#41  
Old 09-24-2011, 12:43 AM
Ok, Guys, I just had to make a SPLIT-FACE gif for the occasion.



I really have my hopes high for this film. But I know it might fail.
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 09-24-2011, 01:05 AM
Very Cool!

I'm interested to see how this one turns out. Everything I've seen so far looks pretty good. Initially, I was against the idea, but ever since the A Nightmare On Elm Street remake (and seeing how disastrous it turned out to be) I kind of stopped caring and lost my will to fight the ever so dreaded remake syndrome (Even if it's not quite a remake, you know what I'm saying).
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 09-24-2011, 08:00 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeMovie View Post
Yes, you see the Thing a lot in the original. I don't believe I said anywhere in my post that you don't. I said that I saw the Thing more times in the trailer for the prequel than I did in the entire original Thing. That may be a slight over exaggeration.

Theres the initial dogs scene in the original thing. Theres the scene where they operate on the dead guy and his head comes off and becomes a spider thing and what not. Plus his body does all this other cool weird shit.
Then theres the scene where they test blood and the guy shoots up to the ceiling. Then theres the end of the movie where you see the giant thing.

Thats 4 scenes. All done incredibly well. All awesome and memorable. In between those scenes there was this whole trust politics going on. There was a lot of suspense in those in between scenes.

In this redband trailer, I saw what looked to be at least just as many individual scenes showing 'the thing'. Seeing as they probably won't show EVERY thing scene in the trailer, I'm guessing there will be even more in the movie itself.

Which leads me back to my post.

Obviously I don't know how the movie will play out. I haven't seen it yet. But from the trailer, it looks like they're taking the modern mainstream horror flick approach.
And that approach is, show the monsters a lot, and kill a lot of people in gruesome ways, and rely solely on jump scares.

In the original thing, I remember maybe 2-3 scenes of jump scares. However, there was lots of suspenseful scenes that had no jumps to speak of. That's part of what made it so great for me.
And again, my point is that the original showed the monster a lot too. It's an absurd complaint. If you aren't going to see this for the monster, what are you going to see it for? MacReady?

Last edited by chelovek; 09-24-2011 at 08:05 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 09-24-2011, 12:32 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by chelovek View Post
And again, my point is that the original showed the monster a lot too. It's an absurd complaint. If you aren't going to see this for the monster, what are you going to see it for? MacReady?
You seem to be ignoring my statement completely...

I never said you don't see the Thing a lot in the original. So stop pretending to quote me on that.

Also, I'm seeing it to see how it holds up to the original.
Seeing as the original is my favorite horror movie of all time, I don't expect the prequel or any horror film to surpass it anytime soon.

One last thing, I don't watch horror movies for their "monsters" like you do.
If I did, I'd probably HATE the movie the Host, because the monster in that movie looked like CGI crap.
I horror movies, and judge them based on story, acting, soundtrack, memorable scenes, genuine suspense, fear factor, etc...
It sounds as though your criteria might strictly fall in "Monster effects", if so that's fine. But it's not for me.
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 09-25-2011, 10:56 AM
Bleh, not feeling this at all and I'm not a vehement remake hater or a CGI hater, but the CGI in this is really bumming me out. The effects in the JC version are some of the best EVER put to film imo. They add such a great level of fright and realism that it's sad to see CGI completely take over this version. It feels so...typical.
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 10-14-2011, 04:12 PM

Reviews coming in (from this website) are pretty mixed. I haven't read one review that finds it very good, although some don't find it as bad as others. Our main man John Fallon certainly wasn't impressed, and his views on the film reflect exactly what I've been fearing since it was announced.

http://www.joblo.com/arrow/reviews.php?id=1461
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 10-14-2011, 11:58 PM
I loved it. The characters and atmosphere don't hold a candle to Carpenter's version, but I think the creature(s) are exactly what Carpenter would have designed if he had the technology. Some movies don't capture the spirit of the source material (see: Darabont's The Mist), but the director and the FX team for this movie really knew what they were doing. Long story short, this prequel offers some incredibly memorable, well-designed monster horror, and it really does offer a seamless lead-in to the original. I can't wait to watch them back-to-back on Blu-Ray.

