THE THING (2011)

First Thoughts
This film is actually a prequel based on the 1982 John Carpenter film with the same title. It doesn't really make too much sense to me why they didn't title it different like The Thing: The beginning. It's kind of stupid if you ask me, to title the prequel the same. But seeing as I'm a huge fan of the John Carpenter film I was stoked to see this movie. And I could only hope that it lived up to the 1982 masterpiece...

Now this film was directed by Matthijs van Heijningen Jr., I don't know too much this guy has done so my initial thought was that I didn't know what to expect. It was either going to work or not, using a director who's not well known is always a gamble. However, the producers of the Dawn Of The Dead remake did this film so that gave me some hope. I thought the remake of Dawn Of The Dead was great, big fan.

Story Plot
This film is the origins of The Thing, it's the backstory of how it was found and how it escaped to wreak havoc in the 1982 film. This takes place with the team of Norwegian scientists finding a hot spot on their radar coming from under the ice of the cold Antactica.

After digging The Thing up from underground and seeing it in basically a huge icecube it's hard to really get a look at it through the thickness of the ice it's frozen in. I liked the fact that they didn't just show you the creature, you had to wait for it and just hope it was as good as your imagination envisioned. However, I didn't envision it to look like the way it did but I was pleased with it.

After showing you what The Thing looks like as it breaks free from its icy chamber caos ensues. We find ourselves in a guessing game of who is who when the team discovers that this alien can transform into any living creature, including them. This was alot like the Carpenter film to a certain degree but they go with a teeth test instead of a blood test like in the 1982 film. They start sorting out who's The Thing and who isn't by checking for teeth fillings, which back then were shiny silver and not white by today's standards to match your teeth. They do this because they discover that when immitatting things The Thing rejects any and all metal objects, therefore, anyone without fillings are suspects. I think that's the one time in your life where you'd be happy you drank alot of soda.

The film from here goes into everyone against everyone, because the people without fillings are raving that the others are crazy and are going to get them killed if they don't let them in their group. Here is where the conflict lies because that's a crappy situation you been in and you don't want to be the person accusing someone of being an alien and cause them to get killed by an alien (laugh).

After that the few members who are left of the team hunt down and search out the alien and put it out of it's mysery...or do they?

Special Effects/ Creature effects and design
I thought that the way The Thing itself looked when it broke out of the ice was pretty cool. Like I stated before, it wasn't what I was expecting but it was still a cool design. It looked alot like a menacing bug. A big black insect with sharp legs.

I also liked the way some of the other effects look but I feel that they dulled it down with bad CG, so that was disapointing. I also think they showed too much of The Thing and it's transforming ways. I would have liked it more if they showed it less to keep it scary. The more you see it the more used to seeing it you become. So the more you see it the less scary it is. Do glimpses or momentary shots to keep the suspense and mystery going. Not long drawn out shots like they did in this film.

I liked the two-headed Thing, it looked very close to the one they showed in the 1982 film. But they ruined it with the long scenes they did showing it. After awhile it just kind of showcased how bad the CG was and made is disapointing.

Final rating for the movie is
CG/Creature effects get a 2/4 rating from me.

Actors And Characters
This film has a pretty good cast although I think that for this movie, if they even wanted to try and live up to the Carpenter film, could have been better. There was definately room for improvement.

I think that Mary Elizabeth Winstead did a good job as the lead role but they should've gone for a stronger leading role.

I also wasn't a fan of  Eric Christian Olsen. I usually never am though.

Casting/Characters gets a 2/4  rating from me.

Gore/Violence
The gore in this film was pretty decent, they definitely didn't go over board with it like most movies tend to do today.

The violence was pretty good as well but nothing memorable from either the gore or violence.

Gore/Violence gets a 2/4 from me.

Most memorable quote
"So, I'm gonna die before I floss?"

Final Thoughts
I started off really liking this film but as it went on it got progressively worse. I didn't like how much they showed the alien and I didn't like the ending at all. The spaceship scene ruined the whole movie for me. I thought it was utterly ridiculous. They showed too much ruining most of the mysery and making the movie a failure in comparison to the Carpenter film. This film had potential but I guess this is what happens when you get a weak cast and a unfamilliar director.

The movie overall gets a 2/4 from me.

Fright Night Part 2 (1988)

This is such a hard movie to find and get ahold of that I'm very pleased I was finally able to see it after all this time. The DVD goes for almost $70 on amazon, and seeing as I've never seen it there was no way I'm spending that kind of money on a movie that I don't know if I like or not.

As I've mentioned I've never seen this film up until now and I'm glad the opportunity finally arose. I have a few friends who have seen it and whenever I asked them how it was I just got the generic "it's okay, not as good as the first" reply. So I didn't have high hopes going in to this because they didn't exactly make it seem appealing.

