User reviews

Classic, wonderful sci-fi / horror feature, a none too faithful adaptation of the John W. Campbell, Jr. short story "Who Goes There?". In this instance, the idea of the alien entity being a monstrosity that can imitate other life forms is jettisoned, in favour of making the creature basically like the Frankenstein monster. It's a super vegetable that requires blood for sustenance, and it makes life very tense for the scientists and military personnel at an isolated Arctic outpost when it's thawed from an icy imprisonment.

With an intrepid hero in the form of 1950s icon Kenneth Tobey on hand, it's a guarantee that "The Thing from Another World" is going to be a good time. It was a fairly odd choice of material for the producer Howard Hawks, who fills the story with overlapping dialogue and a sense of camaraderie among the various protagonists. Unlike the 1982 version, where the characters had the means to destroy the creature but first had to *identify* who the creature was, our cast here have to improvise their survival.

While any genre fan such as this viewer, who'd been brought up on the 1982 John Carpenter film, may be more inclined to favour that brand of horror, this is still very stylish fun. Hawks's editor Christian Nyby gets the directing credit, but it's generally believed that Hawks was pretty much in control of things. The score by Dimitri Tiomkin, utilizing the theremin, is suitably eerie. There are solid shocks, moments of suspense, and atmosphere along the way, as well as a lively finish.

This is a film very much of its time, with our military characters very much a dependable bunch of heroes, and the scientists (most of them) treated as highly suspect, especially the misguided Dr. Carrington, played delightfully by Robert Cornthwaite.

A little too much time is devoted to the romantic subplot with Captain Hendry and his love interest (Margaret Sheridan), but the actors couldn't be more engaging. Tobey, Sheridan, and Cornthwaite are extremely well supported by a strong ensemble: Douglas Spencer as annoying newspaperman Scotty (who has the honour of uttering the memorable closing monologue), James Young, Dewey Martin, Robert Nichols, William Self, Eduard Franz, Nicholas Byron, John Dierkes, George Fenneman, Paul Frees, David McMahon, and Norbert Schiller. A young James Arness, in his pre-'Gunsmoke' days, has great presence as The Thing.

There are images here so striking that Carpenter was wise to pay homage to them in his film: the line of men encircling the buried UFO, and the sight of the burning creature crashing through the building into the snow.

It's definitely a different beast, in more ways than one, than what we would see 31 years later, but it's solid entertainment for its own very good reasons.

Eight out of 10.

A scientific expedition, located near the North Pole, sends an urgent message to an Air Force Base in Anchorage, Alaska reporting the near-by crash of a very large, unknown, object and requesting immediate assistance. Air Force Captain Pat Hendry, and his crew, then depart to this expeditionary site. Upon arrival, Captain Hendry meets Dr. Carrington, who's in charge. Preliminary scientific evidence rules out the possibility of a meteor. Also, since this crash, a lot of atmospheric and magnetic disturbance has been generated, making radio communications and aircraft navigation difficult, if not impossible. AT this point, Captain Hendry and his crew, along with Dr Carrington with some members of his staff, depart to the crash scene about 50 miles away. Upon arrival, part of an aircraft structure is protruding above the ice and appears to be "alien" in origin. Attempts to remove this aircraft, using thermal "thermite" heat bombs proves unsuccessful. This "Flying Saucer" is destroyed, but its occupant is thrown clear and becomes frozen under the ice. This body is then removed and taken back to this expeditionary site and put in cold storage. Everything appears to be under control until an unforseen accident occurs endangering not only the lives ov everyone at this expeditionary site, but all human and animal life on the entire face of planet Earth. There are some lighter sides to this Sci Fi drama. I enjoy the good natured kidding that Captain Hendry receives from his men after his girl friend pins an embarrassing not on his chest while he's asleep giving everybody ample opportunity to read it. I also get a kick out of the newspaper reporter Ned "Scotty" Scott's on going battle with Captain Hendry in trying to obtain permission to broadcastcast his "Flying Saucer" story to the media and Captain Hendry's refusal to let him until offical Air Force clearance can be given. Also, keep an eye out for George Fennamen, from Groucho Marx's old TV quiz show "You Bet Your Life."

