The Macomb Daily Review (Serving Macomb County) of The Thing is surprising negative. Usually a reviewer will find something to like, but not in this case. Remakes are always tough, of course.
I have seen the 1982 version of The Thing maybe 25 times over the years. Kurt Russell and gang are awesome and the monster is one of my favorites. So I am curious about this new version. Do we want to spend the $20 it always seems to cost to go see it?
Reviewer Sean O'Connell is not impressed. He starts out, "Here's the thing about the new "The Thing." It isn't as satisfying as the old "The Thing." And it's nowhere near as enthralling as the vintage "Thing," which inspired every other "Thing" to follow."
This pretty much tells us what he thinks about this new version of "my" movie. Now I don't know this guy, don't know his preferences, his similarities, if any, to me. But he sure seems to know what he's talking about. I learned the history of the movie (short story in 1938) and the nuances of the various versions of the story. So I am tending to lean toward listening to this previous stranger, Sean O'Connell.
This part is especially not good. "Van Heijningen trades methodically established tensions for cheap, easy horror jolts, swapping the paranoia and distrust of Carpenter's version for simplistic rage and aggression. Where Carpenter carefully sliced into our deepest fears with the precision of a surgeon, van Heijningen bluntly hacks away at our nervous systems like a maniac wielding a chainsaw."
Hmmm.
He goes on to technical matters, special effects, camera shots and so on, all of which fall far short of the 1982 classic.
The review has balance, authority good tone and no snark. I don't think we will pay to see the movie at the theater.
No comments:
Post a Comment