Well, The Thing has won about every award FMWL has ever had, so the list certainly wouldn't be complete without it. Why it's ONLY number nine on the list is a much more difficult conversation for me to have with y'all. John Carpenter's film has long been a favorite of mind and I can't find a single friggin' technical flaw with the thing. I think that maybe sometimes it feels too sterile and not as human as some other horror films...but I've also argued at times that that's the point.
The Moment That Changes Everything:
From the first "bum-bum" of the Ennio Morricone musical score, the tension in The Thing is pretty darn high. But I can't deny that the film hits the lightning round of suspense right around the time the men perform their test to see who is "one of them." It's got manly debate, gooey special effects, people tied to a (expletive deleted) couch, and a flame thrower. What more can a scene offer?
It Makes a Great Double Feature With:
The Thing is a remake of a very good movie, The Thing From Another World. 1978's Invasion of the Body Snatchers is also a remake and also a tale of shape-seizing invaders, and it's also a pretty effective chiller. I prefer the 1955 version of the story, but it's a better double feature with the 1951 The Thing. Heck, just watch all four of 'em and thank me later. (And then cap it off with Abel Ferrara's 1993 Body Snatchers for dessert.)
What It Means To Me:
John Carpenter has long been my second favorite director in the history of the world (Alfred Hitchcock can not be challenged, unfortunately), and The Thing has always been among his most profound works to me. I often find myself preferring some of his more lighthearted films, but when pure craftsmanship is the topic then this one just has to be part of the conversation. It's universally loved for a reason, and it's a true must see for anyone interested in horror. The only problem is...so are the next 8 movies I'll list.
(Had to change the title of the review just so we know it's a prequel...and Attack of the Clones would have been too easy.)
The dreaded task of following a classic falls squarely on the shoulders of The Thing this October, despite the filmmakers' insisting that the film is actually a prequel to John Carpenter's 1982 masterpiece that basically everyone who's ever watched a horror movie loves. As is the case with every horror movie that comes down with a case of same-title-itis, comparisons to the preceding film are near impossible to avoid. I certainly won't be able to write any of this without referencing Carpenter's film, and I apologize for that in advance.
The thing about The Thing - and when I say The Thing in this review I mean the 2011 version of The Thing, not the 1982 or 1951 versions which FMWL has already talked up - is that I want to say nice things about The Thing. The idea of showing us what happened before the creature made its way to U.S. Outpost 31 where it encountered Kurt Russell's beard is a good one, and the first act of the prequel really had me convinced that this film could pull off something on its own. The characters are decently developed, we're given a strong-willed female protagonist (who is played well by Mary Elizabeth Winstead), and the film retains a lot of the atmosphere of Carpenter's film. Most of that retention comes from simple things - ranging from the use of what I call "Carpenter font" for titles to the wardrobe and set design to the original film's musical score - but these little things go a long way to making us feel comfortable about the film.
Unfortunately, there are plenty of flaws in the film too - and you don't need to know the original film to see them. The most blatant offense comes from the overuse of computer generated effects, which are - for lack of a better term - pretty terrible. Viewers who aren't familiar with Carpenter's film will most likely be put off by the monsters that the film creates with these effects, and they're even more likely to have a negative effect on those who are familiar with Rob Bottin's work on Carpenter's film. The practical Thing of that film is long gone, and the prequel overdoses on tentacle-fu throughout the film.
While the film goes overboard on monster action, it loses a lot of the paranoid frenzy of Carpenter's film. Winstead's character tries to be a ringleader in pointing out the fact that no one can trust each other throughout the film - perhaps because she's listening to Men At Work's classic hit "Who Can It Be Now?" when we meet her - but the film often tips its hand by simply having a character explode into a mass of tentacles and teeth. The film states that it is an adaptation of the novella "Who Goes There?" and not the films that preceded it, but it troubles me that this Thing is so quick to step away from the psychological tension that Carpenter's film took from that story. To be fair, I haven't read that story....but I doubt it had so many scenes that feel like badly mutated scenes from Jurassic Park.
I really wanted to come home and defend this movie. It's a good idea that's mostly well acted (Eric Christian Olson should have never been allowed on set) and is well produced and feels like a unique take on the story that's already produced two unique classics. Oh, and it sounds really good too - the music and sound effects had me in chills a couple of times, particularly when the Thing started shrieking. Regardless, the movie loses its way as it moves on and just becomes an effects movie - which is a bad thing when the visual effects aren't any good.