By the way, for those worried about the CGI, you can rest easy. You'll know that some things in the movie are CGI just by virtue of knowing that some effects can't be produced practically, but it's generally hard to tell where prosthetics stop and computers start. Also, the shots we saw in the red band trailer were definitely still in post-production. The final product generally looks completely real. (You might have scoffed when that guy's face ripples in the trailer, but what until you see what happens in the full scene. )

By the way #2: If you look on IMDB and RT's audience section, it looks like fans of the original (including myself) are loving this a lot more than the average critic. The ratio of positive to negative fan-reviews is like 99:1 from what I've seen.

Last edited by chelovek; 10-15-2011 at 12:40 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 10-15-2011, 05:43 PM
I caught it Friday. It wasn't awful or disrespectful to the original as a certain transformation and kill was pretty ace, but certain things were lacking. For one was the blaring soundtrack that had to be on almost throughout all the scenes. Did it have to be on during the...
Spoiler:
tooth filling scene? I didn't think so as it brought down the decent tension that was in the film.
Also, while I dug the transformations, despite the CGI, there was no great build-up towards these scenes, particularly near the beginning. It felt as if the director was adamant towards showing the infected as quickly as possible, for fear of losing the audience.

EDIT: I got my thoughts around it, so here's a bit more details and a new score...........

If there were a comparison that could fit to The Thing, it would be the remake of Texas Chainsaw Massacre. Now this seems like a silly comparison as this film is a prequel to John Carpenter’s 1981 film of the same name, but the beats that the 2011 film of the same name follows are the same trappings that come from your typical remake. This brings a film that has slight sparks of potential as some remakes seem set to have, but are ultimately a middling and somewhat unnecessary film.

For one thing, the film is in the “remake” territory despite being a prequel. For fans of the 1981 version, there is a forgone conclusion of where this film will ultimately end, much like the remakes that fans of the original will experience. The only upside to this would be if those film that bring their A game in order to bring a intense and involving experience that will feel fresh for veteran viewers. For new viewers, it’s fair game that could simply be a bridge towards the original film, as the 2011 film of The Thing can gladly achieve. Unfortunately for some fans of the original, this may be a hindrance than a new experience, as nothing spectacularly new is really achieved in this version.

Sure, there are moments where the film wants to achieve the dread and mood that the original film knocks it out of the park, but it rather just goes through the numbers, impatiently bringing the money shots that the original was so meticulous about. The beats don’t feel boring in the first act, as the film brings central character Kate Walsh (Mary Elizabeth Winstead) to a Norwegian base in Antarctica, where the Norwegian team has discovered a spacecraft from another world and an alien being frozen in ice nearby. However, as soon as the group brings the alien back to the base, the alien breaks out and all hell breaks loose.

Now, the remake of Texas Chainsaw Massacre comes into play as that film brings the scares in typical “jump scare” moments, much like what The Thing (2011) does when the film kicks off the “invasion” angle. Regarding the alien, it has the ability to attack and invade its victims, thereby taking over their bodies and becoming one of them. That idea is so ripe for potential tension that the prequel goes about it in such a lazy and uninspired way. Every time an infected person in the original appeared, it felt like an event. When it happens in the remake, it just goes through the motions that by the time it happens for a third time, it isn’t even surprising anymore. There is no build-up, which is important for a film where distrust begins to grow in these characters once they realize the alien could be anyone of them. Granted, the film itself goes by without much boredom since the alien makes its appearance more than the original, but it leaves the possibility for a great revelation for those infected characters in the dust.

Driector Matthijs van Heijningen Jr. does what he can with the material and even is able to bring about a decent shout-out to the “blood test” sequence in the original, as well as one transformation later in the film that was effective. However, that is all soon marred by the fact that there is a booming soundtrack throughout most of the film. The beauty of some horror films, like the 1981 version of The Thing, is the aching silence during a possible scary moment. Its times like tat where the viewer is on the edge of their seat, not knowing what is gong to strike. However, the soundtrack to The Thing prequel is evident throughout most of the film, especially during that scary build-up where silence is a better option. It just feels like when the film could be one step forward, it soon just goes a step back until the final act just puts it in a full nelson and doesn’t even let it cross the finish line.

