|
Post by anthonyrocks on Jun 27, 2019 23:05:34 GMT
|
|
|
Post by politicidal on Jun 28, 2019 0:15:05 GMT
It's not as bad as I feared. But I'd certainly rewatch the original before this.
|
|
|
Post by masterofallgoons on Jun 28, 2019 2:19:18 GMT
It's not terrible, but the the fact that it's functionally a remake and sort of copies the same beats as the '82 movie, and yet still tries to be a prequel at the end is weird and confusing.
Also, weak CGI for a movie that is riding the coat tails of a movie known for it's great practical effects.
|
|
|
Post by OffTheBoatPsycho on Jun 28, 2019 3:43:49 GMT
Not bad at all. Easy 6.5. On a nice freezing cold evening it's a nice set up for a double feature for The Thing (2011) followed by The Thing (1982). I've watched worse and had worse evenings so all is good.
|
|
|
Post by anthonyrocks on Jun 28, 2019 7:01:05 GMT
I really enjoyed the Acting Performances in the Movie.
In particular from Mary Elizabeth Winstead, Ulrich Thomsen, Adelwale Akinnuoye-Agbaje (Mr. Eko from "LOST"), Trond Espen Seim, Jorgen Langhelle, Stig Henrik Hoff, and Kristofer Hivju (Tormund from "GAME OF THRONES").
|
|
|
Post by Morgana on Jun 28, 2019 9:16:42 GMT
I don't think it's underrated. It was okay but I had expected it to be better (hoped).
|
|
rogerthat
Sophomore
@rogerthat
Posts: 734
Likes: 478
|
Post by rogerthat on Jun 28, 2019 22:01:27 GMT
I don't think it's underrated. It was okay but I had expected it to be better (hoped). My sentiments as well. I think it is rated just right. Enjoyed it but yet to have a desire for second viewing
|
|
|
Post by Marv on Jul 8, 2019 16:59:38 GMT
Nah. Thereâs little character development, the cgi looks worse than the realistic effects of 1982, and it didnât bring anything new to the table. Itâs average. Not in the same ballpark as carpenters.
|
|
|
Post by Anonymous Andy on Jul 9, 2019 2:23:19 GMT
Bad CGI and too much retreading of JC's original.
Not entirely awful but definitely lacking some refinement. 6/10
|
|
|
Post by moviebuffbrad on Jul 9, 2019 2:42:25 GMT
What is actually good about this movie, Tony? You never get too specific with why you do or don't like a movie, and in this case I'm curious.
|
|
|
Post by anthonyrocks on Jul 9, 2019 3:21:24 GMT
What is actually good about this movie, Tony? You never get too specific with why you do or don't like a movie, and in this case I'm curious. I myself like it for the story, the acting, the music, the tension, the suspense, and the few practical effects (like with the Ice Block-Thing) that they do keep in the Movie.
I even have a TON of Favorite Scenes from it below (These may give you an idea of what I like about it).
A Few of These Scenes are actually backwards (I have no idea why).
Heck, There are even a couple of Deleted Scenes from the Movie that I also like.
|
|
|
Post by lostinlimbo on Jul 22, 2019 14:33:27 GMT
It was serviceable. Nothing more, nothing less. I wish they had kept the practical effects, as the inserted CGI was beyond flimsy. Need to check out âHarbinger Down 2015â, to see the discarded practical effects.
|
|
|
Post by James on Jul 22, 2019 20:09:21 GMT
Not bad at all. Easy 6.5. On a nice freezing cold evening it's a nice set up for a double feature for The Thing (2011) followed by The Thing (1982). I've watched worse and had worse evenings so all is good. My rating is the same as yours. It was not nearly the soulless cashgrab I was lead to believe it was. The effects just dropped it down.
|
|
|
Post by anthonyrocks on Jul 22, 2019 20:55:20 GMT
It was serviceable. Nothing more, nothing less. I wish they had kept the practical effects, as the inserted CGI was beyond flimsy. Need to check out âHarbinger Down 2015â, to see the discarded practical effects. I've seen that Movie, It is alright.
I really liked Lance Henriksen in it.
|
|
|
Post by Prime etc. on Jul 22, 2019 21:32:06 GMT
The only cgi scene I liked was where the two face one is stalking the hallways. But the rest of it was too cartoony. The thing changes were too fast. Like the guy on the helicopter. In the 82 movie you heard the weird breathing and then it slowly transformed.
But the movie itself was just too much a copy of the 82 film.
Having another pair of American helicopter pilots--I mean really. I didnt realize Antarctica as that diverse. It even had Childs and Macready doppelgangers at the Norwegian camp-it is a small world after all.
|
|
|
Post by politicidal on Jul 23, 2019 2:18:56 GMT
At the least, it gave Mary Elizabeth Winstead a chance to shine.
|
|
|
Post by anthonyrocks on Jul 23, 2019 4:12:07 GMT
At the least, it gave Mary Elizabeth Winstead a chance to shine. Agreed!
|
|
|
Post by seahawksraawk00 on Jul 23, 2019 18:54:35 GMT
Used to like it, but hasn't aged well for me. The CGI is obviously a mess, but there biggest problem is that they really got the "characterization" of the Thing wrong. "It" made a lot of stupid decisions that exposed itself that really goes against how it's portrayed in the original. The only real good thing about it is Mary Elizabeth Winstead when I really like as an actress. She does a good variety of mainstream films and Indie projects which I really like. And I'm really looking forward to her with Will Smith in Gemini Man.
|
|
|
Post by petrolino on Jul 28, 2019 0:12:28 GMT
I like it alot. Nice addition to the 'Thing' legacy for me as I enjoy 'The Thing From Another World' (1951) and 'The Thing' (1982) a great deal.
|
|
|
Post by anthonyrocks on Jul 28, 2019 0:16:54 GMT
I like it alot. Nice addition to the 'Thing' legacy for me as I enjoy 'The Thing From Another World' (1951) and 'The Thing' (1982) a great deal. Agreed!
|
|