The Thing, John Carpenter's 1982 now showing

I think what throws me off isn't just the videogame look of so many movies, but the videogame camera moves -- it takes me right out of the movie to have a camera fly around in a way that could only be done on a hard drive.

 

Overuse of CGI can lead to this effect and I have criticized some movies because of it (like Guardians). But physical effects have their own set of problems too. Case in point, the picture in post #28 where the guy's open chest cavity looks like painted rubber. I remember in The Terminator when Arnie gets some face remodeling and the machine bits are showing through, his face looked like a mannequin's.

There are other problems too. When shooting water meant to represent the sea you often get scaling issues where the waves don't look big enough or the water drops are too big. Same with small scale fire effects which can look like candle flames rather than a raging inferno. Physical models can have depth of field problems making them look like miniatures, etc.

What I would say, going forward, is that filmmakers need to appreciate the limits of both forms of effects. Use CGI when it makes good sense to do so and the same with physical effects, then you get the best of both worlds. This is why the latest Star Wars film will be very interesting.

 

what did you expect a talking tree and a talking raccoon? ...

 

I expected (given all the hype) something which made some kind of sense and didn't look like video candy.

 

it made perfect sense...they are the Guardians Of the Galaxy...tough one!

 

Hmmm, okay...

 

OK, cool...but, I'd love to hear your take on the storyline..

 

Well, I already said that it didn't make any sense. It was just a stream of hey-look-over-there-shiny-thing moments, humorless jokes and superficial gloss. I disliked it so much that I couldn't finish watching it to the end and I definitely won't be watching the next one. This is movie is a perfect example of everything that is wrong with Hollywood today, in my opinion.

 

O' OK, now I understand...you should have watched it to the end...it all came together.

 

And that's probably the lightest moment in the movie. I like the way Carpenter played it straight. No hero making ironic/sarcastic quips to himself.

Amen. The whole film is about paranoia, suspicion, uncertainty, despair. Having any resolution at the end would have been as ruinous as one of those "it was only a dream" cop outs.
And for me, endings that obviously leave the stage set for a sequel should seldom be necessary- a film should be solid enough to stand alone.
But then again, I may be wrong.

 

No. Transformers is the perfect example of everything wrong with Hollywood. Those films actually want to be taken seriously which is the funniest thing about them.

Guardians was a fun, tongue-in-cheek space romp made solely to entertain and I thought it achieved that admirably. It was intentionally silly, intentionally cheesy and the filmmakers let the audience in on the joke, which I felt added to my enjoyment of the film. Very close in tone to the director's previous film Slither which was a similarly tongue-in-cheek horror film.

 

yes, absolutely a fun horror flick...and gross!

 

I must have missed the memo. I put it in the same bin as Transformers & Lucy.

 

LUCY? damn! that was fun...Scarlet was great! what was wrong with that one? or did you not finish it as well? Sometimes movies that seem bad get better that's why I never bail on any...and O' yea I found much fun in Transformers...all of them. I took them for what they were...entertainment. I like those huge movies!

 

The actual prop sold on ebay some years ago and it was interesting to see the "thing" that sprung from the dish actually had teeth.

 

I prefer Carpenter's & I like the ending just fine as is, thanks. I remember seeing this when it came out as a double-feature at the drive-in. Cat People with David Bowie was the first movie & except for the soundtrack was pretty much forgettable. Then this came on. I knew pretty much nothing about it. It built up nicely from interesting to WTF!!! Very nicely character driven. I found the ending very satisfying but it was a lousy date movie at a drive-in.

 

I don't think they're 100% straight, and there are a lot of "wow, look at this shot" kind of moments in the film, which is what you'd expect from a commercial director like Michael Bay.

I just watched the film for a second time last night, checking out the Blu-ray, and while I enjoyed it I didn't like it as much as I did in the theater. But it absolutely was a fun movie not meant to be taken seriously. I mean, you've got aliens putting on headsets and rocking out to "Come and Get Your Love" on a Walkman... come on, this is not Shakespeare. It's a fun film.

The raccoon has the best lines. <grabs giant gun> "Oh... yeah!" I laughed and whooped like an idiot on scenes like this -- just hilarious. And you know, as corny as it was, I thought it was a nice emotional moment when the raccoon starts tearing up when the tree dies. Terrific moment. I totally get why this movie made $770M. Huge hit, a total crowd-pleaser that's not too stupid, throws in a lot of surprises, and keeps you off balance with the jokes and the music. I think director James Gunn is a genius for pulling this thing off.

 

I like fun, not dumb.

 

I've not seen Guardians yet, but you make a compelling reason for me to view it.

 

I don't know, Vidiot -- that ending is one of the things that made the movie such a knockout punch at the outset of the 80s. Not everything in life gets tied up neatly.

 

I really, really enjoyed Guardians, but you have to go into it knowing that it's a bit of a "meta" film that requires you to be aware of Close Encounters, Star Wars, Raiders of the Lost Ark, plus the whole thing is a romp that's not intended to be taken seriously. The central character, Peter Quill, is a total "Indiana Jones/Han Solo" clone: part adventurer, part scoundrel, part mercenary, part hero, part smart-ass. It's yet another take on the classic Seven Samurai/Magnificent Seven, where you have a group of n'er-do-wells who are initially enemies but are forced to come together to do a selfless good deed. I came in for the action, but stayed for all the snappy one-liners, of which there are about four dozen good ones.

Last night, I chortled so loudly at the line "I think a little pee just came out of me," we had to stop down the player while I rolled off the couch. Aaaaaa, you gotta be in the mood for this thing and know that there's a lot of self-referential comic-bookish fan stuff in it. I also love the music throughout the film, particularly the surprise "I Want You Back" at the end. It's a really fun movie that you can't take seriously, but it's fun in a way that Transformers and a lot of that mindless action stuff hasn't been able to equal, as far as I'm concerned.

The Thing is a far more serious film, but I like it for different reasons. It's a completely different sensibility, but I give Carpenter props for putting in some very dark humor here and there to relieve the tension.

You may think it's a "knockout punch," but the film got very mixed reviews and made no money.

 

And yet here we are 30+ years later discussing a classic horror movie from a director at the height of his career.

 

Okay, then name some movies you think qualify for that designation. Popcorn entertainment that reaches your lofty plateau so high above the rest of us.

 

I used to have a copy of the 35mm teaser trailer from The Thing which just showed the creature in the block of ice ending with it exploding. I wish I never parted with it.

 

Not quite the teaser, but here's the 1982 trailer: