@@YeeLeeHaw I do, its gibberish, you can only make out like a couple words, same for my Norwegian friends. The actor is also American and can not speak Norwegian.
You guys didn't fall for the thing-dog's bullshit AT ALL. Most people spend the first part of the movie going "Oh no poor doggo he's been through so much!"
Simone: "It's the 80's, ya gotta be prepared." George: "What happened in the 80's?!!" This had me rolling on the floor. FWIW, an Antarctic research base might carry a flamethrower to melt excessive ice build-up.
Also cold-war paranoia over "if we find something of significance, we might have to defend it forcefully" or something. Back then, nobody questioned why they had guns and flamethrowers at the camp. It just made sense.
I like Garry's f-bomb more. "I know you gentlemen have been through a lot, but when you find the time, I'd rather not spend the rest of this winter TIED TO THIS FUCKING COUCH!"
Never really made sense to me. The Thing is supposed to be savagely selfish. It's whole goal is to survive no matter what. I would think it'd at least TRY to communicate and deceptively beg for its life instead of just sitting there and roaring at them.
This scene completely nuked countless fan theories that Childs was a Thing because you supposedly couldn't see his breath when he talked to MacReady near the end of the movie, even though you could. I guess they weren't paying attention during the Bennings scene.
@@samuraiwarriorsunite Yep. Some folks just like to repeat what they see posted on social media, rather than pay close attention to the details of the film itself.
For some reason, I always feel the need to point out that MacReady is not a murderer for shooting Clark. Clark was going to murder him, and he acted in self-defense. In fact, most of the party was content to leave Mac out in the cold to freeze to death, so every moment between getting back inside and proving his innocence with the blood test was pure survival mode. One of the all-time greatest movies.
Here’s a little research for those interested. Peter Watts, Canadian author of the Firefall books, wrote a short story called “The Things,” which imagines this story from the creature’s point of view. Very imaginative. And to answer your question, the flamethrower would be used to de-ice engines and melt out landing strips. In colder northern latitudes, it’s common to light a fire under and engine to stop it freezing solid overnight.
I’ve always hears about fuel freezing in places like Antarctica however I find it hard to believe it’s a common practice for people to light fires underneath helicopters to prevent the fuel from freezing. It doesn’t seem logical
@@nissy9220 As far as I understand, it’s not done to prevent fuel freeze (that would lead to some interesting outcomes), but rather the fuel is drained and the equipment is stored until it’s needed again. The fire is to used to warm up the internal metal components of the engine, as they contract in extreme cold and can lock up without pre-heating. I found a link here; th-cam.com/video/Y3tXAuFxGQk/w-d-xo.html EDIT: I was incorrect in my OP, they’re not on fire “overnight.” Please excuse the mistake.
A while ago I was working at a weather research station on top of a mountain, where we would be pretty isolated all winter, and this was a favorite movie for the crew to watch (although it was a little worrisome that our shift supervisor didn't want to reveal where our flamethrowers we're stored).
LOL, why "cosmic". I think they killed some of the suspense by adding in the spaceship in the beginning and word "alien" in the re-release of the film. To my mind the fact it's alien in origin is neither here nor there, but just an easy way to explain the creature for the audience.
@@Cheepchipsable It's cosmic because the thing's true form is still unknown by the end of the film, so neither them (characters) or us (the audience) know what it truly is and what it's capable of (and this is the basic characteristic of cosmic horror). But I agree with you, they killed off a lot of the horror factor by showing the ship.
Rob Bottin, the man responsible for the special effects was only 22 when they made this movie. And he is on record saying that he wanted that you could not create an image of what the creature actually looks like by making it look different in every effect shot. This also ended up doubling the budget if i remember right.
SFX budget was increased from 200K to 750K. Well worth it! If I taught a film class I would show this with The Thing 2011 to demonstrate how practical effects make a great movie timeless, and how CGI can make a great movie totally unwatchable.
@@bb21again.67 Agree! I love watching both of them react! I love their Canadian take on things. Makes me miss my mom a little bit.... but it's awesome to feel close to my Canadian side of the family through these two. If that makes any kind of sense.
Fun fact: the dog-thing in this film is played by a renowned canine actor called Jed, and this was his most famous role! Jed was also half domesticated dog, half wolf, so he lacked a lot of the typical “dog” mannerisms like a wagging tail and stuff. Makes his portrayal a lot creepier imo
I saw this film at the cinema when it was released in 1982 and it's remained one of my favourite horror films ever since. The sense of overwhelming paranoia is palpable. Just think how mind-blowing the special effects were for an audience in '82.
Yup. I mean, the effects blew my mind when I watched it in the mid 90's as a kid and it still blows my mind today. Practical effects, and sometimes augmented with CGI, will always be better than full on CGI. Saving Private Ryan is another great example of practical effects. Both of these movies have and will stand the test of time. I don't think anyone will be talking about Marvel movies 80 years from now.
@@southlondon86 That was because it was released a few days after E.T., so nobody were prepared yet to see a violent alien movie due to the fact they were still with the idea of a friendly visitor fresh on their minds. But hey, at least the movie is getting recognized and re-evalued nowadays
7:22 "Why do they have a flame thrower?" "It's the 80s. Ya gotta be prepared." I've been laughing for two or three minutes now. Peace & Love, Simone & George!
It's kinda insane that this movie turns 40 next year and it's still one of the best horror movies ever made and the effects are for the most part better than what we see today. Absolutely incredible.
Fun fact: whenever Keith David gets asks if the he became the thing at the end of the movie, he just smiles and says "why don't we go somewhere private and dark, and I'll tell ya"
4:10 I¨ve also wondered why there's guns at the base, especially considering there's no dangerous animals in Antarctica! (The flame throwers make sense; they're tools for clearing ice.) My best guess is that since it's an American outpost in an area that also has a bunch of Soviet outposts, and it's during the cold war, it's just precaution!
My mom watches this movie every Christmas Eve while wrapping presents. Every Christmas Eve I would go to sleep just hearing the “DUN DUN”s of the music reverb through the house xD
Wow. I can't do that. I have to watch A Christmas Story and then a few adaptations of A Christmas Carol and The Polar Express and then I like to watch It's a Wonderful Life. The Bishop's Wife not too shabby, either. But The Thing on Christmas? Forget it.
"The Thing" isn't so much a single entity as it is a molecular hivemind, with each cell working toward the benefit of the whole. When it finds either a new host or a new organism to replicate, it always go through the same process. First it explodes (called flowering), then it attacks whatever food source is near by, then it hides and turns into the newest organism.
I sometimes watch this film in a double bill with "30 Days Of Night", two films of people trapped in the cold with terrifying predators. I'd really love to see Simone's reaction to that one!
Top horror classic. Rob Bottin earned a place in movie history with those ridiculously amazing special effects. No one has even come close to what he did!
Here's a VERY interesting an subtle moment - at the scene where they are all arguing about who last had the keys, Windows breaks and runs to get a gun. Now, normally, most people think that the stress got to him. HOWEVER, if you play very close attention to when he encounters Bennings being converted, you here a jingle as he runs out the door - he went to get a gun because he realised HE was the last to have the keys, and was running to get a gun because he knew he couldn't convince anybody about what happened.
Its so subtle and you have to put it together yourself, we are used to movies going out of their way showing us something, then dumbing it down to MAKE sure we understand, example being In Star Wars Return of the Jedi, in Jabaa's Palace they zoom in on a guard, which is clearly Lando, but as the zoom in is complete, Lando pulls down his mask enough to fully reveal its him, of course it makes no sense for him to have pulled down his mask, but the audience is too dumb to notice otherwise, in filmmakers opinions.
Different keys, sorry. The blood fridge key was ONLY kept with Garry the security guy with the handgun, and Dr. Copper only used them when he had to get blood as they explained. The keys Windows had were probably just a ring of keys for various rooms, lockers and things around the complex. It would not have included the blood keys.
Best Sci-fi Horror film ever made!! My favorite John Carpenter film! The blood test scene was on Bravo's 100 Scariest Movie Moments, as it's so intense, you don't know who's human or who's The Thing. It received negative reviews by Critics, but has gone on to become a cult classic.
The man responsible for the creature FX, Rob Bottin, ended up in hospital through overwork as the film was shot on a very tight schedule. Makes his work all the more impressive.
Kudos to George for coming up with a workable test way before the characters did! Smart guy! Saw this movie on VHS at a friend's house and had to drive home, in the country, at 2AM, in a Canadian blizzard! Longest 12 miles ever! lol All practical effects, no CGI... Absolutely brilliant work! Can you believe this is based on a story that was written in 1935?! It was called, "Who Goes There". This version is much closer to the original story than the first movie inspired by it, 1951's "The Thing From Another World"... basically a tall guy in a suit, closer to Frankenstein's monster than anything alien. lol Great reaction! Cheers from south-western Quebec!
3:29 - "Is it a space dog that's evil?" earned my subscription. I mean, your everyday, normal space dogs I can handle but evil ones? Nah! Watched this in the cinema back in 82 and it's certainly stood up to the test of time. 16:03 - The comment by a character when he spots the spider-legged head scuttling off is one of my all time fave lines. It's exactly what anyone would exclaim...and you both replicated it in your own words!
John W. Campbell wrote the short story Who Goes There? in 1938. In 1951 it was turned into The Thing From Another World directed by the great Howard Hawks. John Carpenter made this classic in 1982 and pretty much closed the door on the others. This movie is amazing. All of the special effects are real and actually happen there in front of the camera. A piece of grotesque beauty. So many great moments in this movie. I love it dearly.
A few things of note: 1: The Things know how to do misdirection. Hence Blair-Thing pointing Mac at Clark, and the shredded clothing with Mac's name. Also, the clothes shredding "rule" itself is a red herring. Just a false assumption. 2: Extended alternate TV opening explains a bit more about the characters. Mac was a chopper pilot in Vietnam. Norris had a heart condition (with the Norris-Thing "playing possum" using the guise of a heart attack). 3: The ship Blair-Thing built is more likely a rocket-sled type of craft to just get to the ocean, so it can jump into the ocean and assimilate the food chain. Given Blair's biomass, and the ability of the Things to separate and re-join, Blair-Thing could simply "break apart" and form a team of worker-things to build multiple parts of the ship at once (and leaving one small one to look outside). Then, re-form into Blair-Thing when the "lookout" noticed people exit the compound. Likely, Blair was assimilated due to that eraser, and was already a Thing by the time of his "freak out" (which was part of his plan to become isolated so he could build the ship). 4: Originally, the movie was to end with Mac and Childs being rescued and tested and both found to be human. But that was felt to be too much of a "happy ending". So, the movie ends with purposeful ambiguity. A masterful decision by the master of cinematic horror.
This movie was a favorite of mine back in '83-'84. I saw an interview with the guy who designed the various incarnation of The Thing, and he was adamant that he was going to make something people had not seen before. Even now, 39 years later, the reactions of you both show how successful he was.
Back in 82, I saw this and was blown away. The only thing that's changed over time is more people appreciate Carpenter's The Thing, with SFX that's still as amazing as it was when I first saw this nearly 40 years ago.
@@trhansen3244 No Kurt Russell's character is human child's is actually the thing if you pay attention closely you'll remember mccready filled those bottles with gasoline so he hands it to child's to test him and when childs drinks from it hes drinking gasoline therefore telling you hes the monster
Movie Theory: McCready laughs at the end when Childs drinks the bottle. Because he knows the bottle is filled with gasoline. So for Childs to just drink it, gave him his answer whether he was a thing or not.
Bit of trivia for the Canadians. Part of this movie was filmed in Stewart, BC. And another bit of trivia. Before Apple/MS wars, there is a character named Mac and another named Windows (before there was a MacIntosh computer and Windows operating System).
A great bit of foreshadowing that only pinball fanatics get is the pinball machine in the rec room. It's called Heat Wave. On the rear display is a thermometer, the idea of play is to score points to raise the temperature of the thermometer, when it reaches the top, it explodes
Watching this post covid and I was saying the same things as George during the autopsy "don't put that near your mouth!", also there's a theory that MacReady was infected and went on to infect Childs when he drank from the hip flask, hence the music when Childs took a swig, it's a brilliant movie with a fantastic cast and practical effects, it remains one of my all time favorites in the genre to this day.
Dynamite was basically a hardware store item into the 1970s. People used it for removing stumps, digging wells, farmers would clear clogs in irrigation canals, and so on.
It's kind of odd that all you youngin's are surprised by stuntmen being on fire. That was actually a very common stunt back in the day. So much so that celebrities used to perform it just to say they did. They would cover them in insulation and Nomex and then slather them with this fire retardant goo around their heads and necks. Stuntmen used to shoot for timed records to see who could withstand the building heat the longest before tapping out to the fire extinguishers. Now it's mainly done with a few mouse clicks but back then it was the real deal.
It's still quite often done practically. The CG effects used for fire simulation are getting better, but there's still a number of directors and VFX specialists who just really like fire.
The original The Thing From Outer Space from the 1950s had an almost identical scene, in which the creature is set fully aflame and stumbles out into the snow. I think that was one of the first, if not the first time, that the full body on fire stunt was done.
You can’t beat practical effects. It’s unfortunate that most modern movies today are full of CGI but it’s cheaper. All they care about is the box office profits. A lot of care and pride are traded for profit which is understandable in today’s world
All the stuff they have makes perfect sense. Rifles/shotguns for security and survival hunting in emergencies, flamethrower for clearing ice, dynamite for geological surveying. Landowners around where I'm from have much smaller burners called brush-burners for doing controlled burns to clear brush. I can see a polar research camp keeping a flamethrower around to clear ice.
This is adapted from a short story called "Who Goes There?", and is a remake of a 50's film called "The Thing from Another World"; this and Halloween are a testament to John Carpenter's mastery of horror
Simone & George wonder why they're hunting the dog, those of us who have watched this movie before wait for the fun. The fear and paranoia are expertly raised throughout the movie, and the end leaves you with the question are Mac and Childs human or alien. This is almost 40 years old and the practical effects still look good, a testament to the skill of Rob Bottin and his effects team.
This film was based on "The Thing From Another World" which was based on HP Lovecraft's "At The Mountains of Madness" so George was close when he called it an eldritch horror movie at the start of the video.
I think it was adapted from John Campbell Jr's novella "Who Goes There". the monster's the same, the blood test is the same, hell even the names of the characters are the same.
@@mournblade1066 Maybe I'm wrong but I do see strong similarities to the mountains of madness and my English teacher back in high school drew similarities between mountains of madness and Carpenter's The Thing.
@@Twiska Oh, there are definitely similarities. Campbell was a contemporary of Lovecraft (he started publishing in 1930). But Lovecraft was infinitely more pessimistic than Campbell, whose characters are actually able to fight back against the horrors that are presented to them. (Lovecraft's characters usually just go insane.)
Regarding scary things, H.P. Lovecraft (the dad of cosmic horror) had this to say on the matter: _"The oldest and strongest emotion of mankind is fear, and the oldest and strongest kind of fear is fear of the unknown."_ A statement with which I wholeheartedly concur! Thanks for the reaction!
Why do they have a flame thrower? To melt ice & snow, burn garbage. The special effects artist on this film is named Rob Bottin. He was barely in his 20s when he worked on this movie. He was the understudy/apprentice of Rick Baker, who did some special effects for Star Wars '77 & American Werewolf in London to name a few of his credits. Legends of practical make-up effects.
Such a classic film. It's so amazing how they did this without CGI and I love the paranoia about who is infected. You might also want to check The Thing movie from 2011, which is kind of a remake but also a prequel to this film.
One of my favourite theories is that Childs is a Thing by the end of the film. Why? When the other three survivors leave him at the door to check on Blair in the tool shed, Childs was wearing a blue winter coat. At the end where he and MacReady are chillin’ with the fires going out, he’s wearing a grey coat. Why change? Unless ‘he’ had to because his blue one got ripped through… Amazing bit of attention to detail; when it shows the door with Childs missing, the grey coat he would be wearing at the end of the film is right there, hanging up next to the door. Implying that Childs-Thing went back to get it after being assimilated. I love it when they get the little details right, they can make or break a film for me!
I am so glad you guys did this one. They filmed this in B.C. as I recall. Those winter shots remind me of my home town of Edmonton during certain winters.
