If it's crap... We'll tell you
The Thing (1982) Review. My first Review.
The Thing is a science fiction/horror movie about a group of scientists that travel to Antarctica and are confronted by a shape-shifting alien that can take the shape of any living organism and clone them. Along the way fucked up shit happens to the crew and it all goes to hell for these people, everyone starts to blame each other and questions each other not knowing who the Thing really is. This makes for great suspense and its interesting to watch and find out who really is the Thing. This film was directed by John Carpenter the same man who made Halloween. The main protagonist of this film is Kurt Russell, he does a fairly good job conveying his character, its nothing too special but its not bad. But the real stunner of the film is the Thing its self. Who ever did the special effects for the Thing is a fucking GOD! I love the special effects of horror movies from the 80's, it just looks incredibly real. Not like that stupid CGI bullshit that were so used to today. There is a scene in this film where the Thing takes over a dog and it is just so amazing to watch and so fucked up at the same time you can't look away. If your a fan of Sci-Fi and Horror and suspense, then you should really check out this film. Its not the greatest story but HELL you have to admit those special effects are the SHIT!
Rating: FULL PRICE!
Rating: FULL PRICE!
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by UltraKid-SoulChild#1 on -
Dude, if you think those practical effects look better than CGI then you are blind! because CGI just keeps getting better and better. Haven't you watched Transformers? Iron Man? or the trailer for James Cameron's Avatar?
-
Permalink Reply by Chig Champa on -
Yeah, haven't you seen all those movies, with the blatantly obvious CG effects? The ones where people are obviously interacting with tennis balls or thin air?
-
Permalink Reply by Ian Vinson on -
Yes ive seen all of those movies i just personally think CGI is a terrible way to portray special effects. Have you not seen the trailer for that one movie about an army of angles or whatever the fuck its called well that old lady who crawls up the wall its just so laughable and so stupid that your like ok this movie is going to be some old bullshit. But i see what you mean i think it just depends sometimes on the type of genre of movie.
-
Permalink Reply by Chig Champa on
-
I was agreeing with you.
I'd take prosthetic, practical, "puppet" effects over CG bullshit any day of the week.
Especially when it comes to Rob Bottin's superlative work on The Thing.
-
Permalink Reply by Sav-vy-bag on -
Ahem...
-
Permalink Reply by Chig Champa on
-
What's your point? The puppet Yoda is amazing, people on the set even talked to the puppet thinking it was a living creature... so.... yeah.....!!
-
Permalink Reply by Sav-vy-bag on
-
I was adding to your point, geez, so defensive.
-
Permalink Reply by Chig Champa on
-
Don't make me pull an Oz up in this. You'll die, tonight!
-
Permalink Reply by Sav-vy-bag on
-
-
Permalink Reply by Chig Champa on
-
.... Urge to kill.... fading....
-
Permalink Reply by MDS on -
Ultrakid, I'm sorry to say this. But it sort of defines your tastes in movies when you can only see the CGI effects as being part of their "Greatness". The concept that the "Greater the effect the greater the movie" is a sad one to me, because it shows a lack of "Refinement" in your tastes. Maybe that's why you are always going on and on about those overly CGI'ed Asian films where the only thing "Real" in them is an actor standing in a green box.
What we have is an effect that admittedly has "Aged" and doesn't look as crisp and clean as some of the CGI effects today. But, instead of making a movie LESS attractive, it makes it MORE attractive because of how much work had to go into creating that effect WITHOUT the use of computers. When you know that someone has spent 20hrs working on the CGI of a movie, compared to 20hrs of working on ONE PRACTICAL effect, you'll be drawn towards the practical effect because of the amazing amount of work spent on making it happen. Look at the way that the X-wings in Star Wars New Hope looked with the original, compared to the crappier looking CGI ones in Star Wars New Hope "Limited Edition".
Sorry, but on this one you are wrong. Yeah, CGI is better and better, but it's over-used, over-marketed, and over-exploited. Give us the old fashioned PRACTICAL effects where actors had an object to act WITH on the set, and you'll see better performances.
-
Permalink Reply by UltraKid-SoulChild#1 on
-
I don't hate practical effects because they do look real these days like the Wild Things but CGI is getting better and even seems 100 percent real at times. There are times were I'm like damn they should of used practical effects and make up effects especially in those damn Harry Potter movies where the creatures just look flat out fake but when it comes to making giant robots and making giant alien spaceships then yeah CGI works better. I don't think anybody would of saw Transformers if looked Robocop.
Follow Spill on Twitter!
Latest Activity
Yes Batman finally has a real actor dawning the suit. Now I know y'all won't agree but Batman really was his break-out role. Not to say before he wasn't well known. Before Batman Begins not too many people really knew him even though he was in mov…
A Podcast for horror fans all over the spectrum, we talk horror video games, movies, books, comics, toys, anything horror....with some bullshit on the side!!
Okay, let's be very clear on this up front. Very rarely will a "MDS Blog" actually be filled with praise for a "Movie Studio". Bad marketing, poor quality movies, lack-luster scripts, we all hear about those. But, this is one of those very few times…
Music
© 2009 Created by The Spill Crew