The movie starts out very promisingly, creating a great spooky atmosphere and avoiding possible cheap looking special effects of the spaceship crash. It knows where its true driving force lies; it's not in the silly looking "carrot" creature(that thankfully also doesn't get much screen time), it's in the dialogues and the relationships between characters. This reminds me of Rydley Scott's "Alien". Same concept, same result. Great atmosphere and a good sense for story telling make "The Thing From Another World" well worth the watch. 7/10

Imagine what you'd if a flying saucer crash landed close to an artic outpost where you were stationed. I guess you'd instinctively get out and about and go looking for it, albeit with some army types in tow (or towing) and, upon discovering it, inadvertently destroy said vessel but manage, through luck or misfortune to capture the alien pilot in a block of ice where it had frozen during its escape. That's what I'd do, then I'd do all I could to ensure (inadvertently again) that the entrapped thing was released as expediently as possible so it could cause rampage and carnage while instilling fear within the occupants of the isolated outpost. Just as well I wasn't around!

You've got to love the old B Movies of the 1950s! Especially those that gave us two belters of cinema in years to come.

One of the best science fiction pictures from the fifties, and one that helped define the genre, The Thing holds up remarkably well today. There's still considerable debate over whether producer Howard Hawks actually directed the film or credited director(and former editor) Christian Nyby. It's a Hawks production either way, and one of his best. The story of an alien invasion near the arctic circle, it builds slowly, relying heavily on the excellent, slangy dialogue of Charles Lederer, and the casual, jokey relationships between the various characters. This is lean, solid, old-fashioned moviemaking. There's not a wasted moment in this one. Hollywood in the studio era was especially good with stories of isolation, and this one's about as isolated as it gets. The monster is rarely seen, as we catch him only in horrifying glimpses, as the characters in the movie do. There's a standard brains versus brawn subtext in the film, but it's not emphasized to the movie's detriment. That the cast consists mostly of relative unknowns give the picture an almost documentary feeling at times, as if one were watching an actual event. Dimitri Tiomkin's spooky score helps spur the action on. This is a fine piece of commercial film-making, with everyone doing his job, and no "star turns". Nobody gets the upper hand here, not the actors, director, writer, cinematographer or alien. Everything comes together in the end. This is a perfect movie of its kind.

The original Black & White version of the famous short science fiction story "Who Goes There?" stars Kenneth Tobey as the commander of an Antarctic research base that discovers an alien being encased in thick ice, that is brought back to the base where it is accidentally thawed out, and goes on a killing spree. Robert Cornthwaite plays the scientist who wants to study the creature rather than kill it, an attitude not shared by the others. Future western star James Arness plays the thing itself.

Surprisingly effective film has fine direction and acting, though the effective music score does much to put over the appearance of the creature, which is not very convincingly realized otherwise, though it works if kept in the shadows. Good script, even if atmosphere trumps memorable characters, though does have that famous closing line...

"The Thing" without a doubt is one of the finest science fiction films ever made. A group of scientists and air force officers at an Arctic station discover something in the ice and that something sees them as dinner. The battle goes on in the claustrophobic station in a scenario that without a doubt was the model for the original "Aliens". The cast is a very fine ensemble and the direction is crisp and on the edge. Conversations overlap and at times runs simultaneously but the direction is so good that you miss nothing. Best of all is that this is one of those films where what you don't see is what scares you. There is no splatter or graphic detail but tantalizing hints that lets your mind conjure up your worst nightmare. A great one for a dark and stormy night.

"The Thing from another world" is the pinnacle of 1950s horror movies. It is not one of those cheap exploitation pictures that cashed in on the publics fear of atomic energy, no, this film actually takes itself seriously and manages to scare the hell out of the audience in the process. So many future sci-fi/horror movies were influenced by this one, most notably the original "Alien". Gorgeous production design and great performances help to carry the story along, a story that concerns an isolated arctic base and the people there who have to deal with a very unwelcome visitor. Definitely holds your suspense throughout. The zenith of all horror movies to come out of the fifties

Which version, Hawks or Carpenter? There's a lot of talk about which one is better, etc. I do agree with many that they both are very different films, very different viewing experiences. I love most good sci-fi. Some of 50's sci-fi can be dated after viewing. I do not think The Thing is one of these films which suffers from time . It holds up splendidly. If you like dialogue, you'll love this movie. If you like innuendo, fast paced overlapped dialogue, great characters - and I don't use that word lightly - you'll love this movie.

If you want more suspense, a lot more blood, and a much more gloomy setting, certainly John Carpenter's remake is better in these areas. I own and enjoy viewing both films.