Fun fact, there is a science station in Anarctica that has a 6 month winter season, accessible only by helicopter. When their winter season starts in February (?), they have a The Thing screening before handing it off to the winter team
This is my favorite horror film ever, my dad took me to see this when it came out and I was 14 or so. The blood test scene made me jump so bad I dumped my popcorn all over him. Sorry dad.😂👍
For why they have all that weaponry, you have to remember it's Antarctica. Flamethrowers are tools used to melt built up ice around the exterior of the base, vehicle treads, etc. Explosives are for removing large amounts of compacted ice for things such as excavation. The guns are a bit more tricky, but I assume it's probably because Antarctica is so barren and isolating. There's no police or standard government services in place because no countries are allowed to own the frozen continent. There are laws, but with all outposts literally hours apart, if something goes wrong it's up to you to defend yourself
This is my favorite movie of all time. The effects are so good and still hold up today! And even if there's a lot of gore and body horror, the best thing about the movie is the atmosphere and how the main horror comes from paranoia and suspense.
@@trhansen3244 Of course I have. It's very good, but not even in my personal top ten. I also loathe how it contributed to people starting shark hunting frenzy, as it made people unnecessary terrified of sharks. And that fear still persists today. Which is why I prefer when they don't base movie "monster" on real animals.
@@trhansen3244 You're talking like we're comparing a classic to a burger film. We are not. Both of them are good. You can like Jaws better, I can like The Thing better.
@@Fenr Enough with this nonsense. No movie takes a backseat to Jaws. Certainly not a film by John Carpenter. Jaws is #1. Since I am a generous person, I will put The Thing at #68.
Surprising that they don't grasp why the base would have weapons etc. It's reasonable that they'd potentially have to remove ice or other hazards, not necessarily right at the base, while weapons would be to scare off or even attack any attacking polar bears.
And THAT'S why the Norwegians wanted to kill the dog. ;) One of my favorite horror/suspense movies ever, so good! Love your reactions to the effects and gory bits! :)
This is the first part of what is unofficially called Carpenter’s “Apocalypse Trilogy.” The other parts (Prince of Darkness and In the Mouth of Madness) aren’t as good but they are definitely still worth a watch. Basically each movie deals with a potential or actual apocalyptic threat to humanity. In order it’s an alien, an interdimensional devil type figure and Cthulhu inspired sanity and reality breaking entities. Each one ends ambiguously with the threat either winning or the threat not being conclusively dealt with. Definitely worth checking out. For a change of pace Carpenter did other genres. In particular “Big Trouble in Little China” and “Escape From New York” are classics.
In my mind "In the Mouth of Madness" is as good as The Thing, but it's quite different... I feel that The Prince Of Darkness is underrated and very forgotten when talking about Carpenter's movies, and it's one of the most interesting. Anyway, those 3 movies are enough to justify one single career in cinema and imagine, Carpenter has to offer a bunch of other phenomenal ones
Guys you've just watched my favourite scifi horror and I'm so glad you enjoyed it. Most of the practical fx were done by the legendary Rob Bottin. He also did the fx on The Howling (my favourite werewolf film) 😊😊😊
Yeah, Rob Bottin did most of the effects. However, the Kennel Thing was done by Stan Winston. He asked not to be credited, because he was already an established special effects artist, and wanted this to be Rob Bottin's day in the sun.
I remember watching this when it came out at the Drive in right before I went in the Marine Corps. Good to see it still holds up as a great horror movie. Loved watching your reactions, was wondering if Simone was going to make it through for a minute there :)
One of the best reactions to this movie I’ve seen. Your analytics and visceral response was dead on throughout the viewing. This was exactly the type of movie experience that John Carpenter was targeting. Now you understand why the CGI versus practical effects debate rages on. Although this movie was originally a box office flop (had to compete with another extraterrestrial movie E.T.), it has risen to the top of cult classics because of its superior plot, special effects, and suspense. Some don’t like the ending and it’s ambiguity but I would argue that it is genius by design. It’s consistent with the feeling of dread and paranoia that runs rampant throughout the movie. If you can imagine yourself in a theater in 1982 having finished the one hour 49 minute masterpiece only to be subjected to this ending, the perfect musical score, and the roll of the credits. The walk to your car would elicit some interesting thoughts and emotions. The 1991 comic book, The Thing, by dark side publications probably does the best job of continuing the storyline if you have an interest in the “what if” but purists prefer to leave this movie alone as it was intended. I might be in the minority, but it would be great if J.C. Would add a sequel to his bucket list. Can you imagine a 40 plus year separation? Do it while Macready and Childs are still around. Anyhow, you guys have my subscription. Thanks for taking me back to 1982.
I agree but I gotta mention that the ending isn't ambiguous at all if you pay close attention. Childs is the thing, 100% confirmed. Reasons: Look at the breath of the characters in the last scene (Childs doesn't produce any condensation) and keep in mind that they turned the glass bottles into Molotov cocktails by filling them with gasoline. McReady never drank from the bottle, he just gave it to Childs. When Childs drinks, you hear the musical queue and after he puts the bottle down he doesn't seem to bother that he just drank pure gasoline. That's why McReady laughs, knowing it's not over.
The reason this film wasn't very successful in theaters is because in the 80's this sort of film was 10 a penny. There were simply tons of 'alien freak kills people' type of film. It wasn't until it came out on video tape (remember that?) that we all got to see that instead of this being a run of the mill dude in a rubber monster suit it was a work of genius. The same thing happened with terminator 1.
@@B20C0 Wrong. Watch again. When Childs says "Did you kill it?" you can very clearly see breath vapor. Now, granted, there's not much after that but he clearly shows breath. Like the silhouette in the room being a random crew guy and not any of the actual actors - it's intentionally ambiguous. You can't definitively say one way or the other. Aiight, look, I do somewhat agree with you on the clues - just saying you do see breath and the drinking is not conclusive so you just never know. But beyond ALL of that - it just doesn't matter. As long as there were chunks of the blown up megathing that landed far away enough from the fire and froze, you have the makings of another infestation. Damn there should've been a real sequel not a remake/'prequel' with dodgy CGI.
@@B20C0 wrong. the Bennings Thing had visible breath, so Child would had some to(wich He actualy had). Because an Organism wich has such highly active cells has a Very High Body Temperatur. The bottle wasnt proofen to be filled with gasoline. Because you never See this specific bottle being turned in an Molotow. And Carpender himselfe said that the end isnt clear and Up to speculation.
The scene earlier when he was grabbing at his chest was suppose to hint that he had heart issues and therefore died of a heart attack in the later scene
One theory for the movie ending when Childs and MacReady are sitting in the snow and it cuts to black, is that Childs is the last Thing. The bottle Mac hands Childs and he takes a drink from is actually a bottle of gas they were using to make molotov cocktails to burn the camp down. So Mac knows that Childs is the Thing and that's why he just smiles and the music keys up. Also to answer the question of why there are so many weapons in the base. The explosives would be used for mining as it is a research station and removing large quantities of ice would be beneficial. And the flamethrower is for deicing the equipment like the tractor and the helicopter. Loved this reaction! This is my favorite movie of all time and I watch it every year for Halloween! Cheers!
It's the absolutely amazing practical effects that make this movie. It's too easy today for film makers these days to cop out and use CGI, and that brings the uncanny valley and takes you out of willing suspension of disbelief. The great acting from the cast really finishes it off making it just a brilliant movie.....
Arguments surround the final scene, as the camera switches from Childs to Mac and back again your left wondering at the condensation of Mac's breath indicating the temperature difference with the surrounding cold while Childs breath doesn't condense.
Carpenter's "The Thing" is one of four of his so-called 'apocalyptic films' of the '80s. The others are "Escape From New York" (1981), "Prince of Darkness" (1987) and "They Live" (1988). Definitely do these three as well. The Thing is a remake of the 1951 scifi classic "The Thing From Another World", nowhere near as gory but still frightening to audiences back then.
@@Tullaryx Interesting. It was the early 90s we Carpenter fans were calling these four his 80s "apocalypse films". That is before "Mouth of Madness" came out and Carpenter dubbing the three you mentioned as his "Apocalypse Trilogy" in a DVD set.
@@GrouchyMarx not sure if it was the home video studio who set up the trilogy you’re thinking about but Carpenter has confirmed I. Interviews that The Thing, Prince of Darkness and In the Mouth of Madness all share the same apocalyptic theme where the ending is open to interpretation.
@@Tullaryx I heard about the interview. Before that our circle of fans were considering the four I mentioned as such, but this was in the early 90s way before that interview and Mouth of Darkness. In fact, I haven't seen Mouth of Darkness but since you brought it up, I'm intrigued! LOL! I'll have to get it.