Honestly, I think fans of Carpenter's movie might be more forgiving to this film than the general public. There's a lot of nostalgia to be had in those little things - including a nice mid-credits sequence that ties the film to U.S. Outpost 31 - and the fans will surely get a kick out of those moments. I really think there is a place for this script in The Thing universe, and that a story headed by Winstead's strong character and the Norwegian outpost's crew could have worked as its own film - it's just frustrating to see that the film couldn't put everything together and hold its early momentum.
So yeah, I can't defend this Thing. If I squint really hard I can see the charm of Carpenter's classic behind it, but the overuse of the creature's alien form and the dumbed down scientific and psychological sides of the film are a bit insulting. The film sums itself up perfectly when it suggests a blood test like the one that was one of the highlights of the original film, then cuts corners and uses discussion of dental hygiene to separate the real from the unreal. The folks behind the movie didn't give the audience the credit they deserved, and their simplified version of The Thing's story falls flat due to their missteps.
Though it's about to be further concealed by a prequel to its famous remake - which is one of the best flicks ever in its own ridiculously awesome way and was voted FMWL's 2010-2011 Midnight Movie of the Year - The Thing From Another World still makes my socks rock sixty years after the fact. The 1951 film shows it age at times, but that charm that once inspired John Carpenter and a whole generation of horror and sci-fi fans still shines through in plenty of ways.
One of the first studio examples of the flying saucer genre that would dominate movie screens in the 1950s, The Thing From Another World is also a movie that represents some of horror's best traits. Adapted loosely from Joseph Campbell's novella - whose monster resembles the shapeshifting terror of Carpenter's Thing - the elder version of the story gives us a straight-laced military crew, a few scientists, one wonderful broad, and a hulking stalker from outer space.
While this Thing certainly plays to the strengths of its era - the characters definitely present themselves with that "aw shucks" charm our generation expects from classic cinema - there are a lot of interesting things going on inside the film. One of those things is probably not the male characters - the slightly comedic reporter character is a little fun, and the doctor looks like what you'd expect a super science guy to be these days - who are one note cliches. I once argued that Carpenter's version of The Thing needed characters who we don't know too well so they could be interchangeable within a tale where no one can be trusted, but the original takes a much straighter approach to its characters. The Captain's a captain, the doctor's a doctor, the reporter's a reporter....and everyone else is just pretty much there.
But there is one wild card in The Thing From Another World's hand - female station hand Nikki Nicholson, played by Margaret Sheridan. First glance might present her as your average Jill Friday in an old movie, but there's an edge to the character that reeks of producer/possible-director Howard Hawks' involvement. We're introduced to her via a discussion of her embarrassing the romantically interested captain during a previous affair, in which she apparently outdrank the heroic soldier AND managed to not have sex with him. Their relationship throughout the film evolves into smoking together, drinking together, and even a small dose of bondage - and I don't think I need to tell you that that wasn't exactly commonplace in 1950s cinema. So yeah - I kind of love this tough chick character who was randomly thrown in to the movie. She's literally decades ahead of her time.
Actually there are two wild cards in the film's hand, because you can't really ignore the nearly seven-foot tall man beast that is loosed upon the Alaskan military facility in the film's second act. Though the title creature is kept off screen for much of the film, he's always near the film's proceedings. Some sort of device that's kind of like that alien detector from Alien comes in handy in a few scenes, and other moments obscure our view of him using the elements. One of the best examples comes when the newly unthawed Thing battles with the sled dogs outside the camp, and the viewer only sees flailing limbs as the dogs make the kind of noises you never want to hear from dogs. Dogs played a different role in Carpenter's version, but both films use them as a tool to make the viewer concerned about The Thing and just how brutal it is.
Though some of the sciency talk has always gone over my head - seriously, I couldn't tell you the difference between a zygote and orange marmalade - I kind of like the original Thing's monster. Though it only comes in one shape (that of future Gunsmoke star James Arness), the weird connection between this alien lifeform and plants adds something to the proceedings. There's that weird scene where the doctor listens to a bunch of bulbs with heartbeats using a stethoscope and lots of talk of cell structure and other sciency things, which creates a unique kind of alien that hasn't been matched often in horror or sci-fi cinema. I think the message of the film is that this lumbering beast is kind of a cross between Little Shop of Horrors and Frankenstein, and I dig that.
That's another thing about this Thing - the script is both smart and sharp. The adaptation by Charles Lederer is alleged to have been "touched up" by both Hawks and famous screenwriter Ben Hecht (whose amazing Hollywood career simply can not be summed up by me naming only one movie here), and it features some of the coolest moments in sci-fi. I've already discussed Nikki - who seems to have come right out of Hawks' epic comedy His Girl Friday - but other parts of the film provide interesting nuggets of dialogue and surprising doses of humor. The most famous call from the film is the final "Keep watching the skies!" commentary from the reporter - which has been a sci-fi staple ever since, but there are other bits and pieces of explanation that really strike a chord, even with modern audiences. Perhaps my favorite random moment in the script comes when the Doctor proclaims "At 12:10 AM, the hand became alive" while reporting his findings while working with remnants of The Thing. It's such a simple moment, but it shows where The Thing's writers - whoever they were - had their heads. And it might even show how much they wanted to surprise us.
