Joel Edgerton's Forgotten Sci-Fi Horror Flop That's Crushing It On Netflix
video description
Date: 2023-04-05
Related videos
Comments and reviews: 13
DRHACKNSLASH
I liked the movie, and the fact that the filmmakers successfully kept the fact that it was actually a prequel hidden until you actually saw the movie was well done, and a nice surprise. Not to mention the attention to detail paid to continuity to things that were shown after the fact in John Carpenter's film. Plus it was nice to see what actually happened to the Norwegian base, including how they found it in the first place was nice to see as it was something was very curious about seeing since I first saw THE THING in 1983. What kept this film from being the box office success it had the potential to be, in my opinion were two major grating issues. First, the over reliance of CGI instead of practical effects. The should have done a longer pre production to do more practical effects and used the CGI as a bridge for and enhance the practical, as in most cases, practical is always better to go with. Rob Bottin for the EPIC WIN. Second, the characters. In the 1982 fim, within the first 20 minutes, you got to know them, and know enough about them that they were real people. Each main cast member had at least one character moment. In the prequel, with the exception of the characters played by Joel Edgerton, Mary Elizabeth Winstead, and Eric Christian Olsen, they were all characters you didn't know anything about, and could care less about. The rest were just background bodies with VICTIM # ) written on their foreheads. All I was doing was waiting to see how they would die, and how gory a death they got. Hardly compelling story telling. If they hadn't committed those two major blunders, I believe the film would have been a hit. One other thing I really liked about it was the creative choice of using Ennio Moricone's score from the 82 film over the final scene of the helicopter chasing the dog thing from the Norwegian camp. It was another nice piece of continuity, and a bridge leading directly into the events of the Carpenter film. I thought it was a good enough film, and I do have it on blu-ray, and watch both of them back to back in timeline order twice a year. Like I said, I think it's a good enough film, it just could have been a much better film if they actually took the time to focus on the key details I mentioned above, instead of rushing it into production.
reply
I liked the movie, and the fact that the filmmakers successfully kept the fact that it was actually a prequel hidden until you actually saw the movie was well done, and a nice surprise. Not to mention the attention to detail paid to continuity to things that were shown after the fact in John Carpenter's film. Plus it was nice to see what actually happened to the Norwegian base, including how they found it in the first place was nice to see as it was something was very curious about seeing since I first saw THE THING in 1983. What kept this film from being the box office success it had the potential to be, in my opinion were two major grating issues. First, the over reliance of CGI instead of practical effects. The should have done a longer pre production to do more practical effects and used the CGI as a bridge for and enhance the practical, as in most cases, practical is always better to go with. Rob Bottin for the EPIC WIN. Second, the characters. In the 1982 fim, within the first 20 minutes, you got to know them, and know enough about them that they were real people. Each main cast member had at least one character moment. In the prequel, with the exception of the characters played by Joel Edgerton, Mary Elizabeth Winstead, and Eric Christian Olsen, they were all characters you didn't know anything about, and could care less about. The rest were just background bodies with VICTIM # ) written on their foreheads. All I was doing was waiting to see how they would die, and how gory a death they got. Hardly compelling story telling. If they hadn't committed those two major blunders, I believe the film would have been a hit. One other thing I really liked about it was the creative choice of using Ennio Moricone's score from the 82 film over the final scene of the helicopter chasing the dog thing from the Norwegian camp. It was another nice piece of continuity, and a bridge leading directly into the events of the Carpenter film. I thought it was a good enough film, and I do have it on blu-ray, and watch both of them back to back in timeline order twice a year. Like I said, I think it's a good enough film, it just could have been a much better film if they actually took the time to focus on the key details I mentioned above, instead of rushing it into production.
reply
djaxisravenguard
My dad, who notoriously hates remakes and such, can't watch the 80's one without watching this one first and going back to back into the 80's one.
I'm in the same camp. It has flaws, and doesn't reach the ''classic'' status of the original, but this is nowhere near a bad movie.
How the studio BUTCHERED the effects with cg after getting cold feet about the stellar practical ones they had already made is a travesty, but takjng the rest of the movie on it's own merits, it makes a good companion piece.
reply
My dad, who notoriously hates remakes and such, can't watch the 80's one without watching this one first and going back to back into the 80's one.
I'm in the same camp. It has flaws, and doesn't reach the ''classic'' status of the original, but this is nowhere near a bad movie.
How the studio BUTCHERED the effects with cg after getting cold feet about the stellar practical ones they had already made is a travesty, but takjng the rest of the movie on it's own merits, it makes a good companion piece.
reply
TheCircled
It's not a fecking remake its a prequal 100%. for Gods sake it ends with the thing (dog) being chased by the only person who cannot speak English in a chopper. which leads into 1982's The Thing. ain't no remake at all!
Add to that 1982's The Thing flopped BIG TIME at the box office as well and I mean BIG TIME but became a cult classic on VHS years later. similar to this outing: )
reply
It's not a fecking remake its a prequal 100%. for Gods sake it ends with the thing (dog) being chased by the only person who cannot speak English in a chopper. which leads into 1982's The Thing. ain't no remake at all!
Add to that 1982's The Thing flopped BIG TIME at the box office as well and I mean BIG TIME but became a cult classic on VHS years later. similar to this outing: )
reply
The
Why won t the studio already release the version with practical effects, I mean I feel like a lot of people would enjoy that, it was the creators original vision, and it is already complete, then they decide to cover it up with shorty last minute CGI.
reply
Why won t the studio already release the version with practical effects, I mean I feel like a lot of people would enjoy that, it was the creators original vision, and it is already complete, then they decide to cover it up with shorty last minute CGI.
reply
Justin
The sad thing is Joel is a great actor and he did a good job with this remake. He's not Kurt Russell but still a great actor. And I actually watched this remake the other day and it's not a bad horror movie remake in my own opinion. I liked it.
reply
The sad thing is Joel is a great actor and he did a good job with this remake. He's not Kurt Russell but still a great actor. And I actually watched this remake the other day and it's not a bad horror movie remake in my own opinion. I liked it.
reply
fanjoy
I'm sure someone else has already said this but they did a bunch of reshoots taking out a lot of the practical effects. If this film would have used those effects instead of swapping them out for CGI fans would have been much more receptive.
reply
I'm sure someone else has already said this but they did a bunch of reshoots taking out a lot of the practical effects. If this film would have used those effects instead of swapping them out for CGI fans would have been much more receptive.
reply
Dan
This one s a prequel. This is the Norwegian team that we see trying to shoot the dog in the original. Honestly, this movie was great. People only rag on it because the original used practical effects and this one tried but resorted to CGI.
reply
This one s a prequel. This is the Norwegian team that we see trying to shoot the dog in the original. Honestly, this movie was great. People only rag on it because the original used practical effects and this one tried but resorted to CGI.
reply
Ron
I just think it s funny that they call the 82 film, the original, THAT was a remake of the 1951 movie The Thing from another world. Which was one of James Arness first roles in film, as The Thing.
reply
I just think it s funny that they call the 82 film, the original, THAT was a remake of the 1951 movie The Thing from another world. Which was one of James Arness first roles in film, as The Thing.
reply
SomethingBoss
The original is far superior, but I still enjoyed this prequel. It may not be amazing, but it's definitely underrated. It's a masterpiece compared to the rubbish we get today.
reply
The original is far superior, but I still enjoyed this prequel. It may not be amazing, but it's definitely underrated. It's a masterpiece compared to the rubbish we get today.
reply
Estefano
2011 s was quite good, the suspense sequences were effective. Yea the CGI in later scenes was corny but today s standards but overall it was a good prequel that was creepy good
reply
2011 s was quite good, the suspense sequences were effective. Yea the CGI in later scenes was corny but today s standards but overall it was a good prequel that was creepy good
reply
fanjoy
This is not a remake, it is a prequel. This movie ends right where the original begins, with the helicopter chasing the dog. And yes, it was sadly underrated.
reply
This is not a remake, it is a prequel. This movie ends right where the original begins, with the helicopter chasing the dog. And yes, it was sadly underrated.
reply
Fritz
I m stoked thanks you guys I love the 1982 version. I can t remember if I ve seen this or not mad positive feedback on this one and they re thanks looper
reply
I m stoked thanks you guys I love the 1982 version. I can t remember if I ve seen this or not mad positive feedback on this one and they re thanks looper
reply
JDMdrifterboy7
Umm. you forgot the original is from 1951. The 1982 movie was a remake. The 2011 film was a prequel to the '82 John Carpenter vehicle.
reply
Umm. you forgot the original is from 1951. The 1982 movie was a remake. The 2011 film was a prequel to the '82 John Carpenter vehicle.
reply
Add a review, comment
Other channel videos