Her reactions are so good. The theory at the end is that child’s is a thing and mcready gave him gasoline to drink as they were making Molotov’s earlier and that’s why he laughed
@Leonardo Pereira couldn't agree more! Wish they would have been able to do a director's cut but it sounds like that's impossible because they stored the film incorrectly! Or so I've heard!!
I feel like the most underappreciated actor in this movie is the dog I don't know how they trained it to have such a calm and unnerving presence, most people I've seen react to this go from oh no don't shoot or hurt the doggy to being creeped out how it just quietly stalks and watches everyone in the compound
To help clear out some hard ice snow. Also why they have many weapons and TNT? Its 82 and the Cold War is still on high alert and there's a Russian base not far from where they are.
I think the first transformation in the kennel is the best part, it just blows people away and sets the film up. Being in a frozen wasteland, a flamethrower could be used to melt ice and snow from out door equipment, or jut to get down to the actual earth in some areas and can be used to create a flat area on the ice when you need it. You could also use explosives to clear or break up ice if needed. I have no clue if they did those things, but it's not like they had M16 and grenades. Though I have heard of some flamethrower type equipment used to melt the ice to form a crude landing strip.
@7:30 "Why do they have a flame thrower!? It's the 80s, they have to be prepared. What happened in the 80s???!" So funny to compare the initial awkwardness of this reaction with how super polished you guys are now two years later. Love you guys!
The Thing is one of the greatest movies ever. It's so well done. I know it's not as great, but you guys should check out the 2011 prequel to this movie, also titled, "The Thing." Again it's not as great as this one, but it does a valiant attempt at telling what happened prior to the dog reaching the camp. Actually it tells the story right up to the helicopter scene in the beginning of this movie. Story wise it's a bit rushed, but it's still a good time. They also use mainly CGI in the prequel. Which is really sad, because they hired a company to do all the practical effects, and that company has released what those look like online, and they are amazingly good. It's so sad they went CGI last minute.
Nice to see someone understand the Doctor was smashing the electronics to isolate the outpost. Although that stunt when the fire axe goes through the table almost looked like it went wrong judging by how far it penetrated.
Most subarctic temperature places had a flamethrower to quickly melt ice and snow off of vehicles / propeller blades or for melting off and flattening snow areas for helicopters to make supply drops / landings. It wasn't the safest of protocols and was only used under dangerous conditions. That's been replaced by deicer sprays since the late '70s but you can possibly imagine some remote outposts back then still having one or two.
Hello! Thank you for the video!Please pay attention to the young singer Diana Ankudinova.Make reactions to the songs of Wicked game, CAN'T HELP FALLING IN LOVE, Human🌞🌞🌞DIANA ANKUDINOVA is a talented young singer. I would like to know your opinion. I think you will be surprised. Diana has a very unusual voice and artistic presentation for her age.🌹🌹🌹 Thanks in advance
Why all the "weaponry?" Well . . . Flamethrowers for de-icing various items, dynamite for getting down to geological layers to study and other "quick-dig" stuff, and firearms . . . Well, just in case. As was said in the very beginning of the movie, "Are we at war with Norway?" Being pretty much where the world ends, one has to be prepared for all eventualities.
I feel like there was a scene of the next morning of a dog running walking away from the camp. The movie is named for a previous, black and white version of The Thing From Another World released in 1951. Both are based on a novel named "Who Goes There".
Fun movie trivia: If you understand Norwegian, the entire plot is given away in the first scene.
Not the dog! It’s always the dog…
the Norwegians deserve having the movie spoiled for them because they let the dog escape.
Not really, its barely Norwegian at all, mostly gibberish.
@@leon9021 the "Norwegian" in the Holy Grail however.....
@@YeeLeeHaw I do, its gibberish, you can only make out like a couple words, same for my Norwegian friends. The actor is also American and can not speak Norwegian.
40 years old, almost no cgi, and even more terrifying than any movie made today. I miss the 80's.
There isn't any CGI. This was 1982.
@@OroborusFMA
I'm pretty sure the space ship at the beginning was cgi.
@@eddiejravannen nope, practical model on greenscreen with some matte painting.
@Brandon Bidder oh there sure was. See The Last Starfighter.
It’s rentable here. It’s cheesy but fun th-cam.com/video/Iu8MslfaAg4/w-d-xo.html
You guys didn't fall for the thing-dog's bullshit AT ALL. Most people spend the first part of the movie going "Oh no poor doggo he's been through so much!"
yeah seriously when i first saw this i immediately thought the dog was the Thing.
That dog was so well-trained, the way it moved was always so creepy.
Maybe they saw the movie already. Who knows.
They managed to find the creepiest dog in the world. That thing could stare down a snake!
They need to watch the 2011 prequel which explains a lot of things from the 1982 film, it explains why the dog was being shot at too.
Simone: "It's the 80's, ya gotta be prepared."
George: "What happened in the 80's?!!"
This had me rolling on the floor. FWIW, an Antarctic research base might carry a flamethrower to melt excessive ice build-up.
Yep, runways, aircraft wings, etc
Exactly why there would be one.
Also cold-war paranoia over "if we find something of significance, we might have to defend it forcefully" or something. Back then, nobody questioned why they had guns and flamethrowers at the camp. It just made sense.
"You gotta be fucking kidding..." - The single most well-earned f-bomb in cinematic history.
I like Garry's f-bomb more.
"I know you gentlemen have been through a lot, but when you find the time, I'd rather not spend the rest of this winter TIED TO THIS FUCKING COUCH!"
That and Gary’s F bomb
Best bit there is that Palmer's been a Thing for ages at that point. Maybe he just thought the head looked stupid.
Everyone's first time watching the movie:
"Why are they shooting that poor dog?!"
Everyone's second time:
"If only they'd gotten that dog..."
I would go with if the only understod Norwegian instead.
@@Templarofsteel88or the Norwegian knew English
That shot with Bennings howling, half transformed, the steam from his breath. Horrifying.
VERY... VERY... DISTURBING SCENE!
Never really made sense to me. The Thing is supposed to be savagely selfish. It's whole goal is to survive no matter what. I would think it'd at least TRY to communicate and deceptively beg for its life instead of just sitting there and roaring at them.
This scene completely nuked countless fan theories that Childs was a Thing because you supposedly couldn't see his breath when he talked to MacReady near the end of the movie, even though you could. I guess they weren't paying attention during the Bennings scene.
@@samuraiwarriorsunite Yep. Some folks just like to repeat what they see posted on social media, rather than pay close attention to the details of the film itself.
@@nodak81 I'm guessing it couldn't talk yet. Probably a roar of frustration and anger. Just guessing of course.
For some reason, I always feel the need to point out that MacReady is not a murderer for shooting Clark. Clark was going to murder him, and he acted in self-defense. In fact, most of the party was content to leave Mac out in the cold to freeze to death, so every moment between getting back inside and proving his innocence with the blood test was pure survival mode.
One of the all-time greatest movies.
Here’s a little research for those interested. Peter Watts, Canadian author of the Firefall books, wrote a short story called “The Things,” which imagines this story from the creature’s point of view. Very imaginative.
And to answer your question, the flamethrower would be used to de-ice engines and melt out landing strips. In colder northern latitudes, it’s common to light a fire under and engine to stop it freezing solid overnight.
Brilliantly written story!
I’ve always hears about fuel freezing in places like Antarctica however I find it hard to believe it’s a common practice for people to light fires underneath helicopters to prevent the fuel from freezing. It doesn’t seem logical
@@nissy9220 As far as I understand, it’s not done to prevent fuel freeze (that would lead to some interesting outcomes), but rather the fuel is drained and the equipment is stored until it’s needed again. The fire is to used to warm up the internal metal components of the engine, as they contract in extreme cold and can lock up without pre-heating.
I found a link here; th-cam.com/video/Y3tXAuFxGQk/w-d-xo.html
EDIT: I was incorrect in my OP, they’re not on fire “overnight.” Please excuse the mistake.
thanks for the mentioning the the book. i'm currently reading "the rifters trilogy" from that Author. might read "the things" afterwards
@@nissy9220 Engines have core plugs so if the coolant freezes in the engine it doesn't crack the block.
