<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: The Thing (1982)</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.filmsy.com/reviews/the-thing-1982/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.filmsy.com/reviews/the-thing-1982/</link>
	<description>movie review and news blog</description>
	<pubDate>Fri, 05 Dec 2008 17:27:46 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.2</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Kurt Russell Not Quentin Tarantino&#8217;s First Choice for &#8216;Death Proof&#8217; - Movie Reviews Blog</title>
		<link>http://www.filmsy.com/reviews/the-thing-1982/#comment-25556</link>
		<dc:creator>Kurt Russell Not Quentin Tarantino&#8217;s First Choice for &#8216;Death Proof&#8217; - Movie Reviews Blog</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 02 Apr 2007 13:45:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.filmsy.com/reviews/the-thing-1982/#comment-25556</guid>
		<description>[...] though veteran actor Kurt Russell wasn&#8217;t necessarily Quentin Tarantino&#8217;s first choice to take on the role of Stuntman [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] though veteran actor Kurt Russell wasn&#8217;t necessarily Quentin Tarantino&#8217;s first choice to take on the role of Stuntman [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: The Thing from Another World - Movie Reviews Blog</title>
		<link>http://www.filmsy.com/reviews/the-thing-1982/#comment-786</link>
		<dc:creator>The Thing from Another World - Movie Reviews Blog</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 24 Oct 2006 13:54:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.filmsy.com/reviews/the-thing-1982/#comment-786</guid>
		<description>[...] Most people are more familiar with John Carpenter’s Remake, titled only &#8220;The Thing”, and when you compare the two versions you’ll find them to be immensely different. While Carpenter’s version was a smorgasbord of special effects, the 1951 original hardly allows you to see the monster at all. The bulk of the movie revolves around the research team trying to deduce ways to thwart the Thing as it picks them off one at a time. You don’t get to see the Thing-itself until the very end of the film, which regretfully, will leave you a bit disappointed. The Thing is a rather cheesy looking generic movie monster and was much more effective when it was confined to the shadows. [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Most people are more familiar with John Carpenter’s Remake, titled only &#8220;The Thing”, and when you compare the two versions you’ll find them to be immensely different. While Carpenter’s version was a smorgasbord of special effects, the 1951 original hardly allows you to see the monster at all. The bulk of the movie revolves around the research team trying to deduce ways to thwart the Thing as it picks them off one at a time. You don’t get to see the Thing-itself until the very end of the film, which regretfully, will leave you a bit disappointed. The Thing is a rather cheesy looking generic movie monster and was much more effective when it was confined to the shadows. [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: In the Mouth of Madness - Movie Reviews Blog</title>
		<link>http://www.filmsy.com/reviews/the-thing-1982/#comment-784</link>
		<dc:creator>In the Mouth of Madness - Movie Reviews Blog</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 24 Oct 2006 13:52:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.filmsy.com/reviews/the-thing-1982/#comment-784</guid>
		<description>[...] When people are asked what their favorite John Carpenter film is, typically, they’ll respond with the usual &#8220;Halloween”, “Escape from New York”, &#8220;The Thing”, “Christine”, “The Fog” or other classic Carpenter films. However, while it’s a tough choice due to the filmmaker’s magnificent career, my response will always rest on “In the Mouth of Madness”. [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] When people are asked what their favorite John Carpenter film is, typically, they’ll respond with the usual &#8220;Halloween”, “Escape from New York”, &#8220;The Thing”, “Christine”, “The Fog” or other classic Carpenter films. However, while it’s a tough choice due to the filmmaker’s magnificent career, my response will always rest on “In the Mouth of Madness”. [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Screamers - Movie Reviews Blog</title>
		<link>http://www.filmsy.com/reviews/the-thing-1982/#comment-783</link>
		<dc:creator>Screamers - Movie Reviews Blog</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 24 Oct 2006 13:51:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.filmsy.com/reviews/the-thing-1982/#comment-783</guid>
		<description>[...] The big plot point of the film is that the Screamers can take on the appearance of human beings, which turns this into a quasi-“homage” to John Carpenter’s the Thing (or a rip-off, your decision). There aren’t really enough characters in the movie for you to make any wrong guesses as to who is evil and who isn’t, which is a shame, as it sort of kills the mystery-angle they’re going for. The Type 1 Screamers are my favorite of the bunch, though they look like robo-chameleons with a buzzsaw embedded in their skull. [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] The big plot point of the film is that the Screamers can take on the appearance of human beings, which turns this into a quasi-“homage” to John Carpenter’s the Thing (or a rip-off, your decision). There aren’t really enough characters in the movie for you to make any wrong guesses as to who is evil and who isn’t, which is a shame, as it sort of kills the mystery-angle they’re going for. The Type 1 Screamers are my favorite of the bunch, though they look like robo-chameleons with a buzzsaw embedded in their skull. [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