Certainly, the creature in Carpenter's version is much more frightening, and truer to the John Campbell short story from which the story is based. His shape shifting would have been impossible to show in the 50's version with the believability that is possible in today's F/X field.

Carpenter gives us a setting which is darker, colder, and more foreboding. A feeling of hopeless, and nameless dread pervades the camp. Certainly, the notion is clear that this could be the end of all of them, and of the world. There's both a lot less thinking, and a lot more action to be had here in the Carpenter 80's version than in the Hawks' 50's approach.

Hawks, by contrast, created a feeling of "whistling in the dark", which dominates the setting. The characters, and they are many and varied, all have their own particular take on what is happening and what should be done about it. There is a sense of hopeful, "We can do it. We can solve this problem" attitude throughout the entire film. This feeling of "let's keep our heads" is contagious and very quickly the audience finds itself rooting, rather than running.

One more point, and I think it's a big one. The characters in the Howard Hawks' 50's film are all likable, including the "heavy" - the wonderful Dr. Carrington. All the characters are capable, and in many cases, quite resourceful and ingenious. Each, always maintains a humorous, dry wit angle of attack on the situation without resorting to camp or parody seen in most comic film writing today. The military crew members, very quickly in the story, each displays a comical personality ribbing both the captain and the civil service nature of the military with natural ease. As someone once said, a complaining soldier is a happy soldier. So true. This is certainly no "military has all the answers" flick. The mistakes they make are roundly criticized by all in attendance, including the co-pilot's not so subtle comment about the splitting of the atom, "yeah, and that sure made the world happy, didn't it?" (laughter). Add to that, Ned Scott the newspaper man, and you've got a non-scientist, non-military chronicler character to round out the story, and give the audience someone with comparable skepticism about what to do next. Ned is the outsider who is now, like us, on the inside.

The John Carpenter version, by comparison, has mostly losers populating the story, I have to say. From the camp leader, Gary, on down to the radio operator, Windows, most of the characters seem more suited as inmates in a minimum security prison than manning a research science station. (maybe a reflection of the lack of students going into the field of science in recent years? (chuckle) And to make the point even more ironic, there is no military, the usual scapegoats, in the Carpenter version. (Gary, as leader, carries the gun, and we assume has some military/policing role, though it is never made clear in the film.) These are all scientists with the exception of the helicopter pilot, played by Kurt Russell, who seems to be the only clear thinking member of the entire bunch. Why none of the actual scientists approach the problem as clearly, and logically as the rogue washed-up helicopter pilot is also a mystery and in large part, a flaw.

In Hawks' version, Captain Hendry solicits advice from all in attendance, frequently asking the scientists and his crew technical questions for which he has no background to answer. This also gives the non technical audience member another "way in" to the technical side of things. (no pun intended)

Why Carpenter chose to have most of the characters unredeeming, lazy, and in most cases, quite stupid and ill behaving, is a mystery. I find the characters in the Hawks version much more true to life.

With all that said, I enjoy both films, each for their strengths and for their weaknesses. If you want blood and gore, more realistic sets, and are not discouraged by fairly shallow characters, the Carpenter version is for you.

If you want fast paced dialogue, memorable characters, and you enjoy a "can-do" attitude in dreadful circumstances, all done with a minimum of visible gore, then Hawks' The Thing awaits you.

humbleservant

While I love the remake very much I was finally able to see the original all the way thru without the colorization on TV. It is a truly awesome movie.

Comparing the two is not really fare or easy as Carpenter's version has the benefits of modern movie magic. But that is in my opinion the only place it excels. It seems in the remake all the characters are derelicts and for the most part not very likeable. In the original you had a sense of these people liking each other and sticking together.

Kenneth Tobey is a very good and believable leader of his men. He also shows a very human side in that he realizes he is not the smartest of men. He is what he is. A captain of a small band of Air Force Soldiiers simply doing their job.

Robert Cornblaithe is excellent as Dr. Carrington. He comes of snootish yet still likeable enough because you can see that deep down he really admires Captain Hendry (Tobey) though he can't see eye to eye with him on their situation or dealing of his "Thing From Another world."