A while ago I was working at a weather research station on top of a mountain, where we would be pretty isolated all winter, and this was a favorite movie for the crew to watch (although it was a little worrisome that our shift supervisor didn't want to reveal where our flamethrowers we're stored).
🤣
That must have been aerie
One of the all time great Cosmic Horror films. A real masterpiece of suspense, and a master class in practical effects.
LOL, why "cosmic". I think they killed some of the suspense by adding in the spaceship in the beginning and word "alien" in the re-release of the film.
To my mind the fact it's alien in origin is neither here nor there, but just an easy way to explain the creature for the audience.
Yeah. Good ones are really rare of those.
@@Cheepchipsable It's cosmic because the thing's true form is still unknown by the end of the film, so neither them (characters) or us (the audience) know what it truly is and what it's capable of (and this is the basic characteristic of cosmic horror). But I agree with you, they killed off a lot of the horror factor by showing the ship.
@@CheepchipsableYou must have bad taste in movies that have fake looking CJI scenes 🤦🏻♂️
"Maybe it's what I'm scared of most, which is the sense of disappointment" - George bringing zingers to the table there
Rob Bottin, the man responsible for the special effects was only 22 when they made this movie. And he is on record saying that he wanted that you could not create an image of what the creature actually looks like by making it look different in every effect shot. This also ended up doubling the budget if i remember right.
Worth it.
If I remember correctly he was hospitalized at some point from overworking
@@mohammedashian8094 i believe yes he was hospitalised for exhaustion after the shooting wrapped
SFX budget was increased from 200K to 750K. Well worth it! If I taught a film class I would show this with The Thing 2011 to demonstrate how practical effects make a great movie timeless, and how CGI can make a great movie totally unwatchable.
The intensity in Simone's eyes on a lot of these reactions is priceless. Good stuff you two.
@TheJoeGreene I agree
Totally makes her one of the best reactors on TH-cam.
@@bb21again.67 Agree! I love watching both of them react! I love their Canadian take on things. Makes me miss my mom a little bit.... but it's awesome to feel close to my Canadian side of the family through these two. If that makes any kind of sense.
@TheJoeGreene I finally got to see the video in it's entirety and "yes' George's reactions too are great and genuine.
@@Mortisg187 Is a Canadian take any different than an American take on things?
Fun fact: the dog-thing in this film is played by a renowned canine actor called Jed, and this was his most famous role! Jed was also half domesticated dog, half wolf, so he lacked a lot of the typical “dog” mannerisms like a wagging tail and stuff. Makes his portrayal a lot creepier imo
I always loved the dog's performance in the movie, the eerie stillness always weireded me out, now I know why!
Him stopping half-way down the hallway and looking around suspiciously was 100% Jed.
Better actor than many Humans in movies.
"Why do they have a flamethrower?"
Its for clearing snow and ice.
And because its fukin bada**
Also its 82 and the Cold War is still on high alert and there's a Russian base not far from where they are. Also why they have many weapons and TNT.
Wait, you mean you DON'T have a flame thrower???
@@gamleskalle1 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 I got it!
It's for heating up diesel engines.
You guys figured out the blood test long before it was even discussed in the movie. Bravo! You two are very perceptive, you got a sub from me now.
you won't regret it.
Yah that was very impressive.
Or seen it before.. one or the other
I am definitely impressed with that
George is usually quite good at predicting stuff I've noticed
I saw this film at the cinema when it was released in 1982 and it's remained one of my favourite horror films ever since. The sense of overwhelming paranoia is palpable. Just think how mind-blowing the special effects were for an audience in '82.
Yup.
I mean, the effects blew my mind when I watched it in the mid 90's as a kid and it still blows my mind today. Practical effects, and sometimes augmented with CGI, will always be better than full on CGI.
Saving Private Ryan is another great example of practical effects. Both of these movies have and will stand the test of time. I don't think anyone will be talking about Marvel movies 80 years from now.
Practical effects will always look better than CGI. Unfortunately CGI is far cheaper now, all they care about is box office profits.
Pity it wasn’t as acclaimed on first release as it eventually grew to be.
@@southlondon86 That was because it was released a few days after E.T., so nobody were prepared yet to see a violent alien movie due to the fact they were still with the idea of a friendly visitor fresh on their minds. But hey, at least the movie is getting recognized and re-evalued nowadays
7:22 "Why do they have a flame thrower?"
"It's the 80s. Ya gotta be prepared."
I've been laughing for two or three minutes now.
Peace & Love, Simone & George!
It's for removing ice from vehicles and machinery.
It's kinda insane that this movie turns 40 next year and it's still one of the best horror movies ever made and the effects are for the most part better than what we see today.
Absolutely incredible.
Fun fact: whenever Keith David gets asks if the he became the thing at the end of the movie, he just smiles and says "why don't we go somewhere private and dark, and I'll tell ya"
4:10 I¨ve also wondered why there's guns at the base, especially considering there's no dangerous animals in Antarctica! (The flame throwers make sense; they're tools for clearing ice.) My best guess is that since it's an American outpost in an area that also has a bunch of Soviet outposts, and it's during the cold war, it's just precaution!
Plus they are Americans.
Americano lovo gunso!
@@Youcannotfalter The Norwegians in the prequel also had guns. They were even the first ones firing a gun in this movie.
You're overlooking the fact that the Norwegian was shooting an HK93 semi-automatic rifle indicating there were guns at the Norwegian base too.
@@waterbeauty85 Yeah, that makes no sense! Maybe one of them had a personal vendetta towards penguins?
My mom watches this movie every Christmas Eve while wrapping presents. Every Christmas Eve I would go to sleep just hearing the “DUN DUN”s of the music reverb through the house xD
That's definitely... a choice. ;p
Wow. I can't do that. I have to watch A Christmas Story and then a few adaptations of A Christmas Carol and The Polar Express and then I like to watch It's a Wonderful Life. The Bishop's Wife not too shabby, either. But The Thing on Christmas? Forget it.
"The Thing" isn't so much a single entity as it is a molecular hivemind, with each cell working toward the benefit of the whole. When it finds either a new host or a new organism to replicate, it always go through the same process. First it explodes (called flowering), then it attacks whatever food source is near by, then it hides and turns into the newest organism.
Literally the flood from halo lmao (the thing did it first Ik)
I sometimes watch this film in a double bill with "30 Days Of Night", two films of people trapped in the cold with terrifying predators. I'd really love to see Simone's reaction to that one!
Top horror classic. Rob Bottin earned a place in movie history with those ridiculously amazing special effects. No one has even come close to what he did!
"Until I see that dog kill someone, he's still a good boym"
"Yea. Even after!"
ORLY???
Here's a VERY interesting an subtle moment - at the scene where they are all arguing about who last had the keys, Windows breaks and runs to get a gun. Now, normally, most people think that the stress got to him. HOWEVER, if you play very close attention to when he encounters Bennings being converted, you here a jingle as he runs out the door - he went to get a gun because he realised HE was the last to have the keys, and was running to get a gun because he knew he couldn't convince anybody about what happened.
Its so subtle and you have to put it together yourself, we are used to movies going out of their way showing us something, then dumbing it down to MAKE sure we understand, example being In Star Wars Return of the Jedi, in Jabaa's Palace they zoom in on a guard, which is clearly Lando, but as the zoom in is complete, Lando pulls down his mask enough to fully reveal its him, of course it makes no sense for him to have pulled down his mask, but the audience is too dumb to notice otherwise, in filmmakers opinions.
Different keys, sorry. The blood fridge key was ONLY kept with Garry the security guy with the handgun, and Dr. Copper only used them when he had to get blood as they explained. The keys Windows had were probably just a ring of keys for various rooms, lockers and things around the complex. It would not have included the blood keys.
@@Buskieboy oh bummer. Oh well
@@samovarsa2640 ✌
I apprciate civil discourse. Sam and Busk, gold stars ⭐️
Best Sci-fi Horror film ever made!! My favorite John Carpenter film! The blood test scene was on Bravo's 100 Scariest Movie Moments, as it's so intense, you don't know who's human or who's The Thing. It received negative reviews by Critics, but has gone on to become a cult classic.
The man responsible for the creature FX, Rob Bottin, ended up in hospital through overwork as the film was shot on a very tight schedule. Makes his work all the more impressive.
Yup, and they needed to bring in Stan Winston to help with the Dog Thing.
Kudos to George for coming up with a workable test way before the characters did! Smart guy!
Saw this movie on VHS at a friend's house and had to drive home, in the country, at 2AM, in a Canadian blizzard! Longest 12 miles ever! lol
All practical effects, no CGI... Absolutely brilliant work!
Can you believe this is based on a story that was written in 1935?! It was called, "Who Goes There". This version is much closer to the original story than the first movie inspired by it, 1951's "The Thing From Another World"... basically a tall guy in a suit, closer to Frankenstein's monster than anything alien. lol
Great reaction!
Cheers from south-western Quebec!
3:29 - "Is it a space dog that's evil?" earned my subscription. I mean, your everyday, normal space dogs I can handle but evil ones? Nah! Watched this in the cinema back in 82 and it's certainly stood up to the test of time. 16:03 - The comment by a character when he spots the spider-legged head scuttling off is one of my all time fave lines. It's exactly what anyone would exclaim...and you both replicated it in your own words!
lol. I literally laughed out loud!
John W. Campbell wrote the short story Who Goes There? in 1938. In 1951 it was turned into The Thing From Another World directed by the great Howard Hawks. John Carpenter made this classic in 1982 and pretty much closed the door on the others. This movie is amazing. All of the special effects are real and actually happen there in front of the camera. A piece of grotesque beauty. So many great moments in this movie. I love it dearly.
A few things of note:
1: The Things know how to do misdirection. Hence Blair-Thing pointing Mac at Clark, and the shredded clothing with Mac's name. Also, the clothes shredding "rule" itself is a red herring. Just a false assumption.
2: Extended alternate TV opening explains a bit more about the characters. Mac was a chopper pilot in Vietnam. Norris had a heart condition (with the Norris-Thing "playing possum" using the guise of a heart attack).
3: The ship Blair-Thing built is more likely a rocket-sled type of craft to just get to the ocean, so it can jump into the ocean and assimilate the food chain. Given Blair's biomass, and the ability of the Things to separate and re-join, Blair-Thing could simply "break apart" and form a team of worker-things to build multiple parts of the ship at once (and leaving one small one to look outside). Then, re-form into Blair-Thing when the "lookout" noticed people exit the compound. Likely, Blair was assimilated due to that eraser, and was already a Thing by the time of his "freak out" (which was part of his plan to become isolated so he could build the ship).
4: Originally, the movie was to end with Mac and Childs being rescued and tested and both found to be human. But that was felt to be too much of a "happy ending". So, the movie ends with purposeful ambiguity. A masterful decision by the master of cinematic horror.
This movie was a favorite of mine back in '83-'84. I saw an interview with the guy who designed the various incarnation of The Thing, and he was adamant that he was going to make something people had not seen before. Even now, 39 years later, the reactions of you both show how successful he was.
Carpenter's finest Hour,still after 40 years!!!
Greetings from Stuttgart, Germany!
Definately. Although "the fog" has it's 80's charms
The Thing is the mother of all horror movies, a masterpiece.
Back in 82, I saw this and was blown away.
The only thing that's changed over time is more people appreciate Carpenter's The Thing, with SFX that's still as amazing as it was when I first saw this nearly 40 years ago.
It's easy for people nowadays to assume it's digital. It's not. It's 100% practical, real effects.
What a perfect ending. And watching Simone’s gamut of reactions was something lol
I think the kurt russell character was one of those things but he didn't realize it yet.
@@trhansen3244 No Kurt Russell's character is human child's is actually the thing if you pay attention closely you'll remember mccready filled those bottles with gasoline so he hands it to child's to test him and when childs drinks from it hes drinking gasoline therefore telling you hes the monster
Movie Theory: McCready laughs at the end when Childs drinks the bottle. Because he knows the bottle is filled with gasoline. So for Childs to just drink it, gave him his answer whether he was a thing or not.
BTW Rob Botin did the special effects at age 20, his first movie he helmed. Some of the best makeup and practical special effects ever done.
Bit of trivia for the Canadians. Part of this movie was filmed in Stewart, BC.
And another bit of trivia. Before Apple/MS wars, there is a character named Mac and another named Windows (before there was a MacIntosh computer and Windows operating System).
"It tells us nothing"
It actually tells us the exact opposite of no-thing.
A great bit of foreshadowing that only pinball fanatics get is the pinball machine in the rec room.
It's called Heat Wave. On the rear display is a thermometer, the idea of play is to score points to raise the temperature of the thermometer, when it reaches the top, it explodes
Man, this movie is a MASTERPIECE OF HORROR AND SUSPENSE I love it. GREAT REACTION AS ALWAYS YOU TWO
Watching this post covid and I was saying the same things as George during the autopsy "don't put that near your mouth!", also there's a theory that MacReady was infected and went on to infect Childs when he drank from the hip flask, hence the music when Childs took a swig, it's a brilliant movie with a fantastic cast and practical effects, it remains one of my all time favorites in the genre to this day.
1982 was a golden year for movies. So many classics: Blade Runner, Poltergeist, E.T., Conan, Tron, and that's not even a complete list.
We were spoiled back then and we didn't know it!
Dynamite was basically a hardware store item into the 1970s. People used it for removing stumps, digging wells, farmers would clear clogs in irrigation canals, and so on.
It's kind of odd that all you youngin's are surprised by stuntmen being on fire. That was actually a very common stunt back in the day. So much so that celebrities used to perform it just to say they did. They would cover them in insulation and Nomex and then slather them with this fire retardant goo around their heads and necks. Stuntmen used to shoot for timed records to see who could withstand the building heat the longest before tapping out to the fire extinguishers. Now it's mainly done with a few mouse clicks but back then it was the real deal.
What makes it even funnier is her shirt.
It's still quite often done practically. The CG effects used for fire simulation are getting better, but there's still a number of directors and VFX specialists who just really like fire.
The original The Thing From Outer Space from the 1950s had an almost identical scene, in which the creature is set fully aflame and stumbles out into the snow. I think that was one of the first, if not the first time, that the full body on fire stunt was done.
@@f0rth3l0v30fchr15t IMO fire will be harder to make look real then uncanny valley faces.
You can’t beat practical effects. It’s unfortunate that most modern movies today are full of CGI but it’s cheaper. All they care about is the box office profits. A lot of care and pride are traded for profit which is understandable in today’s world
All the stuff they have makes perfect sense. Rifles/shotguns for security and survival hunting in emergencies, flamethrower for clearing ice, dynamite for geological surveying. Landowners around where I'm from have much smaller burners called brush-burners for doing controlled burns to clear brush. I can see a polar research camp keeping a flamethrower around to clear ice.
This is adapted from a short story called "Who Goes There?", and is a remake of a 50's film called "The Thing from Another World"; this and Halloween are a testament to John Carpenter's mastery of horror
"It's the eighties. you gotta be prepared." "What happened in the eighties?" ...you don't even want to know
Simone & George wonder why they're hunting the dog, those of us who have watched this movie before wait for the fun. The fear and paranoia are expertly raised throughout the movie, and the end leaves you with the question are Mac and Childs human or alien. This is almost 40 years old and the practical effects still look good, a testament to the skill of Rob Bottin and his effects team.
This film was based on "The Thing From Another World" which was based on HP Lovecraft's "At The Mountains of Madness" so George was close when he called it an eldritch horror movie at the start of the video.
I think it was adapted from John Campbell Jr's novella "Who Goes There". the monster's the same, the blood test is the same, hell even the names of the characters are the same.
The Thing has absolutely nothing to do with Lovecraft. Rather, it was based on a novella called "Who Goes There?" by John W. Campbell, Jr.
@@mournblade1066 Maybe I'm wrong but I do see strong similarities to the mountains of madness and my English teacher back in high school drew similarities between mountains of madness and Carpenter's The Thing.
@@Twiska Oh, there are definitely similarities. Campbell was a contemporary of Lovecraft (he started publishing in 1930). But Lovecraft was infinitely more pessimistic than Campbell, whose characters are actually able to fight back against the horrors that are presented to them. (Lovecraft's characters usually just go insane.)
Regarding scary things, H.P. Lovecraft (the dad of cosmic horror) had this to say on the matter: _"The oldest and strongest emotion of mankind is fear, and the oldest and strongest kind of fear is fear of the unknown."_ A statement with which I wholeheartedly concur! Thanks for the reaction!
He was also incredibly racist! So "fear of the unknown" was xenophobia!
