Sci-Fi Classic Review: THE THING (1982)
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 26 ส.ค. 2024
- John Carpenter's The Thing is more true to the story, but it was a failure when it released. Nevertheless, it is a cherished sci-fi classic today.
www.emagill.com/
/ emagill
Sci-Fi Classic Review: THE THING FROM ANOTHER WORLD (1951)
• Sci-Fi Classic Review:...
Written reviews:
John Carpenter's The Thing - www.emagill.com...
"Who Goes There?" by John Campbell - www.emagill.com...
The Thing from Another World - www.emagill.com...
The Thing (2011) - www.emagill.com...
"The Things" by Peter Watts - www.emagill.com...
Free Realistic Snow Overlay by Kosmos Motion Graphics
vimeo.com/kosmosvj/free-snow-overlay
Nothing better then watching this movie during a snowy night with the window open a crack to hear the wind
All them critics should have been fired for hating the greatest movie ever made
What, you mean Roger Ebert? Nah, I agree with him. This is NOT the greatest movie ever made.
What an absolute classic. Love how in depth you got about the behind the scenes stuff and talked about that side of things along with its impact and reception. Interestingly put mate.. Also the fact that a 21 year old made the practical effects freaks me THE FUCK OUT as a 24 year old if I'm being honest 😂
Loved this commentary! Very well done. I agree with your opinion about the theories!
Glad to know that The Thing found its audience on home video and television!
This movie haunted the crap out of me.
I don't think the film deserved the negative reaction in 1982, even if it is several years ahead of its time in terms of graphicness. And Carpenter's career should not have suffered in the way that it did. Reading one of the Lancaster drafts, it's clear that the film needed something extra in terms of the creature. The script climax felt a bit standard. Reviewers in 1982 felt that Carpenter had lost focus/balance when he saw what Rob Bottin was capable of producing. That was the other extreme. As genuinely terrifying as the film is, dwelling on the transformation effects produces logical issues. The spider-thing should have been visible sooner to the characters, as there is only one door in the medical room and the camera seems to switch orientation within the room half-way through that scene, so it seems there are two doors. I always found the shot with Russell in the foreground and the spider-thing scuttling away behind him to be very confusing for this reason. Something was clearly not right spatially. Palmer-thing wastes a lot of time attacking Windows, while ignoring the other four humans (especially the three very vulnerable humans). Also, the heart-attack and blood test scenes reach a level of shock and intensity that the actual climax can't approach. Jerry Goldsmith turned down the offer to score 'The Thing'. Morricone's score always surprises me when I re-watch the film, as I keep forgetting just how effective it is (not just the synth intro theme).
I remember when I first saw this movie (rented on VHS) I did so with trepidation, knowing John Carpenter's love of "scare the shit out of you" movie making. Yes, it did scare the shit out of me and yes, it was gory but what a blast. When finished, I rewound and watched it again. Have yet to see Kurt Russell give a bad performance, in anything.
This was an absolute top notch remake of the original. Always loved the 50s films but this remake just knocked it out of the park! The creep factor of the music is also horror inspiring. John Carpenter ROCKS!
Often these days you hear the debate of which movie sequel is better than the original--Empire Strikes Back usually ends in a photo finish with Godfather 2--but sometimes people talk about remakes that are better than the original--Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1978) usually tops the list, but I think that films like The Fly and this film both work better in both versions. Let me explain. The original Fly film is seen today as campy, but when released people were less jaded than they are today, and the idea of science run amok was a newish concept. Today people imagine that such a thing as an individual scientist (as seen in both versions) working in secret and out of his house or personal space is quaint and slightly ridiculous. This is a product of modern society focusing on BIG science (Google, Microsoft) rather than on the individual 'madman' as we saw in the films--especially the B films--of the 50s and 60. I mean who can forget the films like the one where a Mad Scientist working out of his home in a swamp transforms people who stumble upon his 'lab' into huge alligator-like creatures that he then disposes of by throwing them into his pool where they are eaten by real alligators. But in the real world (with the exception recently of Human Centipede) these types of men are not the focus any longer--even though it might be a good idea to focus a few films on those Mad scientists who are working alone in their mother's basement on developing AI. These men (many of them geeks who were not accepted at school) harbor resentment and it can be imagined that they would develop AI aimed at getting revenge upon the Alpha Males who mocked the 'researchers' while they were in High School. Still, in the realm of remakes, let's look at how both the originals and the remakes can be equal. As mentioned the original Fly was stark and well-acted. The idea of a man working to make a pre-Star Trek teleporter and accidentally blending his DNA with that of a fly was--at the time--HORRIFIC. Flies were then, as they are today, seen as filthy and mixing a human with one was a revolting idea. Sure, the special effects in the remake are superior, it is still the idea that arose in the earlier film that makes the first one equal to the remake. With Invasion of the Body Snatchers, the original is just as good as the 78 remake because at the time the CONCEPT was new and scary. Also, at the time society was moving away from the rural lifestyle and into embracing City Life. City Life was still, at the time, an alien existence for many, and both older and younger viewers could see the alien influence of City Life on their small town life. Kids wanted to leave home to find adventure and success in the City, while the parents and grandparents sought to cling to their values and way of life. Thus, at the time of it's release the original was just as good as the remake, and both hold up today. There are other remakes that are as good as the original--Carrie is not one of them--and for mostly the same reason. When the films first came out, the Thing for example, America was celebrating the military that had just defeated the National Socialists in Germany, and at the time Americans were proud of the military and of the recognition that America was receiving around the world as the New World Leader. Thus, at a time when Patriotism was not frowned upon the first Thing--where the military men are the Heroes--is as good as the remake.
