I liked the movie, Im a diehard old school horror fan too. Of course its not gonna be like the original, It wasnt supposed to be. What I liked is that it showed what happened prior to the 1982 events. The ONE thing that made me more upset than ANYTHING, is the DOG!!!! The dog from the original looked NOTHING like this dog. In my opinion the dog was just as much a star as Kirk Russell. So that kinda pissed me off. Todays movies have NOTHING on the older movies!!!!! My opionion.
Completely disagree with this guy, I saw the movie and it was great. Is this the 1982 version, no. And it should not be viewed as such. I honestly think people are way to harsh, and can say I loved this movie.
@CheeksAndNuts Hey, thanks for the comment. I'm glad that you enjoyed it more than I did. Out of curiosity, was there any part(s) in particular that you liked? I don't want to argue with you or anything (would should I be mad at someone for liking a film? XD), I just want your perspective.
Also, nice review. Yes, Ennio Morricone is one of the greatest film composers.
I'm still puzzled as to whether or not I want to see it. From what you say they made it more like the original "The Thing From Another World" which had a vegetable monster. That's full-assed (lol) if anything. That's knocking the John Carpenter remake on it's face.
1951's version is a dumbed down adaptation of the novella Who Goes There and it wasn't the shapeshifter because they had limited technology, 1982's movie is the adaptation of Who Goes There
@Johnlindsey289 I'm well aware of that. That was my point. It sounded like they were going back to something like that. I finally saw it. Wasn't that bad. But it did kind of bite.
I liked the movie, Im a diehard old school horror fan too. Of course its not gonna be like the original, It wasnt supposed to be. What I liked is that it showed what happened prior to the 1982 events. The ONE thing that made me more upset than ANYTHING, is the DOG!!!! The dog from the original looked NOTHING like this dog. In my opinion the dog was just as much a star as Kirk Russell. So that kinda pissed me off. Todays movies have NOTHING on the older movies!!!!! My opionion.
thsdrkndheartxxx 1 month ago
Completely disagree with this guy, I saw the movie and it was great. Is this the 1982 version, no. And it should not be viewed as such. I honestly think people are way to harsh, and can say I loved this movie.
CheeksAndNuts 2 months ago
@CheeksAndNuts Hey, thanks for the comment. I'm glad that you enjoyed it more than I did. Out of curiosity, was there any part(s) in particular that you liked? I don't want to argue with you or anything (would should I be mad at someone for liking a film? XD), I just want your perspective.
phantomsdaydreams 2 months ago
Comment removed
CheeksAndNuts 2 months ago
Also, nice review. Yes, Ennio Morricone is one of the greatest film composers.
I'm still puzzled as to whether or not I want to see it. From what you say they made it more like the original "The Thing From Another World" which had a vegetable monster. That's full-assed (lol) if anything. That's knocking the John Carpenter remake on it's face.
NeverAloneForever 3 months ago
@NeverAloneForever
1951's version is a dumbed down adaptation of the novella Who Goes There and it wasn't the shapeshifter because they had limited technology, 1982's movie is the adaptation of Who Goes There
Johnlindsey289 2 months ago
@Johnlindsey289 I'm well aware of that. That was my point. It sounded like they were going back to something like that. I finally saw it. Wasn't that bad. But it did kind of bite.
NeverAloneForever 1 month ago
@NeverAloneForever
Ever read Who Goes There by John Campbell?
Johnlindsey289 1 month ago
@Johnlindsey289 I'm still trying to find a place to buy it.
NeverAloneForever 1 month ago
Indeed. Why didn't they ever think of calling it "Who Goes There?".
NeverAloneForever 3 months ago
Good Review I just seen it and thought the same thing.
fanmade1 4 months ago
Well said
MistaReezo 4 months ago