If you want to know how bad it was, just look up the name of his cat!
Why do they have a flame thrower? To melt ice & snow, burn garbage.
The special effects artist on this film is named Rob Bottin. He was barely in his 20s when he worked on this movie. He was the understudy/apprentice of Rick Baker, who did some special effects for Star Wars '77 & American Werewolf in London to name a few of his credits. Legends of practical make-up effects.
Rob Bottin was like 22 when he made the practical FX for this movie.
Carpenter's best work.
Simone’s “what the fuck” has an energy to it that can’t be matched. 😂
Such a classic film. It's so amazing how they did this without CGI and I love the paranoia about who is infected. You might also want to check The Thing movie from 2011, which is kind of a remake but also a prequel to this film.
One of my favourite theories is that Childs is a Thing by the end of the film. Why? When the other three survivors leave him at the door to check on Blair in the tool shed, Childs was wearing a blue winter coat. At the end where he and MacReady are chillin’ with the fires going out, he’s wearing a grey coat. Why change? Unless ‘he’ had to because his blue one got ripped through…
Amazing bit of attention to detail; when it shows the door with Childs missing, the grey coat he would be wearing at the end of the film is right there, hanging up next to the door. Implying that Childs-Thing went back to get it after being assimilated. I love it when they get the little details right, they can make or break a film for me!
I have never laughed so hard at anyone watching a horror movie. I was in tears! Wonderful reaction.
He actually guessed the petri dish experiment before it happened, which is awesome. Bravo
I am so glad you guys did this one. They filmed this in B.C. as I recall. Those winter shots remind me of my home town of Edmonton during certain winters.
Fun fact, there is a science station in Anarctica that has a 6 month winter season, accessible only by helicopter. When their winter season starts in February (?), they have a The Thing screening before handing it off to the winter team
This is my favorite horror film ever, my dad took me to see this when it came out and I was 14 or so. The blood test scene made me jump so bad I dumped my popcorn all over him. Sorry dad.😂👍
For why they have all that weaponry, you have to remember it's Antarctica.
Flamethrowers are tools used to melt built up ice around the exterior of the base, vehicle treads, etc. Explosives are for removing large amounts of compacted ice for things such as excavation. The guns are a bit more tricky, but I assume it's probably because Antarctica is so barren and isolating. There's no police or standard government services in place because no countries are allowed to own the frozen continent. There are laws, but with all outposts literally hours apart, if something goes wrong it's up to you to defend yourself
This is my favorite movie of all time. The effects are so good and still hold up today! And even if there's a lot of gore and body horror, the best thing about the movie is the atmosphere and how the main horror comes from paranoia and suspense.
I can only conclude you have never seen the movie Jaws.
@@trhansen3244 Of course I have. It's very good, but not even in my personal top ten. I also loathe how it contributed to people starting shark hunting frenzy, as it made people unnecessary terrified of sharks. And that fear still persists today. Which is why I prefer when they don't base movie "monster" on real animals.
@@Fenr The Thing better than Jaws? You should be never be allowed to watch a film again!
@@trhansen3244 You're talking like we're comparing a classic to a burger film. We are not. Both of them are good. You can like Jaws better, I can like The Thing better.
@@Fenr Enough with this nonsense. No movie takes a backseat to Jaws. Certainly not a film by John Carpenter. Jaws is #1. Since I am a generous person, I will put The Thing at #68.
Surprising that they don't grasp why the base would have weapons etc. It's reasonable that they'd potentially have to remove ice or other hazards, not necessarily right at the base, while weapons would be to scare off or even attack any attacking polar bears.
polar bears live in the artic, the movie takes place in antartic. so only penguins.
And THAT'S why the Norwegians wanted to kill the dog. ;)
One of my favorite horror/suspense movies ever, so good! Love your reactions to the effects and gory bits! :)
Also, Norwegians are overwhelmingly cat people.
The guy in charge of the creature and gore effects, Rob Bottin, worked so hard on this movie that he had to go to the hospital for extreme exhaustion.
And the fact that he was only 22 years old when doing this movie is probably even crazier a fact
This is the first part of what is unofficially called Carpenter’s “Apocalypse Trilogy.” The other parts (Prince of Darkness and In the Mouth of Madness) aren’t as good but they are definitely still worth a watch.
Basically each movie deals with a potential or actual apocalyptic threat to humanity. In order it’s an alien, an interdimensional devil type figure and Cthulhu inspired sanity and reality breaking entities. Each one ends ambiguously with the threat either winning or the threat not being conclusively dealt with. Definitely worth checking out.
For a change of pace Carpenter did other genres. In particular “Big Trouble in Little China” and “Escape From New York” are classics.
In my mind "In the Mouth of Madness" is as good as The Thing, but it's quite different... I feel that The Prince Of Darkness is underrated and very forgotten when talking about Carpenter's movies, and it's one of the most interesting.
Anyway, those 3 movies are enough to justify one single career in cinema and imagine, Carpenter has to offer a bunch of other phenomenal ones
I actually think Prince of Darkness is the equal of The Thing.
Blair actually got infected the moment he put the eraser to his mouth after touching the dog remains
Guys you've just watched my favourite scifi horror and I'm so glad you enjoyed it. Most of the practical fx were done by the legendary Rob Bottin. He also did the fx on The Howling (my favourite werewolf film) 😊😊😊
Yeah, Rob Bottin did most of the effects. However, the Kennel Thing was done by Stan Winston. He asked not to be credited, because he was already an established special effects artist, and wanted this to be Rob Bottin's day in the sun.
Practical effects still look better than CGI. You can’t beat an 80s horror movie
"Why do they have a flame-thrower?"
"It was the 80's. It payed to be prepared."
"WHAT HAPPENED IN THE 80's?!?"
I remember watching this when it came out at the Drive in right before I went in the Marine Corps. Good to see it still holds up as a great horror movie. Loved watching your reactions, was wondering if Simone was going to make it through for a minute there :)
Simone: "I miss the dog."
The Thing [makes the dog again at the end]: "Feel better now?"
One of the best reactions to this movie I’ve seen. Your analytics and visceral response was dead on throughout the viewing. This was exactly the type of movie experience that John Carpenter was targeting. Now you understand why the CGI versus practical effects debate rages on. Although this movie was originally a box office flop (had to compete with another extraterrestrial movie E.T.), it has risen to the top of cult classics because of its superior plot, special effects, and suspense. Some don’t like the ending and it’s ambiguity but I would argue that it is genius by design. It’s consistent with the feeling of dread and paranoia that runs rampant throughout the movie. If you can imagine yourself in a theater in 1982 having finished the one hour 49 minute masterpiece only to be subjected to this ending, the perfect musical score, and the roll of the credits. The walk to your car would elicit some interesting thoughts and emotions. The 1991 comic book, The Thing, by dark side publications probably does the best job of continuing the storyline if you have an interest in the “what if” but purists prefer to leave this movie alone as it was intended. I might be in the minority, but it would be great if J.C. Would add a sequel to his bucket list. Can you imagine a 40 plus year separation? Do it while Macready and Childs are still around. Anyhow, you guys have my subscription. Thanks for taking me back to 1982.
I agree but I gotta mention that the ending isn't ambiguous at all if you pay close attention. Childs is the thing, 100% confirmed.
Reasons: Look at the breath of the characters in the last scene (Childs doesn't produce any condensation) and keep in mind that they turned the glass bottles into Molotov cocktails by filling them with gasoline.
McReady never drank from the bottle, he just gave it to Childs. When Childs drinks, you hear the musical queue and after he puts the bottle down he doesn't seem to bother that he just drank pure gasoline. That's why McReady laughs, knowing it's not over.
The reason this film wasn't very successful in theaters is because in the 80's this sort of film was 10 a penny.
There were simply tons of 'alien freak kills people' type of film. It wasn't until it came out on video tape (remember that?) that we all got to see that instead of this being a run of the mill dude in a rubber monster suit it was a work of genius.
The same thing happened with terminator 1.
@@B20C0 Wrong. Watch again. When Childs says "Did you kill it?" you can very clearly see breath vapor. Now, granted, there's not much after that but he clearly shows breath. Like the silhouette in the room being a random crew guy and not any of the actual actors - it's intentionally ambiguous. You can't definitively say one way or the other.
Aiight, look, I do somewhat agree with you on the clues - just saying you do see breath and the drinking is not conclusive so you just never know.
