Change Your Image
peakcrew
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
Interstellar (2014)
There is a good film in there, but this cut isn't it.
I like Christopher Nolan films, but I actively wish I hadn't spent almost three hours of my life watching this one. There is a good film in there - 15 minutes setting the scene, getting into space, doing things, meeting the mad professor, getting back. All the stuff on Earth once the spacecraft takes off could be lost without anyone noticing, and all the emotional nonsense should have never even been filmed (OK, I like my science fiction "hard", and I suppose I'm describing a cross between "2001"/"2010", "Dark Star" and "The Right Stuff"). The whole "power of love" stuff just slowed the film down, and was frankly boring.
In terms of acting, Anne Hathaway carried the whole thing. She was the only one who seemed to believe in her character. Matthew McConaughey was is usual shallow, overacting self, Michael Caine looked sedated in every scene, and the other cast were totally forgettable.
For a film that was supposed to be scientifically accurate, there was significant silliness - e.g. spacecraft not significantly technically advance from space-shuttles surviving huge amounts of damage (remember that space shuttles were shut down after a small piece of ice caused sufficient damage to destroy the last mission), ridiculous amounts of fuel apparently being carried on small craft (escape velocity without booster rockets), robots that could not possibly move around in the way they did, some sort of interstellar "ark" that couldn't have held the population of a small state, let alone a significant proportion of the world. The effects were great, the engineering terrible.
The thing that stands out for me was the music - the soundtrack was excellent. It isn't often that organs are used so much in a movie.
I shall mourn the film this could have been, since I will not revisit the one as released. It is too long, too "touchy-feely", and too directionless.
Fury (2014)
Well worth the viewing
I enjoyed "Fury", and the evening's thought it has given me.
The movie is reasonably well-cast. Once again, Brad Pitt is not the best actor, but he provides a solid core around which the others can anchor their roles. I have previously heard a great deal about how bad an actor Shia LaBeouf is (I haven't seen any of the "Transformers" franchise), but I thought he was excellent as the barking-mad gunner only just holding on to reality.
The portrayal of tank-battles was a delight to see - and the reason I went to see the movie. It was great to see a more realistic demonstration of what tanks can do than in previous tank features. The scene with the Tiger and the four Shermans made my hair stand up on end! The only thing needed to make this movie real tank-porn was more engine-sounds! The character development of the rookie didn't really work - he said he'd been in the Army for 8 weeks and had been trained as a typist, but he handled a sub-machine gun very well (and didn't forget to take it with him everywhere). Also, he seemed to go from complete naif to steely-eyed killer very quickly (seemingly a few days). I didn't buy that at all.
There are a few other problems with the construction of the movie - the clichéd ending being the worst - such as the sanitised depiction of the damage human beings sustain in war (Brad Pitt being recognisable after two grenades went off in the tank), but, hey, this is Hollywood. Other parts of it - the killing of the captured German soldier, and the uncomfortable scene in the apartment - reflect rarely-depicted aspects of war, and what happened (and is still happening) on all sides of a conflict.
I really enjoyed it, but accept that it isn't for everyone. It is a much deeper movie than many are depicting it, and that is part of its charm. It will not be as good on DVD - it needs the big screen to show the whole thing at its best - but it deserves a mention or two during awards season next year.
Captain America: The Winter Soldier (2014)
Good, but flawed
I really wanted to like this movie, and in many ways I did. It is quite a taut thriller with action scenes done very well. Chris Evans makes Captain America into a likable hero that I could consider supporting if he actually existed. Most of the villains are such that I *really* wanted them to hurt - badly. However, one thing that annoyed me is that the character the movie is co-named for - The Winter Soldier - was nothing but just another cybernetic baddie with a bad haircut. There was nothing special about him to warrant a place in the title.
So, why am I so ambivalent about the whole thing? Well, viewed as "James Bond with a shield" (or "with SHIELD"), this is a great movie. As a standalone movie within a franchise that does not have to relate back to any others, it would be 8 out of 10 with no difficulties. However, it isn't - this is set in a world where other SHIELD operatives exist. One of the constraints placed upon the writers by this is that you cannot just forget about them in order to develop the story of one in particular,and introduce another. Therefore, to ask the audience to believe that Tony Stark, Bruce Banner, Thor, Hawkeye, Coulson etc *would not know* that Fury has been attacked, or that Washington is having strange things happen, is insulting. Not one of these characters is mentioned (oh, tell a lie - Tony Stark is mentioned in passing as having developed new engines for the heli-carriers). It is laziness in the extreme for the writers not to give some reason for the absence of characters we *know* would be there in minutes if they were able to. Such disrespect for the audience, many of whom are extremely knowledgeable about he world that has been created is completely unacceptable.