I know we're supposed to look back at The Thing From Another World as simply a template that led to Carpenter's classic these days, but I'm sitting here and thinking there's a lot more to this bit of sci-fi monster mania than people often remember. Comparing Hawks' production (which I should mention is credited to director Christian Nyby) to Carpenter's film isn't really a valid move in my book, as these two films are unique in many ways. So when you're considering Carpenter's film and the newfangled prequel/remake/premake that's hitting screens as I type - don't forget where things started. Because The Thing From Another World is a classic too, and I think it still has a lot to offer the genre fan today.
Well, the day is here. What was once the entire field of '80s horrors films was narrowed down to 31, then the first 26 films on the list were revealed, then five omissions were sadly unveiled....and then, there were five.
No more words....let's see my five favorite '80s horror films...NOW.
I've had this argument before, as it seems most consider Gremlins to be a great '80s film but not a great horror film. I refuse to acknowledge their argument. It's a film about little monsters terrorizing a town that brings the fears of the 1950s into the '80s and does so in a fantastic manner. It's got monster splatter, it's got a town terrorized, it's got inventive kills, and it's even got one of the best monologues on human horror that's ever been put on film. It is a horror film...and it's a great one.
4. An American Werewolf in London
(1981, Dir. by John Landis.)
OK, there's a slight theme developing here in my top 10. It seems that I love a) throwbacks to the monsters gone by, and b) a bit of humor with my horror. Oh, and c) would have been Jenny Agutter and d) would be the overuse of songs with "moon" in the title. But there's no arguing against Landis' shocking horror comedy, which has only gotten better with age. I mean, who didn't want to be David Naughton when they grew up? I KNOW I DID. And the makeup effects were so good that they invented an Oscar for them. I know I bring that up every time I talk about this movie, but it's like the LeBron doesn't have six championships argument - it's the only one I need.
3. The Evil Dead
(1981, Dir. by Sam Raimi.)
Despite the way we all think about Bruce Campbell now, we need to remember that this one does not, I repeat NOT, fall into that "humor with my horror" category. Though we look back at the film and smile, there's really nothing that funny about The Evil Dead, the film that made us realize that trees could rape and bodily fluids didn't have to be liquidy and red. It's kind of like Hellraiser in the sense that it's an endurance test...but it's also really fun and kind of timeless. Whenever I need gore, this is the place I start.
2. Fright Night
(1985, Dir. by Tom Holland.)
If you think I'm overcompensating on this one because an awful looking remake is on its way, you're dead wrong. In fact, the last time I made this list in December of '09 - thank God none of you actually read the site back then! - I had it as my favorite of the decade. I've had a soft spot for Fright Night for a long, long time, and I can still vividly remember watching that crazy scene with the impaled Evil Ed when I was a very young Mike. It's one of the horror movies that has definitely shaped my life, and it'll always be one of my favorite horror films and one of my favorite films in general.
1. The Thing
(1982, Dir. by John Carpenter.)
Maannnnnnnnnn....I didn't want to let you be number one, The Thing. You win EVERYTHING. But....I guess you are just that good.
Gosh, what else is there to say about you, The Thing. Everyone loves you. You've proven to be timeless thanks to your atmospheric setting, due to your ambiguous and haunting ending, due to your jaw dropping special effects, and - of course - due to Kurt Russell's beard. You literally have everything a horror movie should have, and I'm not sure if there's a way I could have voted against you....even if you aren't very '80s. I mean, would it have killed you to throw in a ballad or two?
I kid, I kid. But I don't kid about The Thing....because it's the winner of the number one spot again. Let us grow beards and rejoice in its name!
It is finished. By a vote of 14-9, after what seems like a lifetime of FMWL's Midnight Madness Tournament, one film has outlasted 63 others to become our grand champion. In fact, you could say it assimilated those 63 films, because the winner is....
John Carpenter's The Thing
I'm not particularly surprised by this result. Not only was it the tournament's overall top seed (due to its 8.2/10 rating on IMDB), it's also one of the most unanimously loved horror films out there. The gorehounds love it for its effects, classic horror fans love its bleak setting, women love its Kurt Russell beard, etc. There's next to no downside to the film.