But beyond ALL of that - it just doesn't matter. As long as there were chunks of the blown up megathing that landed far away enough from the fire and froze, you have the makings of another infestation. Damn there should've been a real sequel not a remake/'prequel' with dodgy CGI.
@@B20C0 wrong. the Bennings Thing had visible breath, so Child would had some to(wich He actualy had). Because an Organism wich has such highly active cells has a Very High Body Temperatur. The bottle wasnt proofen to be filled with gasoline. Because you never See this specific bottle being turned in an Molotow. And Carpender himselfe said that the end isnt clear and Up to speculation.
The scene earlier when he was grabbing at his chest was suppose to hint that he had heart issues and therefore died of a heart attack in the later scene
And because he was replicated so perfectly that heart condition was also replicated. The Thing is also kinda dumb that way. Lol.
"Why do they have a flamethrower?"
""It's the 80's."
"What happened in the 80's?"
...
...
Things...
i mean the cold war was a thing so to me it makes perfect sense for them to be armed
One theory for the movie ending when Childs and MacReady are sitting in the snow and it cuts to black, is that Childs is the last Thing. The bottle Mac hands Childs and he takes a drink from is actually a bottle of gas they were using to make molotov cocktails to burn the camp down. So Mac knows that Childs is the Thing and that's why he just smiles and the music keys up.
Also to answer the question of why there are so many weapons in the base. The explosives would be used for mining as it is a research station and removing large quantities of ice would be beneficial. And the flamethrower is for deicing the equipment like the tractor and the helicopter.
Loved this reaction! This is my favorite movie of all time and I watch it every year for Halloween! Cheers!
It's the absolutely amazing practical effects that make this movie. It's too easy today for film makers these days to cop out and use CGI, and that brings the uncanny valley and takes you out of willing suspension of disbelief. The great acting from the cast really finishes it off making it just a brilliant movie.....
Arguments surround the final scene, as the camera switches from Childs to Mac and back again your left wondering at the condensation of Mac's breath indicating the temperature difference with the surrounding cold while Childs breath doesn't condense.
Carpenter's "The Thing" is one of four of his so-called 'apocalyptic films' of the '80s. The others are "Escape From New York" (1981), "Prince of Darkness" (1987) and "They Live" (1988). Definitely do these three as well. The Thing is a remake of the 1951 scifi classic "The Thing From Another World", nowhere near as gory but still frightening to audiences back then.
Actually, the third leg of the Apocalypse Trilogy is the very underappreciated In the Mouth of Madness.
@@Tullaryx Interesting. It was the early 90s we Carpenter fans were calling these four his 80s "apocalypse films". That is before "Mouth of Madness" came out and Carpenter dubbing the three you mentioned as his "Apocalypse Trilogy" in a DVD set.
@@GrouchyMarx not sure if it was the home video studio who set up the trilogy you’re thinking about but Carpenter has confirmed I. Interviews that The Thing, Prince of Darkness and In the Mouth of Madness all share the same apocalyptic theme where the ending is open to interpretation.
@@Tullaryx I heard about the interview. Before that our circle of fans were considering the four I mentioned as such, but this was in the early 90s way before that interview and Mouth of Darkness. In fact, I haven't seen Mouth of Darkness but since you brought it up, I'm intrigued! LOL! I'll have to get it.
Her reactions are so good. The theory at the end is that child’s is a thing and mcready gave him gasoline to drink as they were making Molotov’s earlier and that’s why he laughed
Great review! If you haven't seen them yet, I highly recommend Predator and Event Horizon!!
Yeah Event Horizon and Shallow Grave (very young Ewan McGregor before Trainspotting)
@Leonardo Pereira couldn't agree more! Wish they would have been able to do a director's cut but it sounds like that's impossible because they stored the film incorrectly! Or so I've heard!!
If you ever wondered if they killed The Thing at the end. Look at the breathing when the 2 survivors talk to each other when the ominous music plays.
The prequel (made recently) is also pretty good, though more cgi and less practical effects. Tells the story of what happened at the Norwegian camp.
Not a bad film but, in the end, I only liked it because of Mary Elizabeth Winstead and hoping she would at some point get naked.
I feel like the most underappreciated actor in this movie is the dog I don't know how they trained it to have such a calm and unnerving presence, most people I've seen react to this go from oh no don't shoot or hurt the doggy to being creeped out how it just quietly stalks and watches everyone in the compound
"Why do they have all these weapons?" "Why do they have a flamethrower?"
'Merica!
Also penguins are a lot more dangerous than people want to believe.
To help clear out some hard ice snow. Also why they have many weapons and TNT? Its 82 and the Cold War is still on high alert and there's a Russian base not far from where they are.
@@atariboy9084 - Yeah it makes perfect sense to me to have a flame thrower in a place so cold, that everything freezes up over time.
I think the first transformation in the kennel is the best part, it just blows people away and sets the film up.
Being in a frozen wasteland, a flamethrower could be used to melt ice and snow from out door equipment, or jut to get down to the actual earth in some areas and can be used to create a flat area on the ice when you need it. You could also use explosives to clear or break up ice if needed.
I have no clue if they did those things, but it's not like they had M16 and grenades. Though I have heard of some flamethrower type equipment used to melt the ice to form a crude landing strip.
lol, the title tells you nothing, but it also kinda tells you EVERYTHING!
@7:30 "Why do they have a flame thrower!? It's the 80s, they have to be prepared. What happened in the 80s???!" So funny to compare the initial awkwardness of this reaction with how super polished you guys are now two years later. Love you guys!
The Thing is one of the greatest movies ever. It's so well done.
I know it's not as great, but you guys should check out the 2011 prequel to this movie, also titled, "The Thing." Again it's not as great as this one, but it does a valiant attempt at telling what happened prior to the dog reaching the camp. Actually it tells the story right up to the helicopter scene in the beginning of this movie. Story wise it's a bit rushed, but it's still a good time. They also use mainly CGI in the prequel. Which is really sad, because they hired a company to do all the practical effects, and that company has released what those look like online, and they are amazingly good. It's so sad they went CGI last minute.
Agree it's a good addition for the fans
Nice to see someone understand the Doctor was smashing the electronics to isolate the outpost. Although that stunt when the fire axe goes through the table almost looked like it went wrong judging by how far it penetrated.
"Why is there so much weaponry and explosives out here?" Lol - they're Americans!
Actually, the shotgun and pistols are for Polar Bears. Totally reasonable, nothing to do with nationality. We're all the same here.
@@jacket5456 Not in Antartica! Unless there's some killer penguins on the loose, I think you would be fine.
Flamethrower is for melting ice and snow. Explosives are for digging. The American camp only had Macready's shotgun and 2 revolvers.
Norwegians had quite a bit of explosives and guns too, can't blame United States for everything.
Came in handy though didn't it ?
ROCK ,FLAG AND EAGLE !
Most subarctic temperature places had a flamethrower to quickly melt ice and snow off of vehicles / propeller blades or for melting off and flattening snow areas for helicopters to make supply drops / landings. It wasn't the safest of protocols and was only used under dangerous conditions. That's been replaced by deicer sprays since the late '70s but you can possibly imagine some remote outposts back then still having one or two.
Hello! Thank you for the video!Please pay attention to the young singer Diana Ankudinova.Make reactions to the songs of Wicked game, CAN'T HELP FALLING IN LOVE, Human🌞🌞🌞DIANA ANKUDINOVA is a talented young singer. I would like to know your opinion. I think you will be surprised. Diana has a very unusual voice and artistic presentation for her age.🌹🌹🌹 Thanks in advance
Diana Ankudinova is an amazing singer,her voice fascinates!
Diana Ankudinova 🔥🔥🔥💥💥💥🎉🎉🎉💫💫💫💯
я бы посмотрел реакции на Диану Анкудинову!!!!
Why all the "weaponry?" Well . . . Flamethrowers for de-icing various items, dynamite for getting down to geological layers to study and other "quick-dig" stuff, and firearms . . . Well, just in case. As was said in the very beginning of the movie, "Are we at war with Norway?" Being pretty much where the world ends, one has to be prepared for all eventualities.
Love this movie
I feel like there was a scene of the next morning of a dog running walking away from the camp.
The movie is named for a previous, black and white version of The Thing From Another World released in 1951. Both are based on a novel named "Who Goes There".