Every character in the movie is well played. They all look like they belong in their roles. Their look and attire fit their characters and when one guy is called Professor so and so or whomever, you believe it unlike many movies in those days where they picked anyone to play the supporting actors. There is one thing though, Margaret Sheridan's pants pulled up almost to her neck line (exaggeration...but close) I could have done without. I realize it was a style of the times but I think they could have given her something a little better to show off her figure when you first meet her. Especially since she was the only female love interest and was tagged as "a pinup girl" in earlier scenes. She looks better when her hair is down and she is in different clothes. I know that is being picky but I just had to say it.

The creature is better presented in the original as far as being frightening. You hardly ever see him. When you do it's only for brief periods at a time and usually in the dark. That frightening sound of "The Thing" is very original in that it's not just a growl but sounds like a cat meowing at times. Very eerie!

The story is well known and both are similiar although I must admit the remake is closer to the actual Campbell JR.'s short tale. But the original still gives it a good account and in many ways surpasses the short story because it is easier to identify with the creature since he's humanoid.

It boils down to suspense, drama and mood versus gore, F/X, and fast paced action. Both movies are top notch. I am proud to own both and would not try and say one is overtly better than the other. The remake has the benefits of the then modern movie technology. The original had the benefit of black and white to add to the suspense and utter danger they are in. The choice is yours. I myself enjoy the original a little more as it holds up today probably better than any other Sci-Fi movie from that era.

An airforce crew is sent from Anchorage, Alaska to an isolated scientific outpost. Reporter Ned Scott joins them. Scientist Dr. Carrington reveals that an UFO landed nearby. They find a flying saucer buried in the ice. They try to use thermite but the saucer explodes. They recover a frozen body buried nearby and return it to the base. Captain Hendry orders his men to wait for further instructions. However Corporal Barnes covers the ice block with an electric blanket which is accidentally left on.

The movie spends a lot of time with the people talking. It doesn't really hold any thrills for modern audiences but it works for its time. Half of it is an endless gab fest setting up the movie. It really only gets interesting after we get to the saucer and then the block of ice. This a simple creature feature at a time when UFOs are a new phenomenon. The creature is a simple guy in a mask. There are some good creepiness coming from the doctor and one great fiery scene. The fire walk is good stunt work.

Let me get my two (minor) complaints out of the way first: the attempt to get the UFO out of the ice felt rushed (as in the filmmakers wanted to get to the rest of the film) because I saw the result coming a mile away . . . it just felt soulless and obligatory. Second, the scientist Dr Carrington, rubbed up with the 'mad scientist in pursuit of knowledge risking everyone's life' cliché a bit too much for me . . . and I was trying to be forgiving since this was 50 years ago and far less cliché then.

All right, now . . . I have to say, I loved The Thing from Another World. I loved the dialogue in this movie. It's been a long long (Jesus Christ, a loooong) time since I had this much fun listening to exposition. Yes, exposition. The obligatory plot details that no one cares about that some poor sap spells out? Yes, that exposition! Thing from Another World actually gains momentum with its exposition whereas your typical film slows down and comes to a screeching halt for it.

Nyby spreads the exposition across about half a dozen characters, and they have real conversation with overlapping, quick fire, back and forth, dialogue, and in brief instances multiple conversations going at the same time. The result? Five minutes of exposition becomes one minute of exposition. Will the audience catch every single detail of their plan? No, but the audience doesn't need to either. Thank you Howard Hawks!

Lace this exposition with characterization, inside jokes amongst characters, hints at their history together, and friendly pranks, and The Thing from Another World not only knocks out exposition with one blow, but develops their characters simultaneously, yielding a wonderfully complex and realistic relationship between the characters and plot. No spot light and overdone Shakespearian aside with melodramatic boo-hoo backstory that brings elicits yawns and groans, no little nerd with all the answers getting to explain everything while everyone asks stupid questions--nope--the Thing from Another World is above that drivel.

Nyby and Hawks sold me on the characters from the get go, placing emphasis on how they introduce the characters and not so much in what their character backstory is. I salute the filmmakers for this decision, and in response was more than willing to suspend my disbelief for the sake of the film's needs.

Follow it up with well lit and well staged action sequences--the fire scene was perhaps one of the most beautiful and glorious moments caught by b/w photography--and the Thing from Another World delivers with all its 1950s charms. I'll take a film with narrow corridors and electrodes over all out war with CGI bugs/machines any day of the week.

