I am a HUGE fan of Mary Elizabeth Winstead and have been watching her films - I realize this couldn't possibly hold a candle to the Carpenter version… but given my appreciation for her talent, and knowing it will probably not be that great of a movie, would I still enjoy it?
shareHonestly, That is Really Up to You Yourself!
shareThe problem with this remake is not the cast. The problem is a director who lacks a sense of real suspense and whose pacing is poor. Despite the newer film having a huge advantage in modern special effects. Carpenter's film was far more terrifying. The remake could have been great with a better director. Wasted opportunity.
shareThe problem with this remake is not the cast.
The special effects in this film were terrible. They looked like cheap and lowest bidder CG.
shareYes.
If you like MEW and you like The Thing, then you might like this a lot. She does well in it as the main character.
You've probably already seen it, so I'd like to see what you think of it...
IMDB - Because some Trolls need more than just a bridge
The only cool parts of the prequel are how it set up the 1982 version: the two-headed thing burning outside, the axe through the wall, the suicide victim, and MOST OF ALL Ennio Morricone's theme from the 1982 version kicking in at the very end as the helicopter approaches.
You can, indeed you can, enjoy the prequel as a gruesome action film, because there's absolutely nothing creepy or suspenseful about it.
[deleted]
If this film were in a universe where it was the first and only The Thing film and it had no film to follow up to or use for continuity, it would still be a mediocre horror film.
shareThis should have been a men only cast again. Mary ruins the film. Like Ripley from alien, here we go 30 years later with a female saving the day. Total cliche these days in hollywood. Almost too 90's. Shes horrible in the film. Who didnt see from the first minute that she would be surviving. Instead of having balls and making it like Carpenter did they had to dumb it down with a typical hollywood story telling.
shareHere here. It was never going happen though ?
shareMEW is great in this movie. As was Weaver in Alien.
I'm not one for dunking on dudes for being misogynistic but some The Thing (1982) fans are so pathetically misogynistic it's hilarious.
"ThE oRiGinAl MoViE wAs GoOd BeCaUsE nO iCkY gIrLs WeRe In It."
https://cdn.mobilesyrup.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/mocking-spongebob.jpg
No it wouldn't. It would be considered a great horror movie.
It's telling that almost every single disparaging remark made against this movie comes back to the 1982 movie.
"The effects were better in the 1982 movie."
"There were no girls in the 1982 movie."
"The 1982 movie is scarier."
Yes, I enjoyed watching this movie. Normally I'm not into gory horror movies, but every so often I'll watch one, and I enjoyed this one. I think this version had a good amount of suspense and even a bit of a sci-fi aspect. A bit later I re-watched the 1982 version, and I think the 2011 version was even more suspenseful.
----------------
We have clearance, Clarence.
Roger, Roger. What's our vector, Victor?
This is my first time seeing anything with Winstead. Wasn't impressed with her in this role. Her doe-eyed and slightly submissive portrayal didn't suit the genre.
Having said that, if you can watch sort of mindless scifi, I say go for it. It's no Aliens or Conjuring 2, but it's not Sharknado or Lake Placid 3 either. I'd put it up there with Dead Silence, Darkness Falls and other horror movies that have weak areas but high production budgets that allow for some bits of quality.