New Page

Tuesday, August 2, 2011

The Thing (1982)

Rating: 2/4

A creature-feature from one of the most popular sci-fi and horror movie directors of all time, John Carpenter, is something to get excited for. He has a strong talent for creating shocking, action-packed, patient scares with plenty of gore. Over the years he has become known for his visually strong and always fascinating sci-fi thrillers, which makes it very interesting to watch this film. Those talents are very raw in this film, they are in need of a very lengthy thawing. Die hard horror fans with appreciate this film for its interesting premise and dedication to its title creature. For the rest of us who require more than excessive gore and violent deaths will be disappointed at the overall direction that is taken.

Set in the winter of 1982 at an American Antarctic research station. The research station is alerted by a Norwegian helicopter which is frantically trying to kill a dog. One of the attackers accidentally blows up the helicopter which kills him, the other turns his attack on the residents of the research station who are looking on is puzzlement. George Bennings (Peter Maloney) is grazed by a bullet, Garry (Donald Moffat) kills the last attacker, and the mysterious dog survives. Unable to make any outside contact RJ. MacReady (Kurt Russell) and Dr. Cooper (Richard Dysart) take the risk of going to explore the Norwegian's campsite. They find that the Norwegians discovered some extra-terrestrial spaceship and also tried to hide something by burning a mysterious looking corpse. Another risk is taken when they bring the charred corpse back to the research site. They have no clue what is in store for them.

The Thing does a very good job studying paranoia. Yes, paranoia is the most obvious thing that is featured in horror films, the victims get scared then they die. The Thing is rare in that it actually tries to do a good job at studying paranoia in extreme situations without being too cliche while doing it. Kurt Russell's hot-headed, resourceful  R.J. MacReady proves to be the only character/performance that leaves any real impact, but each character does their job which makes the plot conflicts go quite smoothly. Carpenter's usual directing flair isn't used much. When a plot is used to drive itself with a title character, both need to be more than just on par. A film that leaves its audience in the dark about its plot needs to have flair, Carpenter lacking flair is such a rare occasion. It's a shame that, along with the lack of directing style, Carpenter also goes down the path of using distasteful gore and gross-out visuals to reek his havoc.

Now I have finally reached the ultimate, fatal flaw that makes this film crumble....its title creature. Referred to as "The Thing" the idea of this creature is the only thing appealing about it. An extra-terrestrial being that crash lands on Earth thousands of years earlier. It has the ability to, if given enough time, perfectly mimic any organism it comes in contact with. Trust no one; everyone is your enemy. Two very common themes that are fit perfectly into this film while not adding one lick of originality to it. Ignoring the very intriguing idea of the creature, it is the creation/appearance of it that is the decisive blow.

 Many things came to mind when looking at the various different appearances the creatures takes; it looked along the lines of a boiling zit ready to pop, a slimy insect ready to be squashed, an aborted fetus from Hell,  and a pulsating organ you would imagine being owned by a cancer victim. All very disgusting, unpleasant images. For this film to succeed it needed its creature to be the driving force. It needed to be both scary and memorable, but it only achieved one of those. If you were wondering which one it achieved I can give you one hint; it's not scary. All finds want to be memorable, some ever settle for being memorable for the worst reasons. "The Thing" is memorable because it has the appearance of something more vile than the worst thing to inhabit your dreams.

The Thing achieves its intrigue, at the same time, though, it fails at all scare attempts. I'm not surprised at the characterization, after hundreds of horror films with the exact same characters nothing about characterization in horror films surprises me anymore. What does surprise me is how a film with such an intriguing premise can let itself just stall.

 An ending that just comes and goes is a perfect, while very late, sign that things are a mess. Thriller and horror films are known for using shock/twist endings to make up for potentially dull plots, so I could not help but get excited to see how this disgusting, but still interesting in durations, film would end. But just like all the rest of this film, it comes and goes...




  1. I still reject the idea that The Thing's monster is not scary. Could you name a better horror monster after 1982?

  2. Wow, still not accepting the love for this movie?

  3. Dude this is a horror classic but I see what your getting at. But awesome review dude

  4. I consider this to be a horror classic, so excuse me while I disagree with you, especially the bit about it not being scary. Its still a good review thought, I'll give credit where credit is due.