All in all, The Thing prequel is a watchable, but unnecessary film from beginning to end. There are some minor changes and a cool moment here and there, but it never feels like it’s a “prequel”. It wants to go back to the beats of the original, and ends up being a part-remake as well, hitting off notes that end in a unsatisfying and boring climax. It’s a film that wants to hit off bullet points when it should have been telling an interesting and involving story.

5.5/10

Last edited by Mr.HyDe807; 10-16-2011 at 12:03 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 10-16-2011, 06:36 AM
The prequel vs. remake argument, and anyone who makes it, is fucking retarded. Even being concerned about a movie's status as a remake suggests severe mental retardation, but arguing about prequel vs. remake status when something is clearly a prequel, top to bottom, through and through? It's breathtakingly stupid. This movie unambiguously, unequivocally, portrays the events that took place before the original movie. B-e-f-o-r-e. Do you need a dictionary?

Last edited by chelovek; 10-16-2011 at 06:45 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 10-16-2011, 09:44 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by chelovek View Post
The prequel vs. remake argument, and anyone who makes it, is fucking retarded. Even being concerned about a movie's status as a remake suggests severe mental retardation, but arguing about prequel vs. remake status when something is clearly a prequel, top to bottom, through and through? It's breathtakingly stupid. This movie unambiguously, unequivocally, portrays the events that took place before the original movie. B-e-f-o-r-e. Do you need a dictionary?
D-I-A-Z-E-P-A-M. Do you need a chill pill?
Reply With Quote
  #51  
Old 10-16-2011, 05:11 PM
Technically, it's a prequel, but it's practically a remake. Same title. The only thing that makes it a prequel happens during the end credits, for fuck's sake.
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 10-16-2011, 08:33 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by countchocula View Post
Technically, it's a prequel, but it's practically a remake. Same title. The only thing that makes it a prequel happens during the end credits, for fuck's sake.
Technically 2+2=4, but 4 is practically 7. Hurr de derr.
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 10-16-2011, 08:36 PM
Prequel or remake, it's an insult to fans of the original. More importantly, it's an insult to Rob Bottin.
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 10-16-2011, 08:54 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by chelovek View Post
The prequel vs. remake argument, and anyone who makes it, is fucking retarded. Even being concerned about a movie's status as a remake suggests severe mental retardation, but arguing about prequel vs. remake status when something is clearly a prequel, top to bottom, through and through? It's breathtakingly stupid. This movie unambiguously, unequivocally, portrays the events that took place before the original movie. B-e-f-o-r-e. Do you need a dictionary?
Seriously dude, how fucking disrespectful can you be? This film acts like its an event before the film, but has relies on the original for the film rather than make its own way. That's why I brought the "remake" aspect into my review and overall conclusion that i took of the film. Scenes that I knew from the original were almost carbon copied in this version, that's where the remake aspects come from.

Don't fucking belittle me. Act like an adult and bring a constructive argument next time.
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 10-16-2011, 09:53 PM
Forget about him, Hyde. That kid's a notorious remake nut hugger. Judging from his emotional instability in regards to new horror films, his weak condescending remarks, and his need to intellectualize the enjoyment of Rob Zombie films, it's safe to assume he's just a teenager.

If he's over twenty, I might just light a candle for him tonight.
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 10-16-2011, 10:18 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cop No. 633 View Post
Forget about him, Hyde. That kid's a notorious remake nut hugger. Judging from his emotional instability in regards to new horror films, his weak condescending remarks, and his need to intellectualize the enjoyment of Rob Zombie films, it's safe to assume he's just a teenager.

If he's over twenty, I might just light a candle for him tonight.
I Know Cop, I just wanted to let off a bit of steam and present my reasons toward the comparison. But after seeing his reaction to Count's perfect explanation, that was probably moot.
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 10-17-2011, 01:24 PM
I feel like Chelovek, and this is not a knock on your part, but I feel like you love all the remakes that have come out. I don't think I've ever read one of your posts on the remake/reimaging threads that are negative. Which is cool, to each his own.

I didn't see it yet, but my friends that did say it works as a prequel. They said the ending transitions very nicely to the dog running in the Carpenter remake.
Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old 10-17-2011, 06:35 PM
Have you ALL forgotten the 1982 movie was NOT THE ORIGINAL! The original was made in 1951 called "The Thing from Another World" and it was a poor adaptation of the novel "Who Goes There" which it was based on.