On a different note, I wonder if this film is going to become regarded as prescient for being essentially a modern Cold War movie?
American Hustle (2013)
Unusually, I liked this film a lot.
This is the sort of film I'd usually go out of my way to avoid. I don't like crime capers, I find David O. Russell, Bradley Cooper and Jennifer Laurence totally over-rated, and I hate wobbly cameras (has the tripod industry gone bust?). My favoured type of films are science-fiction and animation. I went to see this almost entirely because of Christian Bale and especially Amy Adams, of whom I am a big fan - and even more especially because of her wardrobe in this movie :-) The 8/10 I've given it is therefore quite a big thing, since I reserve that for excellent sci-fi ...
This worked for me because it was intelligent, unpredictable, and some of the acting was truly first-class. It annoys me that some Oscar-worthy performances are going to be ignored just because there is a film about slavery out this year. Amy Adams and Christian Bale were, as ever, excellent, and it was good to see them stepping out of their traditional roles - Bale away from good-looking hard man to out-of-shape baldy with a lot of weak spots, and Adams from the cute good-girl to a knowingly sexy vamp. Bradley Cooper, on the other hand, was predictably awful: I do not see what anyone finds so good about this man. He is predictably one-dimensional, and seems to make no effort to get into a character. However, the revelation was Jennifer Laurence - I doubt I will ever like her, but she really showed that she can *act* in this movie! Her role as the shallow, manipulative wife showed that criminals are far from the worst type of person in the movie.
I know that some people are criticising the plot - well, for me, this is one of the solid points of the film. It reflected real life in that it wasn't tidy, people did things that might not have made total sense, and it meant that the ending could have gone any of several ways. I am delighted the team went for a happy ending, because for a while I was worried that the movie was going to do something I utterly detest - change from a light-hearted comedy to one in which a great deal of violence is inflicted on people. (Indeed, another category of movie I avoid like the plague is one in which violence is shown in real-life situations - I have not seen, and will never willingly see, "The Godfather" or "The Fighter" etc., for instance.) I was a little disappointed that there was some entirely gratuitous violence that went unpunished, since it did nothing to advance the plot (seriously, are we expected to believe that a law-enforcement officer can beat up and pull a gun on a senior officer and get away with it??) A final point of excellence is the soundtrack. It was good to hear some songs that are not usually heard in movies, and I'm especially pleased that Jeff Lynne will be raking in the royalties, since he is one of the most under-recognised musicians of the last forty years, in my mind (I think there are three tracks of his in the movie)! Overall, this was one of the best films I've seen for some time. I can see why it might have annoyed some people, and I don't know if I would actually have gone to see it if I didn't have a free ticket from my phone operator (thanks, Orange Wednesdays!), but it was worth the 2+ hours to discover something really special.
The Great Gatsby (2013)
Beautiful shallowness
This is a film that is a complete triumph of style over content - beautifully produced with absolutely no depth whatsoever. However, I'd go and see it again just for the beauty - both visual and sound. The sets' recreation of the art deco period is absolutely marvellous, and Lurhman's use of the camera to move through space is truly excellent. In addition, trying to show how current jazz was then through the use of modern music was quite inspired.
However, once again, we are stuck with the modern fixation in film and television on having absolutely no characters one can have any empathy, or merely sympathy, with. Gatsby is a totally deluded liar and crook, Carraway is a mere bystander and leech, Daisy is a vapid excuse for a human being who gets upset because someone becomes justifiably angry.
It is clear from the Redford version of the film that at least two of these characters can be made sympathetic, but, as I said above, it doesn't seem to be "cool" for film-makers to that any more. However, I'm clearly outside the norm with this opinion, as the really high score shows, so I doubt that I'm going to change any producer's opinion, since it seems to reflect the zeitgeist of our modern world.
Star Trek Into Darkness (2013)
Better than I hoped, but ...
Right - I grew up watching Trek. I saw the first episode shown on British TV in 1969, and I haven't stopped yet. I am therefore a tough nut to crack with a reboot.
So, how has this got a 7/10 from me when so many others hate it? Let me tell you this - except for a couple of things, it would have been an 8/10, equalling my score for Iron Man 3 last week.
There is a huge amount to like in this film. It is well paced, it neatly pays homage to two of the original films ("Wrath of Khan" and "Undiscovered Country"), and it develops the characters some more. I know some reviewers hear are saying that they don't have enough invested in the characters: well, the number of people wiping their eyes in last night's showing suggests otherwise.
The "new" villain is well drawn, and brilliantly acted by Cumberbatch. He keeps the role just this side of chewing the scenery, and the only thing that will keep this from being a BAFTA-contending performance is the notorious bias awards have against science-fiction.
So, what lost it a whole mark? Warning: here be spoilers!! Firstly, if you are going to mess about with canon, at least be consistent about it. Having the "Enterprise" go into an atmosphere I can (just!) accept on the basis that old Spock may have given technology to the Federation, and starships of Kirk's era have Structural Integrity Fields (tech from TNG). However, you can't then have people sucked out through a hull-breach: the SIF would make that impossible. Regardless of the tech, though, if you are going to change a core feature so much, at least have the decency to give an explanation! Secondly, one deus ex machina in a film is cheesy, having two grates like sand in a sandwich! Calling on old Spock for clues as to the "future" - welllllllll, okay. Having a super-serum that brings the dead back to life - FFS! NO!! That is a genie that can't be put back in the bottle, and is a culture-disrupting event (even allowing the impossibility of Earth tech from 300 years before, i.e. us, being able to do it, and the secret being lost - another irritation). We are now left with the same problem as Iron Man 3 - what are the implications for the recipient of the serum (is he now immortal?) and for the Federation/Star Fleet/other civilisations. However, the chances are that it is going to be forgotten and never mentioned again, unless convenient to the plot.
Thirdly, just like I felt cheated by a Bond film set in Britain, I'm not excited by a ST film set on Earth. It isn't what the franchise is about. Let's hope that the next one does actually "explore strange new worlds, ... seek out new civilisations, (and) boldly go where no-one has gone before". This one didn't.
Fourthly, having Klingons as a mere plot-device is unfair. They are a major part of the Trek universe, and should not be introduced and thrown away inside five minutes. Also, isn't the damage to Praxis that done in "Undiscovered Country"? OK, it's your call, but I'd like future films in the franchise to be done by people who give a damn about what has gone before. The current team have given us a new universe to play with, so let folk with Star Trek in their blood take over.
Iron Man Three (2013)
Just about as good an action movie as you will get
First, the disclaimer. I used to read Iron Man comics regularly in the 1970s. He was one of my favourite super-heroes, because he relied on technology, not silly radiation-induced changes or other impossible super-powers. However, it has been years since I read a comic, and I don't remember any particular villain.
That said, this is possibly the best Iron Man movie in the sequence so far, a bit ahead of the first movie, and waaaaaayyyyyy better than the pile of manure that was Iron Man 2 (which is so bad that I have only seen it once). However, I'm not sure this is the science-fiction film I wanted to see, but it is the Die Hard movie that we didn't get earlier in the year. Yes, I know that Iron Man isn't just the man in the suit - it was always the man, but this film spent a bit too long with Downey out of the suit.
That said, in terms of pace, construction, internal consistency and cleverly different uses of memes (a child in a movie that wasn't irritating!), this was a cracking adventure movie! Lots of well-filmed set-pieces, appropriate humour, and just enough intelligence to keep me thinking. Robert Downey Jr once again shows what a good actor he is (I wonder if he ever thought he'd be *this* big during the bad prison/rehab years?), and his co-stars were equally solid, with the exception of Ben Kingsley. I've always thought him to be overrated, and his impression of Johnny Depp impersonating Keith Richards was ... well, not very good.
I know that there are folks out there that are having hissy-fits because this film doesn't conform to their idea of how it should have gone, but the idea of a really nasty villain actually being a front for a money-making organisation for its own profit fits well with the world today. Yes, super-heroes need super-villains in order to exist, but Killian was a super-enough villain for these purposes.
Will I add this one to the DVD collection? Yes. Do I look forward to any further films in the series? Yes, as long as they don't mess with the central cast.
A great 8-star movie.
The Dark Knight Rises (2012)
Truly wonderful!