Much lauding must also go to Evil Dead II, our runner up, which made a good run as the last Midnight Movie of the Week I picked before starting the tournament. I must admit that I picked it for that spot with the tournament in mind, so its run to the championship matchup didn't surprise me either.
On the other hand, I loved the way things shook out - thanks to the fantastic list of folks who helped pick the winners! - especially with the likes of Spider Baby, The Entity, and Killer Klowns from Outer Space (despite much controversy!) making their way deep into the tournament. And, though I might have pushed the likes of Predator toward the finals - I can't argue with the result.
And so it is. John Carpenter's The Thing is FMWL's 2010-2011 big thing. May it proudly grace the sidebar until a new champion comes forth to steal its throne.
Or maybe it'll just wait here for a while.... see what happens....
If you talk to anyone who loves horror movies these days, you're bound to hear John Carpenter's The Thing brought up. I think it might just be the most well-respected and admired horror film released in my lifetime...and I was barely a year old when it was released. However, it was originally panned by critics and viewers, who threw around phrases like "foolish, depressing, overproduced" and "the quintessential moron movie of the 1980s" and "a wretched excess". One critic even went so far as to say that John Carpenter's film was "sacrificing everything at the altar of gore". Today, I view all these quotes as examples of why film criticism is often a worthless exercise in snobbery.
I must admit that The Thing is a film I never really understood in my younger years. As a student of cinema, I read reviews like those and dismissed the film as something I should wait on. When I finally did see it, with my Fasha, I was more confused than anything else. The film offered a simple enough premise...twelve men trapped without rescue while an unseen force terrorizes them. But what really left me baffled were the characters in Carpenter's film. Aside from Kurt Russell and his beard, and that guy from the Quaker Oats ads, I had a ton of trouble keeping tabs on who the heck they were inside The Thing's world.
As the poster behind Kurt and beard states above...they aren't labeled. We learn that one of them is the doctor, and that one is the pilot, and that one is in charge of the radio. We learn names, but never through introductions. After all, these are twelve guys in a confined environment, and why would they have to introduce themselves? They already know who they are. It's as if the movie just happened upon their camp, and they went on with their daily lives. As a viewer, I was kind of baffled...and sometimes I still am. I looked at the photo below just now and quickly realized that - even though I've seen the movie at least a dozen times in the last twelve years - I'm not exactly sure who the guy over Mr. Quaker's left shoulder is. (If I had to guess right now, I might say Fuchs.) Not only are the characters nonchalantly referenced throughout Carpenter's film, but the viewer is never given any background information on any of these characters. This really baffled me. Why should I care what happens to Bennings if the only thing I know about him is that he plays cards? I know Russell's R.J. Macready (who, unlike most of the cast, is at least given initials as a first name) is cool because of his beard, but shouldn't I know a little more about him? Is he married? Does he like cats? Has he ever beaten that "cheating bitch" of a chess computer? (Note from the "cheating bitch" chess computer: I'm afraid I can't let him do that, The Mike.) But with a few more viewings (because each attempt to figure out who was who left me feeling more wonderful about the film),something struck me like a hammer to the temple. Others had been trying to tell it to me, but I was as dense to this fact as Keith David is when being told to wear sunglasses.
The thing about The Thing is that we need these men to be on an equal playing field. For the film to live up to the question of "Who Goes There?" once posed by author Joseph Campbell, we can't have any hints tipping us off as to who is on either side of The Thing's infection. If the film had added extra personality to these characters, we might have had an easier time spotting changes in characters' behaviors or emotions. We might have become upset when a character who we liked became a victim. We might have made human connections - but that's not what the movie is about. By not providing this data to the viewer, the film leaves us wondering more about the force that's after these men than the men themselves. This allows Carpenter's film to sacrifice nothing - and to become one of the most unpredictable, open-ended horror films of all-time. We like to think we know what's going on when the credits finally do roll, assisted by Ennio Morricone's subliminal score, but there's little in the film that gives us reason to believe one party over the other. Many have offered commentary about the characters' actions, the characters' locations, and even the characters' races; but the fact is that none of us can really know "Who Goes There". John Carpenter and screenwriter Bill Lancaster never give us enough information to really know anything about the characters and the Thing that is after them. While that might be frustrating to someone looking for a human drama, like those critics (and I) were, it allows The Thing to become a paranoia filled bit of unease that will keep any viewer thinking.
If that's a "moron movie", I'm afraid I'm a proud moron.
If you have questions or suggestions not regarding a specific review, or would like to recommend a movie to The Mike, feel free to email him at frommidnightwithlove(at)gmail(dot)com!
Also, please leave feedback at the bottom of reviews by checking one of the boxes, or by leaving a comment! Any feedback that can help improve the site or reviews is much appreciated!
Posts
