Perhaps John Carpenter's greatest achievement besides "Halloween", this is a remake of 1951's "The Thing from Another World" but more true to the original story "Who Goes There" that spawned that movie. Kurt Russell with Keith David (Goliath from "Gargoyles" and "Spawn") and lovable Quaker Oatmeal spokesperson Wilford Brimley (Without his mustache) with Richard Dystrat (Coliostro from Spawn the animated series) all give brilliant performances as five men who discover an old spaceship in the arctic as a parasitic creature is infecting some of them leaving paranoia at hand.

Very disturbing, well acted and gory yet thrilling Sci-fi horror shocker that bombed at the box-office due to E.T. and Poltergeist being bigger. The critics and some audiences at the time in 1982 weren't too kind to this, i guess audiences wanted friendly aliens instead of mean ones and i think audiences prefered to see an old fashion ghost story called Poltergeist instead of a gross-out freakshow. In time since 1983 it's been a must watch movie on video, DVD, Laserdisc, Blu-Ray, and cable as it was a hit even in the sales and rentals as it's hailed as a classic of both genres.

I loved this movie since i was 17 in 1998 when i rented it on video, it's definitely one of my favorite movies of all time as it still scares, shocks, horrifies and provokes today.

You're a very odd person. Since you've been here, you've made several top 10's, made some of the most odd ball topics, and even went on a binge about Japanese Porn.

And yet, not once have you tried to kill Spider-Man.

I'm disappointed.

I have to agree with LioConvoy. Greengoblin, you're extremely random, although I agree with your review of that ancient movie. It's one of my all-time favorites.

Aaagh.

T.T Only movie I've ever watched that's given me nightmares.

So scary.

I quite enjoy "Who Goes There?". I should probably see the movie sometime.

I'm appalled APPALLED that you've never seen The Thing!

To be honest, I generally just don't read GG's posts and respond only to the other replies in the thread. Makes life more endurable, that way.


Anyhow, John Carpenter's "The Thing" rocks out loud, yes. Fantastic movie with some jawsome Keith David action, too.

The original "Thing from Another World" is a pretty great flick, too, and very different from the remake. It's more of a mystery as to who is the Thing, and when the monster *does* at last reveal itself, well, it kinda sucks.

John Carpenter's version does a great job of working both the mystery angle (the blood testing scene is amazingly tense) and the crazy special effects. It's wonderful to see a film where the monster is constantly mutating and changing, and to see the effects done with traditional puppets and makeup. You KNOW that if they made the movie today, all the transformations would be done in that awful CGI where everything looks sleek and shiny and cartoony and unconvincing.

Replacing stop-motion I can understand, but it *really* bums me out that CG has replaced a lot of traditional effects in horror movies. We'll probably never see another movie like it ever again.

Isn't serviceable CGI usually cheaper than traditional puppets and such nowadays? Well, "serviceable" may be a relative term...

I dunno, it may just be because of the movies I was raised on, but I'd take "serviceable" traditional effects over "serviceable" CGI, any day.

I mean, I look at the low budget straight-to-video horror flicks from the late 80s and the early 90s, and I take a look at the contemporary batch of "Sci-Fi Channel Original Movies" and I just feel like we're moving backward in quality thanks to cheap CG effects.

Or maybe I'm just sick of movies like "Mangator 4: This Time he Fights a T-Rex".

Fair enough, but it seems that CGI effects have reached a financial crossroads. It's cheaper for smaller projects to use lame CGI than invest in puppets and props, but the projects that could have afforded to use said puppets can also afford superior computer effects.

One of the finest sci-fi thrillers of all time, and one of the best films from the 80's, period. I love this flick.

Plus it has EVIL WILFROD BRIMLEY!!!1

This, and Escape from New York are the two movies that made me come to the conclusion taht Kurt Russel is a Badass motha huga.

I think, ultimately, it boils down to being able to compromise between effects instead of sole reliance on one form. The 1999 Movie "Virus" is a perfect example. Done primarily with traditional effect methods, but the CG it does have is done in such a way to accent the traditional effects, which results in the movie having spectacular special effects even 10 years after it's release.