This was better than I expected, and I was expecting a lot. Never have been in a 2'45" movie that kept me so enthralled! The cast was, with one small exception, brilliant. Christian Bale, Michael Caine, Gary Oldman, and Morgan Freeman go without saying - they have been excellent throughout the entire series. Anne Hathaway stunned me - she can actually act, and how come she has never been so sexy before? Marion Cotillard was her usual very competent self (with the exception of the very end of her final scene - a bit comical, maybe). However, I have to save my best plaudits for Tom Hardy. I have disliked him since his execrable performance in the equally execrable "Star Trek: Insurrection". However, I was enthralled by his character. To be able to sell Bane so well with the mask over his face,and seemingly without using any emotion in his eyes, is the mark of a very fine actor. Of course, the voice helped - though I don't know if it was his, or dubbed by someone else (it sounded a bit like Max von Sydow).
That small exception - Joseph Gordon Levitt. I just couldn't buy into him as the tough-nut police officer. He seemed to be trying too hard, and it came across as if he was Acting, not living the part.
Christopher Nolan has worked his directorial magic again, and, with one exception (Jim Gordon getting out of the truck after it has gone down into the underpass), the whole story is internally consistent.
The DVD is definitely going to be on my Christmas list! Thanks to all concerned for making such a gripping, enthralling film that made me feel ambiguous about what was going on (am I the only one that felt good about the "revolution"?)
Puss in Boots (2011)
Not as good as I had hoped.
I'd been looking forward to seeing this for some time, but hadn't been able to go to the cinema due to confounding circumstances.However, I wish I'd waited to see it on DVD. There is very little imagination of the type I loved in the Shrek films - overall, it seems lazy.
Something else that annoyed me is that the bad guys are very one-dimensional, with no ludicrousness to take the edge off their nastiness. Jack and Jill are just awful people, and the pig thing just didn't take. Humpty is just a psychopath with no redeeming features. I might have been able to overlook this more if Puss and Kitty had been strong characters with things to like, but they weren't.
The only time I raised a smile was during the dance-scene in the Glitter Box - and that was because of the patrons of the place, who I would have liked to have seen much more of.
So, beautifully filmed, exquisitely animated, but lacking in fun or imagination. I could have done something much more fulfilling with my afternoon.
Scott Pilgrim vs. the World (2010)
Weird, but fun.
I bought "Scott Pilgrim vs The World" for my wife's birthday months ago, following a great review of the film by Mark Kermode (who we generally find has taste that matches ours). We didn't watch the film until last night (seven months after it was bought), and I'm quite disappointed that we didn't find time for it earlier. This is a very good movie! The main characters are quite sympathetically drawn (with the possible exception of Knives, who is sidelined too much until she has such an important role in the story), but with flaws which make them three-dimensional (quite impressive for a film derived from a comic-book!) I am very impressed with Kieran Culkin's acting - I don't think I've seen him in anything else. As a character, Ramona Flowers is seriously hot - very sexy, strong and vulnerable all at once.
I missed many of the video-game references, never having the patience to play them, but it didn't affect the film from my point of view. However, I am a bit concerned about the casual acceptance of having to kill previous partners in order to become the next partner. My wife thinks that is an allegory for what actually happens in a relationship, but I just don't get it. It seems needlessly brutal, since there is no indication that the deaths are metaphorical (once the basic premises of the film are accepted, so that these people really can fight like video-game characters). Let's face it, Scott does not know any of the exes, yet he he puts a great deal of effort into killing them for his own benefit. He could have walked away at any time, as I understood the plot, and the remaining evil exes would have left him alone.
Overall, an 8 out of 10n, because it was well-made movie with some great acting, but the basic premise leaves me a bit uncomfortable.
Senna (2010)
Great movie, but ...
I have just come back from the cinema, which had, at a rough estimate, 150 people watching this film. This is quite amazing, since the last time I shared that screen with so many people was the Star Trek reboot in the first week after opening! For a documentary, this seems to be very popular.
First of all, a disclaimer - I'm a died-in-the-wool petrolhead, and have been since before Senna entered F1. It was, therefore, with some trepidation that I went to see this documentary, because I wondered what liberties might have been taken with history in order to paint a picture of Senna, and, by implication, the sport. I'm pleased to say that I was not disappointed - this film captured many of my memories of the time very well.
My biggest criticism is that the film is too short - a few more minutes would have painted a different picture of Senna's relationship with other drivers. Sure, the focus on the Senna/Prost battle is understandable, but some time spent showing how they reconciled after Prost resigned would have been nice. Also, the fact that Senna's humanity, amply demonstrated with regard to the people of his country, could have been underlined with regard to his fellow drivers by giving some time to the (briefly seen in the end credits) incident where he stopped his car on the track and ran back to assist Eric Comas following an accident at Spa in 1992.