1982's movie was a remake but remains the Quintessential faithful adaptation of the novel yet!

It's a fun prequel that fills in the 1982 movie's gaps big time and shows us how that creature came to be.
Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old 10-17-2011, 06:51 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by LoPanFan View Post
Have you ALL forgotten the 1982 movie was NOT THE ORIGINAL!
No. Why does everyone keep bringing this up like no one knows?

"HA HA! The one you like is just a remake too!"

"Yeah, but it was a quality movie that is completely different from the movie it remakes. This one is just going to be a rehash of the same sorts of situations that were in John Carpenter's version with no new ideas. But a shitload of bad cgi."

"Er.... it was still a remake!"

Quote:
Originally Posted by LoPanFan View Post
It's a fun prequel that fills in the 1982 movie's gaps big time and shows us how that creature came to be.
That's funny. Ever since I saw Carpenter's movie.... never thought there were huge gapes besides: "Dude. What the hell happened to Nauls?"
Reply With Quote
  #60  
Old 10-17-2011, 08:45 PM
Do you think 1951's movie was a poor adaptation of the novel?
Reply With Quote
  #61  
Old 10-17-2011, 09:55 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr.HyDe807 View Post
This film acts like its an event before the film, but has relies on the original for the film rather than make its own way. That's why I brought the "remake" aspect into my review and overall conclusion that i took of the film. Scenes that I knew from the original were almost carbon copied in this version, that's where the remake aspects come from.
"Almost" carbon copied. In the same way that two plus two almost equals seven. Fact is, with the exception of the intentional credit homages, there isn't a single scene in the prequel that even remotely resemble a scene from Carpenter's original. Unless you think the shared setting of Antarctica automatically makes the movies identical.

Last edited by chelovek; 10-17-2011 at 10:05 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #62  
Old 10-17-2011, 10:03 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Evil Ed View Post
I feel like Chelovek, and this is not a knock on your part,
If you think I'm an idiot, or that I'm making idiotic statements, you have my blessing to say so.

Quote:
but I feel like you love all the remakes that have come out. I don't think I've ever read one of your posts on the remake/reimaging threads that are negative. Which is cool, to each his own.

I didn't see it yet, but my friends that did say it works as a prequel. They said the ending transitions very nicely to the dog running in the Carpenter remake.
A movie's a movie to me. I couldn't care less how it's categorized, just so long as it's good. As for remakes in particular, I tend to approach them with excitement. Why? Because they're an opportunity to see more of something I like (i.e. The Thing, Dawn of the Dead, the upcoming Child's Play movie), or to see a potentially better version of something I wasn't crazy about (i.e. Halloween)
Reply With Quote
  #63  
Old 10-17-2011, 11:12 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by chelovek View Post
"Almost" carbon copied. In the same way that two plus two almost equals seven. Fact is, with the exception of the intentional credit homages, there isn't a single scene in the prequel that even remotely resemble a scene from Carpenter's original. Unless you think the shared setting of Antarctica automatically makes the movies identical.
No, I think the.....
Spoiler:
teeth fillings scene to find out who's the "thing" taking place in the recreation room, the same location as the original is a bit carbon copied. The same location and instance where Macready did the blood test. That's awfully convenient for a prequel thats trying to do its own thing, wouldn't you say?
Reply With Quote
  #64  
Old 10-20-2011, 07:01 PM
I hate remakes, but I loved the Thing. It's a straight up prequel. Lots of fun and leads to JC's epic movie masterfully. My friends and I nerdgasmed at all the little details they added in leading up to the Thing.

