Friday, October 14, 2011

Escape to the Movies: "The Thing (2011)"

It sucks. But you knew that.

"Intermission" breaks down the "Avengers" trailer.

13 comments:

Sylocat said...

Yeah, saw this coming a mile away.

On the plus side, when the inevitable Sequel rolls around (wait, will it be "The Thing 3," or "The Thing 2," since both of these just called themselves "The Thing?"), they might learn their lesson and actually do something interesting with... ah, who am I kidding?

Rook in the Pumpkin said...

So wait... the characters are actually speaking English in this prequel? If that's the case, does it explain why in the hell the Norwegian guys at the beginning of the original don't warn the heroes in English, thus saving them from a nightmare beyond human comprehension?

Anonymous said...

@Sylocat I think it would be called "The Thingy".

Anonymous said...

Thing 2: The Thingering.

sewingrose said...

http://spinoff.comicbookresources.com/2011/10/14/the-avengers-trailer-downloaded-10m-times-breaking-itunes-record/

The trailer was broke itunes record and was downloaded 10 million times in the first 24 hours. So there's a whole lot of people looking forward to this, wonder what the Box Office will end up being.

Drunken Lemur said...

Bob, I've always wanted to know this, but why is it that when you do a trailer breakdown, the times you give are seconds after when the thing you talk about happened. It usually starts out fine, but do you just keep the trailer running or are you pausing it after it happens and writing that time down? I originally assumed it had something to do with the trailer being on Apple's site, but you used the youtube video this time. Most peculiar.

Cheesy McBastard said...

@rock in the pumpkin

They establish (briefly) in the 2011 Thing that Lars, the Norwegian from the original film, "doesn't speak English, but works like a bear."

CrunchyEmpanada said...

Fucking hate, so much hate. I wish I could bottle it so that other people can know, because words just can't express it well.

Hey guess what, nobody who clicks what's supposed to be a review for The Thing wants to watch the avengers trailer again. If they did, they'd fucking go to youtube and watch the avengers trailer again.

Look, it's not a great film. It also doesn't "suck" and hey, looks like you don't have any good reason why it sucks. I mean let's break it down:

The first one and a half minutes of your so called review is just obnoxious bitching about Hollywood making remakes all the time. Well fuck, nobody who knows anything gives a shit because Hollywood has always done this, and we also know that YOU know this Bob, so fuck you, shut up.

Then you have a few seconds of summing up this The Thing as just the 1982 version, except worse. Well, It's worse, but it's not at all beat-for-beat. These movies are practically different genres, one being a gorey monster flick and the other one being more of a thriller that just happens to have a gorey monster in it. And guess what, the former works better when it has a lot of random characters that we don't go too in depth in, because then we have more people to watch as they die. As opposed to the 1982 The Thing which was completely different and needed better characterisation.

Then when got that bullshit bit of going into the Avenger's trailer, which again, Fuck You for that.

Then we have a short summary, talks of the special affects of the original compared to this current (in a stupid way too, as if somehow what was done before actually matters with how good this movie is. Yeah, it's something of a remake, but I didn't bitch and moan about how great Conquest of the Planet of the Apes was and how Rise wasn't as good, even though it wasn't, Rise was still a great movie and any previous incarnations have nothing to do with it by itself) one, completely ignoring that while most of the special affects in the 1982 The Thing was amazing, some of it decidedly *wasn't*. In fact there's a similarity between the two movies in that both started off great and got worse as the movie went on.

Then we have a terrible theory on how the limitations of practical affects caused better direction. This is the stupidest theory in the world. Ignoring that obviously practical affects aren't made in a vacuum and would be made with the expected shots already in mind, if you were correct about the limitations being good, then obviously all actors should have random portions of their bodies flensed so that way directors will be forced to compose shots better instead of just sticking people wherever they want. Fuck you Bob.

Then we move on to apparently how you have a terrible memory, which is fine, but isn't the movie's fault, and how you're oh-so-smart and can figure out what's going to happen. Well no shit, it's not only a prequel, it's a normal monster movie. Hey guess what Bob? When I first saw the 1982 The Thing, I guessed all that shit too. It's just the way these things are.

And then we got you deciding that the only reason a girl is there is to prevent too many guys, which is an utterly fucking stupid idea because this movie didn't use the female characters for anything that would imply such a thing. There was no sexy shower scene, nobody was used as eye candy, everybody was used just like everyone else regardless of gender.

Besides Bob, don't act like you haven't given movies extra points specifically because they had girls you liked randomly added to them for the sole reason of having girls in the movie. Because you're a fucking piece of shit and can't help but get huge boners from a pair of movie tits jiggling in your face.

And lastly, you claim it's boring. Well okay, if you think so. Nobody else I've seen thinks so, but okay. I didn't think so. Coupled with everything else, fuck you, I hate you.

Phokal said...

@CrunchyEmpanada

Dude, did you see that part of the Avengers trailer where Capt America and Iron Man are talking. It was pretty awesome.

Also, I'll just point out that Bob was ready to rip Real Steel a new one, and then didn't, despite all the "hollywood had to have screwed this up" hype. Ditto for Fright Night. Which, he clips in this. So, why insist it *must* be his preconceived notions that entirely framed this review? At least pick a reason that makes sense, like, he got bought out or something on the other ones.

Silens said...

@Crunchy - holy hell, massive rage there. More than a little blown out of proportion, I might add - did you work on this film or something?

First, let's talk about the apparent hatred of the Avengers trailer - which was, frankly, far more interesting than the entirety of the movie. Not because the Avengers movie actually looks cool, but because this prequel is an abominable piece of shit. And Bob's always cut to entertaining little asides in his reviews - because, you know, it's his show.

And then you rant about how 'everyone knows this is what Hollywood does' with prequels - well, guess what? It's a serious fucking problem with the modern mainstream horror movie scene, and it needs to be fucking fixed. Bob is within his right to be annoyed with it.

Your characterization argument falls flat on its face - if we don't care about the characters, why should we care if they die in either movie- good characterization is kind of important in any film. And keep in mind that the 1982 Thing movie is held in high esteem because it HAS such great characterization. To say this film falls flat is a huge understatement, and sorry, I don't fucking care about excuses.

Your next line of argument after the Avengers bitching is the whole special effects issue - and you know what, I'm with Bob and every other 'nerd-culture' film critic on this: the CGI effects in this film are fucking AWFUL. Even with the mild weakening of the special effects in both films (which I'd debate), the special effects in this prequel go from 'shit' to 'unwatchable'.

Your argument regarding practical effects also fails completely - while practical effects are built for specific shots, your disguised 'slippery slope' argument just fails because there is a difference between actors and effects when it comes to shot composition. Your extension is just absurd.

And then you rip on the fact that Bob can't remember the movie - well, dipstick, it's a fair assumption that the movie fails vastly compared to its classic predecessor if Bob can't remember anything about it. And so there was formula plotting - but here, I raise the point that the execution of said formula made John Carpenter's movie superior and one of the best horror movies of all time. This... it's a failure in execution.

And while you throw misogynist accusations at Bob, you do realize that John Carpenter's movie was a bit of a sausage-fest, right? Granted, it was the 80s, but I can't exactly complain if a movie's going to include gender diversity. And Bob's not even really criticizing this, he's just stating it as a fact.

And finally, you bring up your point of how nobody else thinks it's boring that you've seen. Okay. Good to know. Your arguments still fail, and you have serious anger issues. And I'm sure as much as you hate Bob... he probably doesn't give an iota about you. ;)

CrunchyEmpanada said...

@Phokal
When did I say anything about preconceived notions? Oh right, I didn't.

@Silens
It's a matter of taste if Bob's asides are interesting. I think they're annoying.

Bob can be annoyed with it, but I didn't click on a REVIEW so I could hear shit about the state of hollywood. The point I was making is that Bob knows that hollywood has ALWAYS been making adaptations and remakes, and has said many times that you can make a good movie out of anything. He should know it being an adaptation doesn't matter, only it being a good movie or not.

If we don't care about the characters, we shouldn't care about when they die. Which is great, because there are a lot of deaths and caring about all of them would make the movie exhausting and depressing. You'd sit down, watch a movie with a bunch of characters you like and root for, and then what? They all fucking die. I didn't come to The Thing to watch some depressing shit like Biutiful or Blue Valentine. A monster movie that features lots of deaths, a slasher or a splatter, suffers from plentiful interesting characters because you know *at least* almost all of them are going to die, and nobody wants to watch a bunch of people whom they like, die. And again, I point out that the 1982 film was practically a different genre. It was not a real monster movie. It just had a monster in it. It was more a suspense thriller and a bottle film, which requires great characterisation because the majority of the film is just the characters sitting around together.