In 1949, in the Officers Club in Anchorage, Alaska, the pilot Captain Patrick "Pat" Hendry (Kenneth Tobey) is summoned by General Fogarty to fly to a remote outpost to investigate something that has crushed on Earth. Captain Hendry flies with his crew and meets Dr. Arthur Carrington (Robert Cornthwaite) and his team of scientist and they fly to the location. They discover a flying saucer buried in the ice and they use Thermite bombs expecting to release the spacecraft. However, it explodes and is totally destroyed by the bombs. They also find a frozen life form and bring it to the research station. When the creature deices, it attacks the dogs and loses one arm. Dr. Carrington researches and discovers that it is a vegetable life that reproduces like plants. Captain Hendry believes that the dangerous creature is an invader and decides to find a way to destroy it with his team. But Dr. Carrington believes that the scientific discovery is more important than lives and protects the creature.

"The Thing from another World" is an engaging classic sci-fi film with a good story that is the source of inspiration of the 1982 John Carpenter's masterpiece "The Thing". The differences between the military and scientific viewpoints are very interesting and reflect a historic moment of the American history when the military forces were respected by the society after the WWII and during the Korean War. Margaret Sheridan is a decorative but funny character and people of my generation will certainly love this film that has been released on DVD by the Silver Screen Collection label. My vote is seven.

Title (Brazil): "O Monstro do Árrtico" ("The Monster from the Artic")

"The Thing From Another World" is based on SyFy author John W. Campbell's classic novella, "Who Goes There?"which was first published in 1938. Thirteen years later, in 1951, director Howard Hawks released TTFAW (although Christian Nyby was a brilliant editor, he is dubiously credited as the director. But the film looks, feels and plays exactly like a Howard Hawks project, especially the use of overlapping dialogue).

In any event Hawks knew he had a terrific story with Campbell's frightening little Antarctic saga. It was just a matter of how to translate it to film. Given that 1951 was years away from technology such as CGI, special effects would be minimal. And though it would be filmed in black and white, with several specific plot and character changes, Hawks captured much of the essence of Campbell's story.

The plot follows a group of scientists working in a remote and desolate Antarctic research outpost.

They discover what they believe is a meteor which has crashed some distance from their camp. They immediately arrange an expedition to get closer. Once they arrive at the crash site, however, it is apparent that it is not a meteor, but instead, a very large flying saucer! And as if that startling discovery would not be amazing enough on its own, they soon locate what appears to be the space craft's occupant, also encased in ice! The researchers conclude that the occupant (or pilot) may have either been thrown out of the saucer on impact, or had been injured in the crash and was attempting to crawl to safety before being frozen solid by the 50 below freezing temperatures. Either way, it's a stunning find.

What happens when they bring the flash frozen alien back to their camp for further study is a perfect example of classic 1950s post-war science fiction and horror, broken up with carefully placed moments of humor. And it all works, indeed, it works extremely well!

The fine cast includes screen veterans such as Margaret Sheridan, Kenneth Toby, Robert Cornthwaite, Douglas Spencer, James Young, Dewey Martin, Robert Nichols, and a few surprise actors like George Fenneman (Groucho Mark's straight man) and James Arness (who played Marshall Matt Dillon for 20 years on the CBS television series, Gunsmoke) as "The Thing."

There would be 2 more TTFAW remakes to follow Hawk's version: John Carpenter's cutting edge but cringingly graphic, "The Thing," released in 1982, followed by another somewhat gory but interesting version by Dutch filmmaker, Matthijs van Heijningen Jr., "The Thing," released in 2011. As of this writing (2022) John Carpenter has hinted at a new sequel.

No spoilers here as usual, but I will reveal that a little known James Arness (brother of actor Peter Graves) gratefully accepted the antagonist role as the alien visitor since he needed the work. It would be the beginning of a very long and rewarding acting career.