Saw this on Cbs 35 years ago at age five then saw it again on video at twelve and been one of my faves.
I even own the two disc shout scream factory blu and universal ultrahd 4k disc.
Still the best adaptation of who goes there
I would like to see a review of Starship Troopers. if one has not already been made.
I wonder which would win in a deathmatch: This version of the thing or a xenomorph from the Alien franchise?
I always felt Childs was a Thing at the end because he so nonchalantly drank from a whisky bottle that Mac had just drank from. Hence Mac's cynical laugh: it confirms what he thought. But in the end as he says, there's nothing much he can do about it. This also echoes the beginning of the film when, while losing at chess to the computer, he dumps whisky into the computer, short circuiting it. He "wins". By exposing Childs as one of the Things, he also "wins", at least in his own game of deduction. But in the end, only the Thing wins: it'll just fall asleep again. Needless to say this film blew me away the first time I saw it on cable in the 1990s (I also saw the weird narrated version on USA one night and was like wtf) and I sprinted to pick it up on DVD when it first came out.
I was underwhelmed by this movie the first time I saw it because it didn't lead me to care about any of the characters, but I've come to appreciate it for being the squickfest it is. As far as I'm concerned, Rob Bottin is the star.
I found the Carpenter version of The Thing to be disturbingly grotesque to the point that it was difficult to watch. It was difficult to root for any of the characters as they expressed no comradeship, no concern for each others safety. This was a keep component of the Hawk's version. Why they would shoot to kill the Norwegian shooting at the dog is also a mystery. Obviously after his teammate was killed in the copter explosion,, why not shoot to incapacitate him and find out what it was all about? I will say that this new version of The Thing was indeed more true to the short story it it is based on.
Don't you just love it when the critics, who always moan about movies being ''dumbed down'', finally get a thinking-mans movie and then universally (no pun intended) condemn it for being too realistic (because presumably a shape changing alien would be bloody horrific). And no CGI to ruin the party!
and the cells of the thing can also remember different genetic structures, right?
so a wolf creature could turn (in theory) into cat, then into a human and then into a wolf again. is it like that?
Yeah, maybe.
Watched this a few weeks ago and thoroughly enjoyed it. Way better than I expected. That head with legs is freaky. CGI effects can be great but I doubt they could beat some of the physical stuff here.
I have to say I didn't much care for this version of the 1951 film (although you DO say they are both in different categories altogether), as I found it much too "grotesque" (to use your word), less intellectual, and almost entirely devoid of character development. Plus, it gave me nightmares for days, as I don't do well with horror films (don't EVEN get me started on "Creepshow," especially "The Crate" vignette). By contrast, I found "Alien" (a similar film to this) more intellectually engaging and not so revealing of its more horrific elements - with the exception of John Hurt's "chest burster" scene. For those reasons, I found that film more palatable than this. But then there's no accounting for "taste," 'mIright?
Never apologize for "taste." 😎
so if the thing bites or touches you, you will be transformed into another thing. but can the thing that has bitten/touched you transform itself into a copy of yourself??
Good question. In the movie, it seems like no, it would need to wholly consume you before it can copy you, but then again, maybe a lot of the plot questions could be explained by the thing copying people who are still alive.
@@TheUnapologeticGeek
🤔🤔