Perhaps the film is a little harsh on Alain Prost, but, as I wrote earlier, this documentary captures my memories well. Prost was a difficult driver to like, because he was always so calculating (I have the same opinion of Michael Schumacher - I don't want cold-blooded winners, I want ones where I am not sure what is going to happen), but was he really as bad as painted here? I'm not sure.
This film is very accessible - there were a lot of people in the cinema who were probably not alive when Senna died, and they seemed to be as affected by the drama as I was. The accidents that took the lives of Ratzenberger and Senna in the same weekend are truly horrifying on the big screen - and I remember seeing them when they happened - and I was not the only one dabbing at my eyes after each one.
To cut a long story short - I hope the DVD has a "director's cut", with a lot more about a man who could have done so much had he lived longer.
Rango (2011)
Overall very good movie
This is a great film for children and adults alike. Contrary to the bizarre moans of the (presumably American) commentators on here, there is nothing to disturb or distress children at all. Like all great comedy, this works on so many different levels so that adults and children get something from it.
The reason I have not given "Rango" the full ten stars is the very tedious opening scene, leading up to the accident that really begins the film. It could have been effectively trimmed to half the length, and I would still have known the same amount about the lead character.
I've seen other commentators on here going on about some "continuity errors" as if this is the only film that has them. I actually think that they are deliberate, and go hand-in-hand with the continuing narrative from the Mariachi Owls that the hero dies. Why? Well, it seemed obvious to me from the point that the road-killed Existential Aardvark (or whatever it was) started talking that the hero was already dying, and the whole film takes place in his head. The whole film was a sequence of references to other films, and given that our hero was clearly a film-buff (e.g. the Buster Keaton/Donald O'Connor dummy scene before the accident) that it is easy to see his last moments of life being played out in terms of the silver screen.
Whatever, ignore the nay-sayers unless you don't like animated films (in which case, what are you reading this for?) - go and see it and enjoy it.
District 9 (2009)
Generally good, but could have been better
Overall, I enjoyed this movie. It started well, with the documentary setting the scene for what was to come. I just wish it hadn't wandered off into silliness - starship fuel that turns humans into the aliens? Come on! Then, instead of exploring the moral and ethical implications (which could have been done either with or without the specifically mutagenic fuel) we get a version of Robocop, with guns everywhere. Sure, in this type of science fiction, there should be some fancy technology, including a bit of weapons-play, but I would have liked to have seen something more thoughtful. There is no explanation of why the entire starship has not been explored and investigated down to the smallest detail - the scientists seemed only to be interested in small-arms! And why were the occupants of this starship not involved in humanity's first look at extra-terrestrial technology? OK, there are several possible answers, but none are explored in the film.
Anyway, overall it is good - great acting from Sharlto Copley, and great SFX. Well worth the money to see it.
Corpse Bride (2005)
It's not "Nightmare Before Christmas", but it will do.
I didn't see this at the cinema, so maybe I have lost something in the translation to DVD/TV.
Undoubtedly, this is a great piece of cinema - great characterisation, clever story, lovely to look at - but it seems a bit soulless (no pun intended!). It seems that the new technology used to create the effects detracted from the flow of the story - this is not unusual, though. It lacks the life of "Nightmare Before Christmas", somehow (again, no pun intended). NBC left me with a feeling of warmth and vitality that is curiously lacking from this one. Still, I would recommend anyone to see "Corpse Bride" - it is worth an hour-and-a-half of anyone's time!
AVP: Alien vs. Predator (2004)
This could have been soooo much better...
I love the "Alien" films (with strong reservations about "Alien: Resurrection"), but have no real feeling for the "Predator" franchise - Schwarzenegger killed it for me right at the beginning. However, it was with some enthusiasm that I took myself off to the cinema to watch this. I was hoping for more than I got, unfortunately.
None of the characters were worth wasting an iota of empathy on. (Spoiler coming) I really gave up when the Scottish bloke started talking about his family: anyone could tell he was going to die horribly - it was almost a parody of the scene in "Hot Shots", which was itself a parody!! God, talk about insulting one's intelligence ...
(Another spoiler) And then we were supposed to believe that the "Corporation" from the real "Alien" films was the same as the one in this film. For Weyland-Yutani to have lasted that long would be a greater feat than, say, having the Dutch East India Company around today! Rubbish!!! (Another spoiler) However, there is one (sort of) redeeming part of the film. As a person with a scientific background, I could never sort out how the Aliens could have evolved - they are just too perfect: specialised, yet flexible; animal yet intelligent; they don't use tools, yet they got into space. AvP sort of answers this for me - Aliens were bred, or even specifically created, by the Predator race for sport! Specific traits were engineered so that Aliens are the ideal opponent. I am now happy with the apparent perfection of the species, but it takes something away from the overall mystery of the Aliens - just like in Alien 2, where, instead of just catching glimpses of the creature, we were served up lots of closeups, something of the fear is taken away, and I don't really like that.