As all lovers of the SciFi film genre knows, The Thing (1951), is undoubtedly one of the the finest ever produced. It's almost a perfect movie from a purely technical standpoint. The direction, no matter who it was, was scintillating, moving from moment to moment at breakneck speed. Tiomkin's gut-wrenching score, highlighted by the extremely futuristic Theremin, crushing basses and bleak windswept strings are the epitome of horror/sci-fi film scoring. The acting is legendary for it's naturally fluid feel, it's backhanded asides and well documented over-speak not matched in many movies before or since. Unlike today's boringly formula rip-offs the station is usually "well lit", at least as well lit as you would imagine a 1950's Arctic Lab to be; aided by the superb efforts of the film makers own lighting crew. This allowed for those brief moments of darkness when the lights were out to have a very real panicking effect. Not only on the audience but the besieged occupants of our Arctic fortress. I also found it refreshing that after the one incident where the "Thing" is carelessly freed, the expedition members subsequently and intelligently arm themselves as best they can and form into groups. I believe that the creature's first close up appearance is only 3 seconds long but it was enough to make me rapidly exit the living room and stop me from watching this film from when I first saw it at age 7 in 1958 until I was about 15. This chilling scene when viewed in a stop frame mode is astonishing in it's precision and choreography, check this out my sci-fi brethren. A scene my own dear father managed to duplicate with great effect, as a joke, using our dark and seldom used front porch door, which reduced me to a sniveling jelly-legged puddle when I was about 10!, which, in homage to both Dad and Arness, I duplicated some 20 years later on not only my son, but the cleaning lady and my wife with equally devastating effect. You know , they even manage a little romance without destroying the story, truly amazing. Don't we all wish Margaret Sheridan was our girl?

But I have written this comment not to just rehash what we all know to be true; but rather to pay homage to the one man who ultimately is responsible for the survival of the human race. Bob, the crew chief. Yes, Bob. In a situation where we have a rafter of genius scientists, alongside of battle hardened veteran Air Corps officers and a smart funny, gritty, albeit nerdy, newspaper reporter; we are all very lucky to have had BOB, the crew chief on the job. I will not enumerate (and spoil the fun) but his mighty contributions to the survival of this hearty group are something to behold. If you veterans who love this movie as much as I do watch this movie again, as we all will, watch it this time and see if you don't agree that Bob comes up with 90% or better of the intelligent suggestions.

For those of you who have not had the pleasure of seeing this movie it is a "must see". From a time when movies gave free rein to our own fertile imaginations; it terrified without graphic gore; amazed without a gazillion dollars of special effects and best of all entertained at a pace rarely attained by any movie from any genre in any generation.

For the few of you who aren't aware, John Carpenters classic The Thing (1982) was a remake and this is where it all began.

Telling the story of a research base in Anchorage Alaska that discovers a crashed UFO. Before they know it they find themselves under attack from what dwelled within.

Now let's be clear this is nothing like the remakes, there is no paranoia, no body swapping or horrific scenes here. The Thing From Another World contains an almost Franksteins monster looking alien creature and that's about it.

What immediatly stands out is how good it all looks, it's hard to believe that this was made in the early 50's. Clearly a lot of love went into this sci-fi piece that would later become considered as a true cult classic.

I don't see quite the overwhelming appeal as many, maybe I'm simply not the demographic but I can't argue that movies quality.

The Good:

Ahead of its time

Looks great

The Bad:

Oddly paced

Things I Learnt From This Movie:

I always seem to side with the cantankerous scientist in every movie

Now this is what filmgoers go the movie theater to see. Young men could bring their dates to watch this science fiction classic and without even having to slowly and discretely drape their arm over their girlfriends shoulder the ladies AND THE MEN would be hanging on to each other wondering what harm this creature from another planet will do.

I loved it. Yes it is in black and white which only adds to the history of film and allows the viewer to really consider life beyond earth exists or not.

The film has a great cast, and the spellbinding and gradual release of the creature from the huge block of ice in the arctic atmosphere adds tense drama to the film's story line.

I love this film and I give it a most deserving 8 out of 10 IMDB rating. This film was so highly respected by filmgoers that a remake was brought to theaters in 1982 starring Kurt Russel and directed by John Carpenter as a homage to The Thing From Another World.

The earlier first version loosely based on short story ¨Who goes there¨ by John Campbell (published in 1938) is titled ¨The Thing from another world¨ by Christian Nyby and under the guidance of Howard Hawks with Kenneth Tobey , Margaret Sheridan , Edward Franz , Dewey Martin , John Dierkes , and James Arness as the monster , later to win fame as Marshal Matt Dillon from ¨TV's Gunsmoke¨ . Being a potent lesson how to direct a film in low budget and it holds a subtle but efficient intrigue . It deals with a team of military and scientists at a remote outpost discover a buried spaceship , as the astonishing crew form a ring around the flying saucer frozen in the ice (it was shot at the RKO Ranch in the San Fernando Valley in 100-degree weather) . Monster movie in which an alien menaces an isolated scientific community , it is a giant seed-dispersing vegetable and runs amok . It is set in Arctic : an extraordinary continent of awesome beauty . It is also home to an isolated outpost where a discovery full of scientific possibility becomes a mission of survival . It deals with a lonely group of scientists who take on the most dangerous creature of universe that sucks the blood from sled dogs and scientific alive and unaffected by missing body parts , cold or bullets . Then , the creature , accidentally unleashed at this marooned colony , in this vast , intense land a parasite will pit human against human as it tries to survive and flourish . In the thriller ¨The Thing¨ , paranoia spreads like an epidemic among a group of researchers when an accident frees the alien from its frozen existence .