It's also part of the reason the Transformers movies have been successes - the addition of Traditional Effects (Even if it amounts to a Crane standing in for a Robot's fist as it smashes down onto a car) he "ground" the CG and make it look more realistic then straight CG does (Indeed, Straight CG, no matter how pretty, always looks fake if there's not even an effort to make it "fit" into the world. Too many CG baddies come across as modern day interpretations of the Great Black Beast of Arrgh).



As for the Thing - fantastic movie.

Swear to god, every time I watch that scene, it's like I'm watching the movie for the first time, and I have no idea who is and isn't an alien meatbeast.

One of the greatest movies of all time and indeed highly compelling evidence of the unmatched appeal of "traditional" effects.

Has anyone played the video game for PS2? It rocks, a nice sequel to the movie but as a game.

Isn't it odd that Wilford Brimley has no mustache in this movie? you remember him from the Quaker-Oatmeal commercials in the 80's? any 80's child probably does including me.

I vaguely recall him in Quaker Oats. But I most know the man for...

Gotta agree with everyone here, love this film. Really tense and horrifying, hasn't aged much at all.
I too prefer real life props to poor CG when its done well.

I'm sure Wilford Brimley in this movie went insane not just cause of an alien virus but probably cause the staff ran out of oatmeal. And he wasn't suffering from Diabeetus, he was suffering from Monster-ginus.

GET IT?

Never watched The Thing, but from the responses in this thread tell me that's a bad thing.

random topic but what the hell...

The Thing is one of the greatest horror/suspense movies ever. And the fact that it's a remake does nothing to diminish that, it's a brilliant movie. And the effects are superb!

First dvd I purchased, because of my love for this film.

The couch/test still gets me everytime.

I actually just dug out the DVD not too long ago. Just had a hankering to watch it. One of my all-time favorite sci-fi/horror movies -- the sense of paranoia and suspense it creates is awesome, and Kurt Russell is a badass. I hope the rumors of a prequel pan out...

The only letdown is when you find out the monster is actually just a mutant strain of diabeetus...

I reckon this film's held up better than Halloween. Only things I liked in that movie was the long take of kid Michael at the start and the music.
I remember the portrayal of the computers in Thing being a bit silly, like they had advanced AI.

The computer with any sort of A.I is a chess program McCreedy plays against early on.

The other computer related bit was the Doctor's computer model that uses movie language to convey to the audience the information (kinda like how hackers in films like Hugh Jackman in Swordfish, Boris in Goldeneye and Jolie and co in Hackers, so visual and completely and hilariously wrong)

My Dad put me onto this in high school, I think Mum still has the VHS at home. I should pick it up on DVD or something, it's still tense and scary despite the age. Good times! Head-with-legs is still my favourite gross part.

Gross? That was downright hilarious.

Even better that the characters in the movie realized how messed up it was.

Anyone else like the Thing-themed scare house that they had at Halloween Horror Nights a couple years ago?

I think the real reason it didn't do well was because of the sad ending. Hurts word-of-mouth. Also, the truly nauseating and nightmarish special effects might have actually scared some people away.

Why WAS Fuchs' dead body set on fire? We even see the characters asking about it but not figuring it out. Was the Thing just trying to do random jive to spread fear and confusion? Or did he actually burn himself while it was trying to assimilate him, or something?

Well audiences that summer saw "Poltergeist" as their cup of tea for a horror movie and it came out in the same month as the big hit "ET" which was the big Sci-fi movie of the year as the film was squashed at the box-office by critics and it's ticket receipts.

The film's grotesque gory effects done realistically alienated the audiences even with the David Cronenberg-esque use of body horror made people puked in 1982. Which was risky for a big budget movie in that time from Universal Studios but the film survived over the years thanks to cable showings, video, DVD, Blu-Ray and word of mouth from video store rentals who recommend it.

Do you think today's shockers such as the Saw or Hostel movies live up to the go-for-the-jugular and assault the senses kind of Body-horror like "The Thing" or David Cronenberg's movies? all are about the destruction of the human body.

ITS CLOBBERIN' TIME!

No but i went to this year's Halloween Horror Nights Hollywood with Saw, Chucky, Michael Myers, My Bloody Valentine 3D, and others. And i went to last Year's with Freddy, Jason and Leatherface.