....and for me I found it unworthy of even the five dollar Senior matinée ticket price that I paid.
The Link
Spoilers ahead; I'm not kidding!!!!!!
This is a prequel to the much better 1982 John Carpenter film, which starred Kurt Russell and Wilford Brimley.
That 1982 movie was a "remake" of the B&W film which was inspired by John Campbell's novella, "Who Goes There?"
I found it pretty creepy when I saw it back in 1951.
This new cinematic offering, IMHO, is only worth your viewing attention if you feel a need to see it because you dug any of the others and want to see more of the story for completeness' sake.
In retrospect, that'll officially serve as my only reason for going.
I might have gone to see "Footloose" for better entertainment value a la Julianne Hough.
The 1982 flick was a very good remake of the 1951 original, "The Thing from Another World," which is quite dated now despite featuring James Arness of "Gunsmoke" fame as the enigmatic creature.
In that first movie the alien was described as a vegetable, but microscopic investigation now suggests it's like a virus.
At least they always had the first letter right.
By 1982, John Carpenter's reimagining gave us a greatly improved storyline and much better film making, production in color, significantly more interesting actors and some pretty decent special effects for its time.
The Thing is an extra-terrestrial life form which attacks its victims, isolated at a South Polar research base, and then kills, digests and replicates them, lickety split, before hiding inside the newly duplicated bodies while awaiting yet another opportunity.
The Thing is best killed by incinerating it with a flame thrower, which I guess is standard issue at polar bases for melting the ice on sidewalks, and if it escapes from Antarctica, look out in the more populous rest of the world.
All that information was revealed way back in 1982 and it made for a good sci fi premise.
The only new revelations about The Thing in 2011 are that you get to see its spaceship entombed in a glacier and we find out that its replication of victims doesn't include their dental work or body jewelry.
All the horror shown are the bloody, gruesome killings and the occasionally imperfect and distorted duplications that immediately follow.
And the mystery and suspense only consists of who's been replicated already, who's gonna get replicated next and where down which dark hallway or in what interconnected room The Thing's latest replications are hiding, sometimes in plain sight.
As the final credits of the newest movie roll, the memorable beginning scene of the 1982 movie with the running dog is reprised.
However, this time with less interesting actors than Kurt Russell and Wilford Brimley and more time using flashlights and flares in the long, dark Antarctic night, I felt the current screenplay about "The Thing" was sadly lackluster, dull and unimaginative.
Almost the last man standing in this particular version is a woman, but no nudity or sex was offered.
I would have personally appreciated a shower scene proving the feisty and moderately attractive heroine's continuing humanity by showing us a nipple piercing or something.
Just a lascivious thought that crossed my mind.
Heck, the only comic relief was an old, fairly lame joke told in Norwegian with subtitles.
After hoping for more from this movie, I thought it was about as simplistic and unrewarding as a prequel could possibly be and still cover all the continuity bases.
But go see it, if you feel you must; I certainly did.
And I hope you like it.
Let us know.
The Link
Spoilers ahead; I'm not kidding!!!!!!
This is a prequel to the much better 1982 John Carpenter film, which starred Kurt Russell and Wilford Brimley.
That 1982 movie was a "remake" of the B&W film which was inspired by John Campbell's novella, "Who Goes There?"
I found it pretty creepy when I saw it back in 1951.
This new cinematic offering, IMHO, is only worth your viewing attention if you feel a need to see it because you dug any of the others and want to see more of the story for completeness' sake.
In retrospect, that'll officially serve as my only reason for going.
I might have gone to see "Footloose" for better entertainment value a la Julianne Hough.
The 1982 flick was a very good remake of the 1951 original, "The Thing from Another World," which is quite dated now despite featuring James Arness of "Gunsmoke" fame as the enigmatic creature.
In that first movie the alien was described as a vegetable, but microscopic investigation now suggests it's like a virus.
At least they always had the first letter right.
By 1982, John Carpenter's reimagining gave us a greatly improved storyline and much better film making, production in color, significantly more interesting actors and some pretty decent special effects for its time.
The Thing is an extra-terrestrial life form which attacks its victims, isolated at a South Polar research base, and then kills, digests and replicates them, lickety split, before hiding inside the newly duplicated bodies while awaiting yet another opportunity.
The Thing is best killed by incinerating it with a flame thrower, which I guess is standard issue at polar bases for melting the ice on sidewalks, and if it escapes from Antarctica, look out in the more populous rest of the world.
All that information was revealed way back in 1982 and it made for a good sci fi premise.
The only new revelations about The Thing in 2011 are that you get to see its spaceship entombed in a glacier and we find out that its replication of victims doesn't include their dental work or body jewelry.
All the horror shown are the bloody, gruesome killings and the occasionally imperfect and distorted duplications that immediately follow.
And the mystery and suspense only consists of who's been replicated already, who's gonna get replicated next and where down which dark hallway or in what interconnected room The Thing's latest replications are hiding, sometimes in plain sight.
As the final credits of the newest movie roll, the memorable beginning scene of the 1982 movie with the running dog is reprised.
However, this time with less interesting actors than Kurt Russell and Wilford Brimley and more time using flashlights and flares in the long, dark Antarctic night, I felt the current screenplay about "The Thing" was sadly lackluster, dull and unimaginative.
Almost the last man standing in this particular version is a woman, but no nudity or sex was offered.
I would have personally appreciated a shower scene proving the feisty and moderately attractive heroine's continuing humanity by showing us a nipple piercing or something.
Just a lascivious thought that crossed my mind.
Heck, the only comic relief was an old, fairly lame joke told in Norwegian with subtitles.
After hoping for more from this movie, I thought it was about as simplistic and unrewarding as a prequel could possibly be and still cover all the continuity bases.
But go see it, if you feel you must; I certainly did.
And I hope you like it.
Let us know.