9/10
Reply With Quote
  #65  
Old 10-22-2011, 09:54 PM
I found this movie to be pretty weak myself. It relied on loud noises and jump scares more than suspense. The focus was on showing us the monster and bad cg effects. The most memorable part of Carpenters "the Thing" was it's creative monster effects, and they looked way better. But Carpenter didn't focus on that, the focus was more on the character drama. Who can you trust? Which added so much tension.
Reply With Quote
  #66  
Old 10-23-2011, 08:02 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeMovie View Post
I found this movie to be pretty weak myself. It relied on loud noises and jump scares more than suspense. The focus was on showing us the monster and bad cg effects. The most memorable part of Carpenters "the Thing" was it's creative monster effects, and they looked way better. But Carpenter didn't focus on that, the focus was more on the character drama. Who can you trust? Which added so much tension.
Carpenter's effects were objectively worse than this movie's in many instances. (Ragdolls, hand-puppets, blatantly obvious animatronics...) We just tend to overlook JC's Thing's flaws because (1) it's a better movie, and (2) it's near and dear to our hearts.
Reply With Quote
  #67  
Old 10-23-2011, 11:35 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by chelovek View Post
Carpenter's effects were objectively worse than this movie's in many instances. (Ragdolls, hand-puppets, blatantly obvious animatronics...) We just tend to overlook JC's Thing's flaws because (1) it's a better movie, and (2) it's near and dear to our hearts.
Carpenters effects were arguably worse? Wow. I never thought I'd hear that one with a straight face.

But I agree that Carpenters movie is a much better movie. But I wouldn't consider the amazing special effects of Carpenters The Thing to be a flaw. That's just me though.
Reply With Quote
  #68  
Old 10-24-2011, 07:14 PM
What's with all this "bad CGI" talk? I thought The Thing 2011 had some incredible CG scenes. Yes, you could tell it was CG but I was still blown away at times. I agree practical effects worked perfectly for the 82 version but it wouldn't have been the same for this one.

I loved this movie and found it very entertaining. I still prefer the original, of course, but this was a serviceable prequel.

8/10
Reply With Quote
  #69  
Old 10-24-2011, 09:22 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ScaryFreak1827 View Post
What's with all this "bad CGI" talk? I thought The Thing 2011 had some incredible CG scenes. Yes, you could tell it was CG but I was still blown away at times. I agree practical effects worked perfectly for the 82 version but it wouldn't have been the same for this one.

I loved this movie and found it very entertaining. I still prefer the original, of course, but this was a serviceable prequel.

8/10
I hate CG personally. When I watch movies, I like to get lost in them. I like to forget I'm watching a movie.

Practical effects look more real, they look physically tangible. You could literally touch Carpenters effects. And even though the Thing creature doesn't really exist, practical effects allow it to exist as a tangible idea.

CG on the other hand always looks so incredibly fake to me. It's like a cartoon. Once a CG monster walks on the screen, i'm lost. It looks fake, I don't take the movie seriously anymore.

I also hated I AM Legend for the same reason. It wasn't one iota scary to me.
The Lion scene in the beginning made me and my friend both bust out laughing. It looked so ridiculous and fake that it was laughable.

The Thing (2011) was nearly as bad to me. The CGI wasn't as bad as I Am Legends was. But it was so predictable that it became utterly ridiculous. I would know who the "thing" was moments before they would transform into a CG mess and start chasing people around.

The crazy part is, my girlfriend even thought the effects were bad. She rarely has an opinion on movies we see together(and we watch 3-4 movies a week, every week, every month, every year since we've been dating, so a lot of damn movies).
I always ask her, she always says she likes them. But this time around even she couldn't stand the effects.

Was the CG good? maybe. Maybe it was good for CG. But it was still CG, and CG sucks to me.

Sometimes I can look past the CG. I can look past the CG when the movie doesn't focus on the CG.

For example, The Fifth Element is one of my favorite Sci Fi movies. There is some terrible CG in that movie, but it works. Because the movie is silly anyways, and the focus isn't on special effects. It's on the characters.

The only monster movie that used CG, that I actually liked was "The Host"
The monster looks like shit in that movie. But I don't watch the Host for the monster. I watch it for the human drama contained within it, and the cinematography.

Just my thoughts
Reply With Quote
  #70  
Old 12-17-2011, 05:21 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-2bsXC-uhXQ

Some of the special effects work that wasnot used in this film were utterly remarkable! This is some of the best stuff I may have ever seen!
Reply With Quote
  #71  
Old 12-18-2011, 09:10 AM
I REALLY disliked this film. Not nearly as compelling, thrilling or interesting as the previous Thing's before it. The CGI looked so bad, people laughed during the scene on the helicopter. Also, they never fucking explain how the ending is connected to Carpenter's movie
Spoiler:
Did I miss something? What does Kate being the only survivor collide with in the Carpenter movie? Is she ever brought up and if she isn't, what's the point of letting her live?
Not something I'd ever recommend, it fails on all levels.