But as the movie played and I saw not only William Ragsdale reprising his role as Charley Brewster but Roddy McDowall also reprising his role as Peter Vincent. So right from the start my feeling changed and I figured this would be a good movie after all.

This film takes place shortly after the first with Charley no longer believing in vampires due to seeing a shrink. He believes Jerry Dandridge was just a psycho and he imagined the vampire scenario. Peter Vincent however is still hosting Fright Night and believes in vampires. When Jerry's sister comes to town wanting revenge for her dead brother Charley starts to realize he's not crazy and that vampires are real. This leads him and Peter Vincent on another vampire hunt.

There were so many funny moments in this movie as well as jumps. It turned out to be a damn good sequel and did the first justice. The story was strong, the acting was good, the effects were cheesy but awesome. Alot of memorable moments came from this film including the vampire and werewolf bowling scene! Yes, I know it sounds ridiculous but it's a great scene.

Now the big question- is Fright Night Part 2 better than the first?
No it isn't. It's like Halloween H20 to the original 1978 Halloween. It was a good sequel and it kept the feel of the first and stayed true to it but it just didn't have the same amount of lightning in a bottle the first had. Good sequel though and I would proudly own it one day when I don't have to spend $70 on a used copy of it.

I found Jerry's sister, Regina Dandridge, very seductive and beautiful. Good job on the casting as well. But really to experience this movie you have to see it. It's funny and very entertaining. I'm glad to say that after all these years of wondering that Fright Night Part 2 did it's job with flying colors. It puts a smile on my face. And as I said in my review for the remake, I liked the remake alot so that means that all 3 films made in this franchise have my approval.

Seeing Charlie and and Peter Vincent together again was so cool! I didn't even know they were going to be in it!

3 stars for me. Trailer below.

The House On Sorority Row (1983)

Now here is a movie that I've been wanting to see ever since I saw the horrible remake. I was so turned off by the remake and how bad it was that I knew the original couldn't be as bad, especially since it's an 80's film categorizing it as an 80's slasher.

What I liked about this film was the story and the way it was pulled off. Really kept me on the edge of my seat and guessing who the killer was. There were some great kills and some moments where the female in distress is doing dumb things that are only going to get her killed, but that's how these movies go. Regardless of how much we want to warn them or remind them how dumb and foolish they're being it doesn't matter, they're going to die anyway (laugh).

This film, as I mentioned before, has a strong story and the acting is pretty good also. I just wish I wasn't a baby when this came out so I could have seen it in all its glory. Much different than the remake, that didn't even make it on my review list, wasn't worth my time.

It's crazy thinking of how this film has slipped under the radar of just about everybody! Since it was in '83 that makes it an early slasher film and deserves more recognition.

Now the only thing that I disliked about the movie was the ending. It ended good BUT I felt like it could have gone on longer. Kind of like they cut the last 5 minutes out of the film. But I did like the ending. For what it was I shouldn't have expected anything less.

Synopsis taken from IMDb
A group of girls staying at a sorority house clash with the house's owner, who wants them out. They decide to play a prank on her, but it goes awry and she winds up dead. Panicking, the girls try to hide the body, but someone (or something) witnessed the crime and begins to stalk them. 

I'm a fan of this movie and will gladly be adding it to my collection of on-growing movies. It never ends.

3 stars for me. Trailer below.

Bloody Birthday (1981)

I breathed a sigh of relief when I found a stash of new slasher films to watch. Especially since they're from the 80's. The 80's slasher genre will always be my favorite genre of horror. The 80's was the best era for horror ever in my opinion.

Now going into this movie I wasn't expecting much...just eager to watch a slasher that makes me feel at home.

Synopsis taken from IMDb
In 1970, three children are born at the height of a total eclipse. Due to the sun and moon blocking Saturn, which controls emotions, they have become heartless killers ten years later, and are able to escape detection because of their youthful and innocent facades. A boy and his teenage sister become endangered when they stumble onto the bloody truth.

This was as expected, it wasn't very well acted or have a strong story, but it kept me entertained. It was a fun watch. The things I like about it are also the things I don't like. The camp was good but a little too much.

The kills were good and laughable, the whole movie was laughable. If you go into this movie wanting gold don't watch it. If you want to watch a movie that you can laugh at and relax with then watch this. I wouldn't go as far to say I'd buy this movie or own it, but I don't regret watching it.

The gore and acting were weak but that's the kind of things that made movies like that good to us horror fans. Just entertain us and we'll be happy. That's how I am anyway.

1 1/2 stars for me, judging on the movie itself. Entertainment factor would be a 2 1/2 out of 4.