It’s big on the grotesquery but short on genuine scares.
In theaters: Friday, 14 October 2011
Genre: Horror, Mystery, Science Fiction
Cast: Mary Elizabeth Winstead, Joel Edgerton, Ulrich Thomsen
Bensaid on Friday, March 02, 2012 11:07:38 AMThey should of had the wolf turn into an alien. I couldn't even see the spaceship or what happened at the beginning. Too dark.
Tedsaid on Saturday, January 21, 2012 2:48:35 PMI agree 100% with you on this one Richard.
petesaid on Sunday, January 08, 2012 11:14:18 PMPeople remember directors and screenwriters, not critics. People... make up you're own minds! Go spend the money and get out of the house. Don't let one mans or womans opinion prevent you from making you're own decision. Let the critic try to make the product before judging somone elses and swaying the masses before they make " have nots" out of " could bes"
Reply from Richard Roeper Pete:
If that's the way you feel, what are you doing on this site?
Also, have you actually seen this movie? It's dreadful.
Michaelsaid on Thursday, October 27, 2011 10:39:54 AMI watched the Thing yesterday here in Germany. The only reason this was labeled as a "prequel" was to avoid
a confrontation with the hard-core fans of the "original" movie from 1982. In actuality, the Thing 2011 IS
a remake, and, its a very bad one.
The Thing 1982 captured that schizophrenic situation of beeing caged with a inexplicable threat.
You are bounded by the vastness of perpetual ice, no bars, no prison wall. But you know, every attempt to escape
comes to the sure death. Staying might kill you also. I worked as a scientist for ICE-CUBE two years ago.
Although the Amundsen-Scot station is quite comfortable, i can tell you, everyone feels like vomited after a week.
In the heated part its about 30 to 50 degree celsius, the non heated parts your urine gets frozen before hitting the ground.
Everyone smells, has rims under their eyes etc.
Mary Elizabeth Winstead instead looked like just comming from a beauty salon. Perfect make-up, fresh coiffed. Obviously van Heijningen
had not the slightes glue how to deliver the appropriate atmosphere and the cast of Winstead was terrible wrong.
It gives you always a feel like "even in a hell like this, live is good to you if you are a pretty girl". WTF!
The bearded Norwegians looked all the same and had absolutely no character development as an individual.
Less is sometimes more, the creature in the block of ice looked totaly uninspired as a mixture of some illustration of
an E.T from a 30 year old Carl Sagan book. Rob Bottins creations were far more absurd and abstract.
Every year, there is a movie night at the Amundsen-Scot station where Carpenters Thing is shown. And the next years, it will be no different.
A bad movie, nice that it bombs at the box office! Excellent review, Richard.
Raysaid on Sunday, October 23, 2011 2:21:44 PMI have to disagree. I thought "The Thing" was an excellent compliment to John Carpenter's film. I hear a lot of people bash this movie for various reasons, but one that I still have to scratch my head about is character development.
When I hear how critical people are about the characters, I really need to wonder what they saw in the 1982 version. McReady was a drunk, Doc was...a doctor, Childs was just a second lead, and Palmer was a stoner. Other than that, we really didn't know anything about them, and the only reason I remember their names is simply due to the nostalgia that Carpenter's version has had on people (and Palmer is my girlfriend's last name).
Frankly, I don't like comparing films based on when they came out. If you took the 1982 version of the movie, and the 2011 version, watch both of them on the same pedestal with no bias at all, I don't think people would have thought the 2011 version to be all the bad. However, while I whole heartily think that the 1982 version is the better of the two films, nostalgia get's the better of everyone.
"The Thing" is a flawed movie, but that doesn't mean the film didn't deliver what it set out to do. The attention to detail alone was impressive, seeing as how the director managed to capture every little detail examined in the Norwegian base in the 1982 version.
I think a C or C+ would have been a better rating, but I can see where the film could have left a bad taste.
paul rubinosaid on Saturday, October 22, 2011 7:57:44 PMHey Richard,
Saw "The Thing" today for the second time and loved it again, I don't understand how you can give a movie like this a "D" grade and give pure junk like "Footloose" a C Grade
Zacksaid on Saturday, October 22, 2011 11:26:48 AMI clicked on a link to read your review and was instead directed to the comments page. This turned out to be a happy mistake in that after reading your juvenile responses to those who commented in opposition to your opinion, I have decided to entirely discount your position on any movie. Thank you!
Reply from Richard Roeper Dear Zack:
Wow, talk about a juvenile response! You're going to 'entirely discount' my reviews because you were turned off by some fun little give-and-take I had with a commenter or two? Huh?
I've been responding to readers, viewers and listeners for more than 20 years. I think this might be the first time someone said my responses were juvenile. Can you give me specific examples?
DiegoRPsaid on Friday, October 21, 2011 7:54:41 PMMmmh. I liked the movie a lot actually. You can see a work of love here.
I watched the 1982 film 5 days before to prep myself up. They both merge blend wonderfully - with true care and respect for Carpenter's - in a way rarely seen in movies. That itself is praiseworthy.
Yes... there are not a lot of scares, but I like that. While watching I became horrified of what was happening on screen, not because something came suddenly out of a corner. The only genuine scare (when the guy is examining the ice) is almost a parody of horror jump scares that litter the horror genre these days.
In addition, I cared for the characters, just because they're human beings in a horrific situation. I don't think I need to know people that much in order to care about them... I think it's a sign of these times that we only care about people we know. Perhaps I'm too naive/sensitive, or I allow myself to immerse too much in the movies I watch.
I truly enjoyed it and I would recommend anyone to watch it if they like horror movies like myself. Just let yourself go and enjoy the ride.
Simon Msaid on Friday, October 21, 2011 1:44:24 PMRoeper, I'm not entirely convinced that you were very fair with this movie as you review it like it's just another slasher flick. The underdeveloped characters seems to be intentional in that this plot follows the Protagonist, Kate, who clearly knows as much about these people as the movie lets on. She joins the team with absolutely no real knowledge of what she was getting into (than again, who did at that point) and is bunked up with about a dozen people. Two of whom aren't Norwegian. I'm not sure the movie was supposed to have character depth and development if it was centered around answering questions from the original, and in that aspect it did an amazing job in comparison to say, the video game sequel.
Robb Shermansaid on Wednesday, October 19, 2011 11:23:19 PMMr. Roeper's review was bang on. Being a fan of the previous two movies, I was looking forward to this one. It was strange to see scenery so similar to the 1982 version filled with characters so vapid and undefined. In the theatre we were constantly checking with each other as to who was whom. We could tell Kate Lloyd apart from the others, but I am still unsure as to how or when her character seized control of the camp. This is just one of the confusing parts of what should have been a fairly straightforward plot. But the most disappointing thing about "The Thing" is that it is completely devoid of the suspense that made the Carpenter version so great. Like most horror movies today, this movies substitutes slime and surprise for genuine scares.