I've seen the film on DVD since that time at the cinema, wondering if it was the failure to reach my expectations that left me with a bad taste in my mouth. To a certain extent, yes - it was not as bad as I remembered - but to bring an Alien film to the levels of "The Mummy" franchise is not something anyone should be proud of...
Batman Begins (2005)
Better than I thought it would be
I have a strange relationship with the Batman franchise - I never really *want* to see the movies, but when I do, I generally enjoy them. I even like "Batman and Robin", but that is probably because it has stylistic links to the "Batman" TV series of my childhood (campy and played for laughs). Before anyone writes hate mail to me - yes, Clooney was wrong for the role, and the film strays way away from the story as set in the first two films, but I'm not a rabid Batman fan, and taken on its own merits (?), it is no worse than a lot of other films.
So, to "Batman Begins" - sheer apathy made me buy it on DVD. I wanted something to watch that evening, and I recognised the title, so I bought it. I knew nothing about any of the younger members of the cast (Christian Bale, Katie Holmes - who?), and expected nothing but brainless entertainment. In many ways I was not disappointed, especially in the first twenty or so minutes - all that washed-out rubbish in China or Tibet or wherever, and the thoroughly lousy acting of Liam Neeson reprising his thoroughly lousy acting in "Star Wars Episode 1" - that man is going downhill fast! However, I began to buy into the Bruce Wayne character as a result of Bale's acting. He was a nice amalgam of the Keaton and Kilmer versions of Wayne/Batman - there is a strand running through the roles that makes for some sort of coherence.
Beyond that, I saw a fairly pathetic supporting cast (Katie Holmes - nice breasts, but can she act?; Michael Caine - "I always wanted Geilgud's role in "Arthur""; Rutger Hauer - "I don't care what I'm in as long as I'm paid"), a weak story that seems to have been written by committee, and so little light that you can miss whole chunks of action, but I still enjoyed it far more than I expected. Christian Bale may turn out to be a great actor - he certainly carried this film on his own.
In general, I have now watched it a couple of times. It could have been better made, the director could have tried to get stronger acting out of the supporting cast, and the story could have been better, but on the whole it is a thumbs up.
The Thing (1982)
This is the film that turned me into a Carpenter fan
For me, a ten-star film is one that never dies in my memory, and yet can be watched over and over again with the same pleasure as the first time. This could be a technically flawed movie; the pleasure has nothing to do with spit-and-polish (my personal top-ten is idiosyncratic, to say the least!). John Carpenter's "The Thing" is one of very few films to fit this criterion.
I've been a science fiction fan since I was a child in the Sixties, and I read the John W Campbell short story on which the film is based ("Who Goes There") before I saw the original, black-and-white Howard Hawks film (as with a lot of people, that viewing was illicit, on the TV, when I should have been in bed!). That movie, as with so many that you see as a child in such circumstances, seemed near perfection: the suspense, the inexplicable nature of the alien, the photography; it all just seemed to work. I watched it many times in the years after (and still do, when it is shown on TV). Because of this, I avoided the Carpenter version for years - seeing remakes of one's favourite film is, I thought, always a mistake. When I did eventually watch it sometime in 1988/9, again on TV because there was nothing else on, I realised that I need to change "always a mistake" to "usually a mistake"! Carpenter had produced something different from the original film, closer to the original story, and truly wonderful. From the opening scene of the helicopter and husky, through the viscerally disturbing scene in the dog-pound, to that ending (sorry, no spoilers here!), I was hooked. The sound track alone lives with me - all I have to hear is a close similarity to that bass-over-snare drum beat, and I'm *in* the final scene again ...
Until seeing "The Thing", I had Carpenter down as just another gore-monkey, based only on comments and reviews in mainstream press. Since seeing "The Thing", I think I have seen most of his movies - I haven't gone out of my to do so, but if one comes up, just seeing his name as director is enough to make up my mind to watch it. He is thoughtful, and knows how to build a film up so that it reaches a point at which something will stick in the memory.
If you haven't seen "The Thing", and you enjoy science fiction, do yourself a favour - sit down in a dark room, wrap up warm, and prepare to have your memory enhanced!