Acceptable , estimable and well-made action/terror/thriller in which scientists and military in the Arctic are confronted by an alien craft and a monster that is accidentally thawed and wreaks havoc . Being professionally directed by Christian Nyby , assisted substantially by Hawks (and its said filmmaking) , who provides a punchy suspenseful Sci-Fi about an unwelcome alien survivor alive . The gradual as well as notable built-up suspense is quite superb as when the monster is shown largely to create a real menace , though some moments looks a little clumsy as well as awkward and when the creature is doused with kerosene and set ablaze is believed to be the first full body burn accomplished by a stunt man . There are also some implausibities but they are carried some measure of conviction thanks to Howard Hawks . This exciting film packs chills , thrills , guessing , paranoia , absence of all characterization and spectacular FX by that time , though nowadays dated . It takes a liberal stand in exposing the tension of men when confront an alien that is unearthed by a crew of international scientists . It packs a thrilling and intriguing musical score by Dimitri Tiomkin . Cameraman Russell Harlan contributes an evocative as well as appropriate cinematography , though there is available a horrible colorized version . And being partly filmed in Glacier National Park and at a Los Angeles ice storage plant . ¨The thing¨ emerges as a distinctly Sci-Fi/terror movie and one might be recommending for its solid cast , FX , special makeup , cinematography by Harlan , and being masterfully made by Christian Nyby and supervised by the great Howard Hawks . It is one of the best of the Cold War allegories and a lot of filmmakers cited the movie as a key , influential film in their lives.

This one was remade in 1982 , being the best version directed by John Carpenter , it was starred by Kurt Russell and an all-star-secondary cast as Wilford Brimley , T.K. Carter , David Clennon , Keith David , Richard Dysart , Charles Hallahan , Peter Maloney , Richard Masur and Donald Moffat ; here the monster has the ability to turn itself into a perfect replica of any living being , it can look just like you or me , but inside , it remains inhuman . And the modern version in which producers convinced Universal Studios to allow them to create a prequel to John Carpenter's The Thing instead of a remake , as they felt Carpenter's film was already perfect with a shape-shifting alien .¨The Thing (2011)¨ by Mattijs Heijmingen with Mary Elizabeth Winstead and Joel Edgerton resulting to be inferior to previous but still being acceptable . This ¨The Thing¨ serves as a prelude to John Carpenter's classic 1982 film of the same name that is one of the great Sci-Fi classics . However , the filmmaker copies several scenes from Carpenter movie and Christian Nyby film .

I realize this may upset a lot of people as this movie has a devoted audience. I finally watched it last night and I have to say, it's really boring. There is very little action, and not much in the way of characterization or dialogue to offset its glacial pace (sorry about the pun). Normally if a movie bores me this much I'll shut it off but because of its classic status I felt it deserved at least one complete viewing. Still, I wound up reading during the last half hour, glancing up only when something actually happened. It was very easy to follow the story while paying minimal attention.

If you're thinking that I'm a young whippersnapper who has been spoiled by flashy visual effects and needs constant action, I assure you this is not true. I'm over 50. I see all kinds of movies, including "sumptuous literary adaptations" i.e. "Wings of a Dove." I grew up without TV and didn't own one until I was in my 20s. I am not a huge fan of "Star Wars" or "The Matrix" and my idea of a good SF film is "The Man Who Fell to Earth." I will admit I may have been spoiled by John Carpenter's 1982 film "The Thing", which is really another story altogether. I feel Carpenter's film is a classic that not only features ground-breaking visual effects but a mounting atmosphere of suspicion and paranoia that speaks directly to the meaning of Campbell's story title, "Who Goes There?" In the Howard Hawks story, you basically have a standard crew of 50s film characters having discussions. There is virtually no tension or atmosphere of any kind.

If I'd seen this in a theater at a younger age, I might have loved it as do its many fans. But I'm sorry, folks; this one just never came to life for me.