steve1-1
Iscritto in data gen 2005
Ti diamo il benvenuto nel nuovo profilo
Stiamo ancora lavorando all'aggiornamento di alcune funzionalità del profilo. Per visualizzare I loghi, le suddivisioni delle valutazioni e i sondaggi per questo profilo, vai a versione precedente.
Recensioni3
Valutazione di steve1-1
Now now children, some people will have different opinions than you and just because it's different, doesn't make it wrong. Having read the first couple of pages of reviews here and having just seen the film only quarter of an hour ago, I felt compelled to write something about this prequel to the 1982 'The Thing'.
It's fair to say that opinion is divided on the merits of this offering, but it's also fair to say that most opinions that lambast this film are from die-hard Carpenter fans who are woefully disappointed by what they have seen, and fair play to them. No, it's not like the original movie. Go figure. It's nearly thirty years later. If you want to see the same film, go and rent it (and then watch it) twice.
Having seen the original movie maybe three or four times in the past thirty years (I was fourteen when I will have first seen it in 1983) I was quite pleasantly surprised by the end of this prequel. True, it lacks some of the tension of the original and the acting from most, if not all, was below par. I remember the wonder of the special effects taking my breath away in the early eighties. This effort failed to bring me those same kind of delightful terrors. However, this is not due to the realism or effort on the part of the film-makers.
This is purely down to my experience of horror movies throughout the past thirty years. My expectations at 42 are not the same as that 14 year old boy and I am a grisled and wisened old movie cynic these days as opposed to a wide-eyed horror newbie. I think I watched this around the same time as my pirate VHS copies of The Evil Dead and Poltergeist.
In short, this wasn't half bad. It was faithful enough the original film for my liking, though having only seen it a few times, I am far from an authority on the subject matter. Continuity sputtered from time to time and there were slightly too many plot lines left dangling for comfort, but altogether, this was an enjoyable hour and a half. Yes, it's true that you didn't feel for the characters as much as say MacReady (or whatever Russell's name was) in the first film and some of the blame for this should fall squarely on the writers. After all, bad though the acting may have been, they can only read what's on the page in front of them.
Don't be put off by the comments you read here that tell you this is nothing more than an awful pile of monkey doings, because that is judging it too harshly. It's never going to be the classic that Carpenter's film ended up being, but given the last decade of truly terrible remakes we have been forced to sit through, horror-wise, this is almost a breath of fresh air. Remember what decade you're in be thankful that whilst this is not a classic, it is better than much of what we've seen recently.
It's fair to say that opinion is divided on the merits of this offering, but it's also fair to say that most opinions that lambast this film are from die-hard Carpenter fans who are woefully disappointed by what they have seen, and fair play to them. No, it's not like the original movie. Go figure. It's nearly thirty years later. If you want to see the same film, go and rent it (and then watch it) twice.
Having seen the original movie maybe three or four times in the past thirty years (I was fourteen when I will have first seen it in 1983) I was quite pleasantly surprised by the end of this prequel. True, it lacks some of the tension of the original and the acting from most, if not all, was below par. I remember the wonder of the special effects taking my breath away in the early eighties. This effort failed to bring me those same kind of delightful terrors. However, this is not due to the realism or effort on the part of the film-makers.
This is purely down to my experience of horror movies throughout the past thirty years. My expectations at 42 are not the same as that 14 year old boy and I am a grisled and wisened old movie cynic these days as opposed to a wide-eyed horror newbie. I think I watched this around the same time as my pirate VHS copies of The Evil Dead and Poltergeist.
In short, this wasn't half bad. It was faithful enough the original film for my liking, though having only seen it a few times, I am far from an authority on the subject matter. Continuity sputtered from time to time and there were slightly too many plot lines left dangling for comfort, but altogether, this was an enjoyable hour and a half. Yes, it's true that you didn't feel for the characters as much as say MacReady (or whatever Russell's name was) in the first film and some of the blame for this should fall squarely on the writers. After all, bad though the acting may have been, they can only read what's on the page in front of them.
Don't be put off by the comments you read here that tell you this is nothing more than an awful pile of monkey doings, because that is judging it too harshly. It's never going to be the classic that Carpenter's film ended up being, but given the last decade of truly terrible remakes we have been forced to sit through, horror-wise, this is almost a breath of fresh air. Remember what decade you're in be thankful that whilst this is not a classic, it is better than much of what we've seen recently.
I usually try and give immediate feedback where possible and as I have just finished watching the film, I think it's safe to say that I got exactly what I expected. In the same way that the film skirts any reasonable attempts at attention to detail, both in fact and picture, I will therefore not spend any time dressing up the experience for you.
This does have Sin City and Gladiator all over it, but fails to live up to either, if I'm honest. It doesn't portray it's characters well enough for you to care about them. You don't care so much as what happens to them, but those with a taste for violence will be entertained by how it happens to them.
This is a pretty film, dogged only by it's determination to entertain rather than inform. It could do both, but chooses not to. Nonetheless, entertaining it most certainly is. I sat through the whole thing and didn't yawn once. The fighting does get a bit repetitive after a while. After you've seen one nasty Persian knocked off a horse or get gutted by a spear, you've pretty much had the ride. Still, the ride is good enough, at least, to make you hop on a couple more times.
As I said, this is really all about fighting, and doing it with style. I was reminded of Troy on occasion, but the biggest nod goes to Gladiator, helplessly hoping to emulate something that, in my opinion, can't be faulted. The use of grayscale and reds is something that all Miller designed movies will no doubt be judged on in the future, but personally, after this and Sin City, I have seen enough of these already.
A no-brainer, truly, with delusions of grandeur, much like the Spartans themselves. Could do better.
This does have Sin City and Gladiator all over it, but fails to live up to either, if I'm honest. It doesn't portray it's characters well enough for you to care about them. You don't care so much as what happens to them, but those with a taste for violence will be entertained by how it happens to them.
This is a pretty film, dogged only by it's determination to entertain rather than inform. It could do both, but chooses not to. Nonetheless, entertaining it most certainly is. I sat through the whole thing and didn't yawn once. The fighting does get a bit repetitive after a while. After you've seen one nasty Persian knocked off a horse or get gutted by a spear, you've pretty much had the ride. Still, the ride is good enough, at least, to make you hop on a couple more times.
As I said, this is really all about fighting, and doing it with style. I was reminded of Troy on occasion, but the biggest nod goes to Gladiator, helplessly hoping to emulate something that, in my opinion, can't be faulted. The use of grayscale and reds is something that all Miller designed movies will no doubt be judged on in the future, but personally, after this and Sin City, I have seen enough of these already.
A no-brainer, truly, with delusions of grandeur, much like the Spartans themselves. Could do better.
