look and feel excellently without becoming a clone or a vapid CGfest and ends with a certain "dog", leading seamlessly into the 1982 film... Any fan of Carpenter's version should enjoy this... and anyone who loves a decent monster movie and SOMEHOW has never seen the 1982 version of The Thing, should immediately get hold of both.

After reading Harry Knowles review on aint it cool website which he said the Thing Prequel was the warmest piece of s*** he had ever seen I was not going to bother to see this film but after reading the reviews here on amazon I decided to buy the DVD.I am glad I did The Thing Prequel is more of a prequel to Carpenters classic than Prometheus is to Alien. The axe in the door, the person in the chair with slit wrists and the two faced freaky corpse as seen in the original 1982 film as Kurt Russell as MacReady and Richard Dysart as Copper find at the Norwegian base are explained.And most of the effects are not CGI as Knowles claims but as I watched the making of this film which is an extra bonus on this DVD and the special effects are loyal too Rob Bottin's effects in the original 1982 film.A brilliant prequel Harry Knowles is a crap reviewer and the 1982 version was panned by critics too! so you can judge for your selves.

Has the feel and look of the Kurt Russell film, fills gaps from the previous storyline well, shot beautifully, I really didn't expect it to be very good at all, after all, there wasn't anything wrong with or missing from the previous film, just wondering why I didn't get to see it at the cinema!