"It's big on the grotesquery but short on genuine scares."
Just like John Carpenter's original.
Oct 14 - 08:15 PM
The original is one of the best horror movies of all time. You're clearly an idiot for disliking it.
Oct 15 - 04:41 AM
Yes I am an absolute moron who doesn't follow everyone else's opinion. Just because I disliked what's considered a horror classic means I'm incapable of liking good horror films like The Birds, Nosferatu, or even your profile pic.
But seriously folks, your comment is one of the most over the top ridiculous, superficial, judgmental things I've seen in a while. By your completely moronic reasoning and logic you must be as dumb as a starfish to like Frank Miller's Sin City. I didn't personally like Sin City (graphic novel is 10x better) but that doesn't mean I'm going to instantly file you under "idiots".
Oct 15 - 02:01 PM
I don't think you're a moron, Garrett. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. However, you need to back it up a bit. Why did you dislike Carpenter's original?
Oct 15 - 10:23 PM
just how is someone clearly an idiot for disliking Carpenter's version? Clearly you are an asshole that thinks your opinion is the only one. Not everyone HAS to like the same movie. Carpenter's version is good but that does not mean that everyone has to like it!
Oct 16 - 12:04 PM
Uh. John Carpenters was a good remake of The Thing. This is a really good remake of The Thing. Loved the alien... monster. Better thanb Carpenters.
Oct 15 - 05:46 PM
The 1982 critics said that
Oct 18 - 09:37 AM
Guess Dick Roeper didn't like the original either cause this one was just like it.
Oct 15 - 12:55 AM
This was in no way 'like' the original. Carpenter's version had subtlety, great direction, great music, acting, and effects. The Thing (2011) is practically a parody of the 80's version, with tacky looking CG effects and a horrid script. It was a terrible film, both as a prequel to the classic Carpenter one and as a film unto itself. It was trash.
Oct 15 - 11:21 AM
If you mean by terrible good then yes it was
Oct 15 - 12:36 PM
I'm glad you enjoyed it, but I agree with Matt H. This movie was awful! As hard as I tried, I could not enjoy this thing! To each their own.
Oct 15 - 06:52 PM
Tacky CG effects? Really? What exactly was 'tacky' about them? The effects were a lot better than in Carpenter's film since there was no CG back then.
Oct 16 - 07:19 PM
the pre-CG special effects were actually better in my opinion, Since it actually took time and imagination to get a decent and genuinely unnerving result.
not just some blob of flesh like in the remake
Oct 25 - 07:36 PM
Did you just seriously say that CGI is better than practical effects? You either have no pubes or no brains. If I were you, I'd hope it was the former, cos that, at least, changes with time.
Jan 3 - 12:47 AM
Were you drunk?
Oct 15 - 05:38 PM
You sir, must not have any fillings...where's the blowtorch?
Oct 15 - 07:24 PM
Funny when people say "the original." Carpenters version was based on 'The Thing From Outer Space.'
Oct 15 - 07:29 PM
*The Thing From Another World
I said that it was John Carpenter's "original" simply due to the fact that this is a remake of the JC film therefore making JC's version the original. Not that it really is the original.
Oct 15 - 08:29 PM
the JC version followed more accurately the source material (the novel) than the older version ''thing from outer space''.
Oct 16 - 01:47 PM
This is not a remake of the John Carpenter film, it is a prequel. Maybe you should actually watch these movies before commenting about them?
Oct 16 - 07:16 PM
don't kid yourself pal, when it repackages the same movie without the punch I don't give a damn when and where it takes place...its a remake
Oct 17 - 10:43 PM
This is, what I like to call, a 'Premake'. It's set before Carpenter's 'The Thing' but it shares many similar plot elements and moments.
Oct 24 - 12:51 PM
I did like this movie, but completely understand the criticism of it. The most important part of your movie is your characters, and you don't find yourself caring about these people the way you did in John Carpenter's version. Also, there's no suspense because you know everyone ends up dead. On the bright side, some neat effects, a couple scary moments, plus this could have been a stupid movie but wasn't. They did tie things in nicely with what would ensue in Carpenter's version. I think his was better, but this wasn't bad.
Oct 17 - 01:26 PM
yeah, the critics are underrating it. but when compared to the source material, It just doesn't stand up. But the "Lars" character made up for the movies shortcomings in my opinion
Oct 25 - 07:38 PM
I do agree with you on this one, Roeper, cause this is a failure as a horror movie.
Nov 4 - 11:02 PM
Anyone here who thinks that this piece of crap as at all decent, Is a moron. It was nothing like johns, this movie was a PIECE OF SHIT! the monster wasn't scare, they're was no tension, you don't care for the characters, the CGI is bad, Their is to much CGI, The ending sucks, The effects suck, and the characters suck.
Feb 3 - 08:57 AM
So anybody who thinks this movie is decent is a moron? I bet your onve those faggots that actually enjoyed Paranormal Activity 3, Just shut the fuck up you twat
Feb 3 - 01:16 PM
Yeah anyone who likes this movie is a moron, i haven't seen PA3 and i probably won't, but it hopefully is better then this piece of crap, Dude say what you want, This movie was awful. You might enjoy it (some how) but it isn't a good movie, at all. It's a awful piece of crap, get over it.
Feb 5 - 09:22 AM
So I guess I am a moron for thinking this was decent( Even though I loved the original) and a faggot because I liked/enjoyed pa3. Awesome. >.<
Feb 22 - 07:01 PM
Saying you enjoyed the fucking movie does not mean "this movie is a classic! TIMELESS! better than john's!" No. It means you enjoyed watching the fucking movie. You are calling someone a moron for enjoying themselves while watching a movie? Well look at you, almost pretentious enough to be a "top critic" in my book!
Apr 4 - 04:43 AM
The original is a classic horror film. It can easily be brought up in serious film discussion. It had an unnerving tense atmosphere that is hard to come by. This one was not near as great but it was around midnight and I rented it at the red box for a buck. I didn't sit back with a notepad puffing on a cigar in a screening room, jotting down my opinion of the character development and the cinematography. No, I just sat back in my bed, ate some pizza, and watched the damn movie. It killed my boredom for a dollar. Sometimes I think people forget how to actually enjoy a movie. Worrying about details on a movie like this will ruin your chance of ever being able to just enjoy a dumb fun movie. It does it's job in my book. Entertains. When I want to watch a timeless classic I will.
Apr 4 - 04:38 AM
Well what do you think a "Genuine scare" is? I think a man ripping open on a helicopter is pretty genuine. I bet you're one of the types that was scared by The Shining, which is not scary at all
Apr 7 - 10:24 AM