4/10
Reply With Quote
  #72  
Old 12-18-2011, 01:05 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by MisoGenie View Post
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-2bsXC-uhXQ

Some of the special effects work that wasnot used in this film were utterly remarkable! This is some of the best stuff I may have ever seen!
The fact that they didn't use this stuff pretty much cements the fact I qont ever see it.
Reply With Quote
  #73  
Old 12-18-2011, 01:12 PM
It really is a shame that they replaced such great craftsmanship with laughable CGI. Now, I haven't seen this yet, so I can't judge it, but that alone says a lot about the state of mainstream Horror right now. The craftsmanship DIY attitude of the 80's certainly isn't there anymore.
Reply With Quote
  #74  
Old 12-18-2011, 01:17 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by MisoGenie View Post
It really is a shame that they replaced such great craftsmanship with laughable CGI. Now, I haven't seen this yet, so I can't judge it, but that alone says a lot about the state of mainstream Horror right now. The craftsmanship DIY attitude of the 80's certainly isn't there anymore.
Agreed. I'm not one to crap on CGI just because it's CGI. Hell, I usually defend it. But when you see something like that video, with all the great practical effects and you KNOW they would work great in the film, only to have it replaced by CGI...it's disheartening and sad.
Reply With Quote
  #75  
Old 12-18-2011, 01:22 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by oh-dae-su View Post
I REALLY disliked this film. Not nearly as compelling, thrilling or interesting as the previous Thing's before it. The CGI looked so bad, people laughed during the scene on the helicopter. Also, they never fucking explain how the ending is connected to Carpenter's movie
Spoiler:
Did I miss something? What does Kate being the only survivor collide with in the Carpenter movie? Is she ever brought up and if she isn't, what's the point of letting her live?
Not something I'd ever recommend, it fails on all levels.

4/10
I think they used it.....
Spoiler:
as grounds for a sequel if this movie made bank.
Reply With Quote
  #76  
Old 12-20-2011, 12:08 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by MisoGenie View Post
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-2bsXC-uhXQ

Some of the special effects work that wasnot used in this film were utterly remarkable! This is some of the best stuff I may have ever seen!
WTF! Every single one of those shots looked soooo much better than the half assed CGI cartoon we actually got. Why would anyone in their right mind not use that?

Seriously, the CGI really took me out of the movie. Cartoons in live action movies are not scary, especially when they obviously don't exist in the same space as the actors.
Reply With Quote
  #77  
Old 12-20-2011, 09:59 AM

I'm accepting of CGI when it is done for that which cannot be accomplished through practical effects: save the impractical effects for impractical scenarios, but the realism and intricate detail put into this film surely would have won at least some fans over which the CGI kept (further off) at bay. It really is a shame, especially as how well-known the remake is for its use of practical effects.
Reply With Quote
  #78  
Old 12-30-2011, 04:30 PM
I really didn't mind this at all. Of course it doesn't hold a candle to the Carpenter version, but it certainly isn't an embarrassment and on its own its an above-average horror/sci-fi.

And yes this is a remake. It even takes scenes from the Carpenter version and 'twists' them a little to have them go in unexpected directions (for example the classic "blood test" scene is here but gets a new twist).

My only complaint is that the climax gets a little too CGI-heavy and that took me out of the movie. Besides the CGI the climax is cool though.
Reply With Quote
  #79  
Old 12-30-2011, 06:57 PM
So I was right all along, it was a remake, masquerading as a prequel. Hardly a surprise, hollywood gets more and more pathetic by the day.
Reply With Quote
  #80  
Old 01-03-2012, 06:37 AM
Another remake bites the dust. Incredibly mediocre "prequel" to John Carpenter's classic; and I use the term "prequel" very loosely, is nothing more than a complete carbon copy of the 1982 version's source material, with a few differences scattered about. Everything that was so great about JC's version (i.e.: "blood test" sequence, the claustrophobic atmosphere, the paranoia, and the outstanding creature effects) are lost this time around. Too many useless characters, way too many moments of unimpressive CGI creature effects (bring back the practical effects goddamnit!!!) and a totally cliche and stupid finale segues into another studio money grabbing cash-in that offers nothing special or original. Stick with John Carpenter's version.

4/10
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump