Comments on: The Thing Bears Only Passing Resemblance to John Carpenter’s THE THING

By: Angel

Angel — Sat, 13 Jul 2013 09:35:54 +0000

Finally someone who mentioned the fact that they didn’t blow the ice over the ship! I nearly threw my drink at the screen. This movie was really good for a one time deal. As a continuation of a franchise however, it was a terrible choice. So many plot holes, unexplained events, and just a terrible rush of events that ruined the second half of the movie.

By: Jim

Jim — Sun, 16 Oct 2011 08:50:26 +0000

In reply to Seymour. Yeah it was a remake and the reason people forget this is because Carpenters film is about a hundred times better than the 1951 version.

By: m1ellison

m1ellison — Sun, 16 Oct 2011 01:06:47 +0000

I always like to get different perspectives but it seems like this review was written by someone who appreciates horror but not sci-fi horror. My case in point is the comparison of the aspects involving the ship. Ok, so it was a little weird that the ship was powering up at the last even after it had crashed. However, you would be using singular thinking if you thought the ship was crashed and then the life form aboard it or controlling it was the life form that was causing all of the chaos. I had no problem in piecing together why the ship crashed and why the life form was outside of the ship. I simply considered the option that the “Thing” life form was not the original ship crew. Maybe the ship crew was taken over by the life form resulting in a crash. Then the “Thing” did what it was suppose to do, escaped the ship to spread and take over other life.

I too am guilty of trying to pick apart a movie and find its flaws, but I quickly learned that I would soon be so critical of every movie that I would have a hard time finding pleasure in the theater.

By: Terrell

Terrell — Sat, 15 Oct 2011 07:15:22 +0000

First and foremost, John Carpenter’s was NOT a remake Seymore so in fact, you are demonstrating total ignorance to the fact that his version used more elements of the short story than the 50s version. Second, the movie sort of ended for me when the thing hopped out of the within the first what 30 minutes? It should have been kept in the ice as much as possible seeing as how it in the Carpenter version they alluded to the thing being possibly stuck for millions of years but a small hole in the ice makes it magically hop out like a Zack Snyder zombie. Third the tension between the humans seemed too manufactured with the “language” and “culture” barrier. There was no real clash of anything in my opinion and any reason for any resistance by Dr. Sander should have went out the window the second the first guy got killed which he seemed to have already been turned before doing the autopsy as he was still referring to the find as “remarkable” when opening up something that just digested a human. Disappointing indeed.

By: keith mitchell

keith mitchell — Sat, 15 Oct 2011 06:12:07 +0000

if i had 4 arm’s i would give it 4 thumb’s up .5 arm’s 5 thumb’s up. but i only have two arm’s so i need help. any one have an extra arm they can lone .I’m thinking about seeing it again tomorrow night .

By: Dee

Dee — Sat, 15 Oct 2011 05:31:03 +0000

I just saw the new Thing. I liked the film. I did not put it up to the standards as the John Carpenter movie. To me that was a near perfect movie. But this new movie was just a different movie that had a alien in it that took place in the artic. I thought the CGI was very good and the movie had a creepy mood to it. Yes there was some inconsistencies in this movie that didn’t go with the JC movie. So I just enjoyed it for what it was a scary alien movie. I did like seeing inside of the ship. The ending well it was strange. I just don’t believe a helo pilot that had been gone all the time all heck was breaking loose would just go freely along to shoot a dog. But the movie was not a bad one and was worth seeing it.

By: Seymour

Seymour — Sat, 15 Oct 2011 02:32:39 +0000

First off, Carpenter’s The Thing was NOT the original. It was a remake, so you are demonstrating total ignorance by acting like that version was the original and the one for comparison. Yeah, it was the bigger budget film, but it was still a remake.

By: Jeremy

Jeremy — Sat, 15 Oct 2011 02:03:46 +0000

Let me just state that I believe your review is 100% accurate description of this movie. I just recently saw John Carpenter’s “The Thing” and I’ll admit at first I said to myself ‘this movie is a little slow’ but I gave it a chance and by the end was thinking damn what a kick ass movie and what killer effects for being 29. Amazing effects so much better than the shit you see today. After seeing Carpenter’s I immediately wanted to watch it again. I wasn’t exactly sure of the reason but knew I wanted to see what the film was trying to show that wasn’t blatantly obvious (hardly any of it was obvious) which was so great because I kept thinking of what I would do in the situations. The 2011 film wasn’t blatantly obvious either but it didn’t matter because a person would randomly be the monster. It didn’t matter “who, how, when possible, were they infected when they did x how about y”. The original made you think, made you relook at situations from a different angle (Blair destroying the equipment? Very human or was it after all Palmer was missing and right after the blood is destroyed). Sorry too long could go on and on because this review was so wonderful it sparked up so many thoughts. Thank you :)!