Reason Writers at the Movies: Peter Suderman Reviews The Thing in The Washington Times
Reason Associate Editor Peter Suderman reviews this week's update of John Carpenter's The Thing in today's Washington Times:
In a just world, Hollywood's higher-ups would follow a simple rule regarding remakes and updates: If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Instead, they systematically take the opposite route: Find what works, then make it worse.
So it is with "The Thing," director Matthijs van Heijningen Jr.'s remake-masked-as-a-prequel of John Carpenter's 1982 cult horror classic about an extraterrestrial marauder wreaking havoc on a chilly Antarctic compound. Like the unwanted alien visitor of its title, Mr. van Heijningen's film has descended upon theaters with no apparent purpose in mind except to perpetuate its own existence while hoping to briefly disguise itself as a something it's not: a good movie.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Sorry, we already killed this topic yesterday.
You know who else reviewed things?
Your mom?
She was also Teutonic.
Oh, and the obvious reason they made it a prequel is because the original didn't have any hot girls in it.
And let us not forget, John Carpenter's film was also a remake.
It bugs me when people say that, because it was only kind of a remake. "The Thing" certainly came after "The Thing From Another World", but they're both from "Who Goes There?" The beginning of TTFAW is much closer to the story, but after that it diverges a lot; TT is much closer in spirit and in the nature of the monster and how the men fight it. Personally, I'd like to see an adaptation that stuck really closely to the original story, but that will probably never happen.
It is not a fucking remake. God damn, if I hear this again, I'm going to punch someone. Carpenter's film and the 1951 one are both interpretations of a novella. The 1951 one isn't even close to it, whereas Carpenter's is very close.
If you're going to act like you know shit about movies, actually know shit about movies.
This isn't a personal attack on you, RR, it's just that I'm frustrated after hearing this many times on yesterday's Loder thread on this.
Strangely enough, Escape from LA works better as a remake of Escape from NY than it does as a sequel...
Two Thing reviews.
I see that Reason/Fangoria merger is moving along nicely.
"Free Minds Free Entrails"
"This week on ReasonTV, Pin peels away Drew Carey's flesh in a dark sacrement of torment."
Sorry, "Pinhead"
Never abbreviate his name.
Now excuse me, the lights are flickering...
I actually like having threads devoted to something other than public policy. H&R is a community, and there's a lot more to talk about than whatever new bit of idiocy the government has been up to in the last 24 hours.
I agree, but something other than movies would be nice. Nothing reeks of cowardice, unoriginality, and sheer volume of crap than modern Hollywood. It is the least interesting part of our society.
The 1982 version of The Thing is one of my favorite horror movies. The FX were great, and I can't imagine CGI besting them.
This move freaked the livin' hell out of me when I was a young man. Plus the sombrero - how many heroes can pull that off?
The upside down head on spindly spider legs lives forever in my mind as one of the creepiest and funniest scenes ever filmed.
A great flick, no doubt about it. Carpenter is a somewhat unappreciated genius.
I love John Carpenter. But he's made some real shit over the past 20 years. In the Mouth of Madness was his last reasonably respectable film.
Prince of Darkness remains my favorite film ending.
One of my favorites too. It left me shaken for days when I first saw it (I was 15.) The spider-legged head is indeed a classic. I still like the chest-paddle scene.
A lot of actors who later became pretty well-known (Kurt Russell, Richard Masur, Donald Moffat, Richard Dysart, Keith David, and the always awesome Wilford Brimley) got some early exposure in that film.
The 1982 version has stood the test of time, which is rare in this genre. I think it freaked everyone out back then. It's not even the gore content, but the really fucked-up imagination behind it.
Ok, now you're just being a dick. You can't at least review different movies from KL?
In Suder-man's defense, October ain't exactly flush with new movies, ya know, let alone decent ones.
The last two or three Octobers have been pretty bereft of decent movies..
To be fair, Suderman's review was written for the Washington Times and is simply reprinted here. I don't know why Reason bothered publishing both their reviews, since they seem to have the same overall perspective.
I keep wanting to pronouce this movie like Steve Martin's Irving Cohen character would: "The TEENG."
Movie critics.......WHAT THE F*CK DO YOU KNOW?......GO GET A REAL F*CKING JOB! I just saw the movie and thought it was great!