A pity they couldn't make The Thing a shape shifter like in the original novel. In the original novel "Who Goes There," the Thing replaced about 12 different people. It was like Invasion of the Body Snatchers. But that didn't come out till 5 years later.
shareI have to admit, it is hard for me to feel the sense of terror this film tries to generate simply because I know the monster is Matt Dillon. It's impossible for me to shake the connection from my head, and seeing Groucho Marx's announcer as one of the scientists doesn't help matters either.
shareI didn't think the movie was scary either. Sorry to say. I liked it, but it could've been better. If only they made it like the original novel instead of just a monster movie. The scene when they try to burn him was pretty thrilling and pretty cool. But if only they made it like Body Snatchers with the Thing taking over the camp. Would've been way more suspenseful. We didn't get this kind of suspense until Invasion of the Body Snatchers. The Thing from Another World was a monster movie. But could've been more.
shareI disagree. This is one of the best, and scariest, movies of its kind ever made. It's also one of the best-written and -directed (and yes, Howard Hawks directed, not Christian Nyby) films of any kind of its era. It's intelligent, thoughtful, with enjoyable characters and terrfic dialogue.
The only reason they didn't use the "shape-shifter" theme of the novel is that in 1951 this was beyond the technical ability of motion pictures to do properly: Hawks looked into it but it would have looked too fake with the cinematic techniques then available. His substitute conception is just as intelligently conceived, well-made and scary, because of the quality of the production.
For anyone to say that it's not convincing because they saw the actor in a better-known role is silly. Most people have no problem getting into the story and the acting. The comparison to Invasion of the Body Snatchers is inaccurate. The stories are different and with a different set-up, and the "possession" is of a different nature as well. Given the realities of film in 1951, I don't see how this movie could have been improved. It's adult, far more tense and a lot more interesting and complex than the mindless gore-fest from 1982. (I haven't seen the remake, but it doesn't sound promising.)
I disagree. This is one of the best, and scariest, movies of its kind ever made.
I agree with your disagreement. :-)
I was in the Navy at the Key West Sonar School when this first came out and hit the base movie house to see it. The only disappointment was I recognized Matt Dillon, but otherwise thought it was great. Went to see it again and turned around to watch the audience when the creature appeared at the door and withdrew his arm, scattering wood chips. The audience, as one, recoiled backwards at that scene, looking as if a blast of air moved them all back.
One the guys guys I was going to school with bragged about how tough he was and "stuff like that doesn't scare me". I took him to the movie, and we sat in the first row with the kids. When that door-opening scene appeared, he put his hands to his face and SHRUNK in his seat. I laughed all the way back to the barracks.
Still a great watchable movie today and I much prefer it to Carpenter's version.
It's adult, far more tense and a lot more interesting and complex than the mindless gore-fest from 1982.
My problem with Carpenter is that he usually resorts to gore or other cheap tricks when actual creativity deserts him. I don't object to gory scenes as long as they're well done and clearly play a part in the plot, and while this is the case to some extent in the '82, much of it is just excess for the sake of excess. Add to this that the characters in the remake are mostly a bunch of disagreeable jerks. The script is dreadful, with little trace of real wit, humor or intelligence. About the only thing the remake has going for it is that it is more or less faithful to the short story, Who Goes There?, on which it's based.
Also, Carpenter simply isn't in Howard Hawks's league as a director. He has his skills, but he's more adept at inadequately ripping off other people's work than in coming up with novel or interesting ways of doing something new. In fact, I think Carpenter has more talent than most of his films show, but too often he squanders it by being lazy and indulging the most mindless instincts of his audience instead of relying on intelligence and ingenuity.
It's the script of the 1951 film, and how Hawks puts it across with his actors, that really makes it great. It's intelligent, smart and sophisticated, none of which applies to the remake. But more than that, the actors, as well as the characters, are more likeable, and the somber b&w photography sets a sinister mood the brightly colored remake can't match.
The '82 isn't terrible but I still think it's not very good. Perhaps one reason it seems better today than it did 30 years ago is that so much that's come since is so awful that the 1982 film seems restrained by comparison.
Anyway, to each his own. In the end, it's all a matter of personal taste and opinion. And at least we all seem to agree that the 1951 original is a great film!
100% agreement about the script and it boggles the mind that its detractors say it is "too talky and slow paced". The dialogue is first rate, the pacing perfect, and the atmosphere chilling (pun intended).
"Alien" tends to get lot of credit for its use of the less-is-more concept, but this film, along with "It: The Terror From Beyond" perfected it almost 30 years before.
It may be Hawkes only foray into sci-fi, but it’s a masterful one.
.
Agreed on all points.
The funny thing is that among his friends and colleagues Hawks had the reputation of being a congenital liar (promising things he never delivered on) and someone who always grabbed credit for other people's contributions to his films. He had promised his longtime editor Christian Nyby a shot at direction (he had also promised Ken Tobey a leading role after meeting him on the set of I Was a Male War Bride), and to everyone's surprise, he actually made good on these promises. But of course Nyby was in over his head and so Hawks in fact directed virtually all of The Thing, with Nyby basically standing around.
Yet despite all the acclaim the film received, for once Hawks always refused to publicly take the credit for a directing job everybody knew he'd actually done. But neither did he ever absolutely, unequivocally deny that he'd directed it; nor did Nyby ever claim without qualification that he'd helmed the film. All of which only serves to confirm the truth. But it also shows that Hawks did, for the most part, value Nyby and never tried to completely rob him of his one claim to fame.
Of course, further proof is that Nyby showed few directing skills in the handful of films and TV shows he actually did direct in later years. And immediately following The Thing, he was back as film editor on Hawks's The Big Sky. Tobey almost got the second lead in that one, but ultimately Hawks went with Dewey Martin, who had impressed him in The Thing.
The first time I saw Alien, I yelled, "It! The Terror From Beyond Space!" Even the ending was a rip-off. Both were good, but neither matches The Thing From Another World.
"The first time I saw Alien, I yelled, "It! The Terror From Beyond Space!" Even the ending was a rip-off...."
You remind me of an article written in 'Starlog' a bazillion years ago...somebody referred to Alien as "Alien: It's the terror from beyond the planet of the vampires"--given it copped a couple of elements from both movies (the alien skeleton from PotV)
Love it! Love It!
shareI've never seen Planet of The Vampires, but from watching a trailer for it, it appears to have something in common with Carpenters "The Thing" to. It appears the vampires are taking over the bodies of the crew members.
As far as "IT!The Terror From Beyond", i've always felt that Alien is the same Damn movie! Although i find "Alien" a better movie, and i love it personally, it is an out and out rip off and this fact is never pointed out by the film makers. I first saw "It" as a young kid, and the scene where they find the crew member in the shaft near death with his bloodless face scared the living you know what out of me!! That image stayed with me for God knows how long.
.