You're retarded about the special affects going from shit to unwatchable. It's objectively not true, and you're probably just bitching because it's not the practical special affects from the 1982 The Thing. So nope, moving on.

Nobody said a slippery slope argument, and even if I did, it doesn't matter because slippery slopes can be valid arguments. I think you just decided it was a slippery slope because they have bad reputations and you think if you can make my argument one, then you can defeat it. Well, that's not how it works. A slippery slope is "If we do this, there is a not-insignificant chance that this other thing will happen, which is undesirable." My argument was nothing like that, and it shows how ignorant you are that you could possibly think that it was. My argument was an analogy, and analogies work so long as the there is a relevant link between the two. And there is. Shot composition, and shortcomings. It doesn't matter, the difference between how shot composition works between the two (and you made a stupid distinction, considering that some practical special affects are characters, like say, in the movie The Thing, where the antagonist is mostly a special affect.), only that both are shot in movies and these shots can be composed to be more appealing.

Of course the movie fails "compared to" its predecessor. *Most* movies fail compared to the 1982 The Thing. But that doesn't have shit to do with how good the 2011 movie is. It certainly says something that you can't say anything negative about this movie without comparing it to the 1982 one. And finally, I bet Bob can't remember anything about Piranha 3D, other than 3D boobs, and a bunch of people dying. Except he liked that movie. Probably because there wasn't an original "Piranha" movie that had great characterisation and was a suspense thriller that's considered a cult classic.

I honestly don't think about a movie needing a female for the sake of a female existing in the movie. If you think that a movie with a bunch of males needs a female in order to avoid being a "sausage fest" I don't know, maybe you're latently homosexual or sexist or something.

And I'm sure Bob cares a small iota about me. In that he cares about all his fans, and probably should care when one of his fans says "fuck you I'm tired of your shit." It's not like I'm the only one either.

Uncle Tim said...

I realize you're undoubtedly going to imply you already thought of this and dismissed it even though you don't mention it at all in the review, but I think you're actually quite wrong about the film lacking cultural themes when it comes to making the lead character American. Some SPOILERS to follow:

Didn't you notice how when several of the American characters are suspected of having been taken over, they are rarely referred to by the Norwegian characters by their individual names again but collectively as "the Americans?" This is particularly crucial during the scene when Kate is attempting to take control and Sander tries to undermine her authority over one of his terrified underlings(notably speaking in Norwegian so she can't understand) by again drawing the distinction and subtly equating her with Carter and Jameson and thus with "the other," both in the cultural and biological sense.

That gives the film an underlying theme of, quite appropriately enough, xenophobia and I think reflects increasingly hostile attitudes regarding the U.S. by expressed by other countries in the modern world. And while I know it's bad form these days to link everything to the "War on Terror," one has to admit the parallel: a threat from an enemy that has infiltrated a social group, leading Americans to take some aggressive and sometimes rash action that can strain relations with people of other countries. None of this is worthy of mention?

A nice nod toward this and the 1951 film is the fact that Sander bears striking similarities to the arrogant scientist character of Carrington in the first film, an intellectual who somewhat myopically warns against xenophobia by arguing on the creature's behalf in that film, a stance that is ironically turned on its head here. Not only is Sander's arrogant attitude and cold scientific approach similar, he even wears a similar style of floppy fur hat.

And I for one really like the idea that a female character is introduced into a film without the script making some issue of it, as though the idea of having a smart, brave, resourceful heroine is so alien that her gender must be the focus.

I must say the only thing (haha) that really bothered me here (and this is the continuity snob in me talking) is that the film contradicts the Carpenter film regarding the Norwegians' attempt to extricate the alien ship using explosives. Considering how fervently the filmmakers attempt to preserve much more subtle and minute instances of the continuity of the first film, this gaping hole seems odd.

Anonymous said...

Not only was The Thing a complete insult to Carpenters amazing film it was a complete insult to decent film making in general. Unwatchable garbage is all it was. The film was painfully bad and predictable and the acting was terribly hollow.

I only wish this turd of a movie would get buried in the ice for 100,000 years so that nobody else will have to suffer through it.