The Thing from Another World (1951)

Simply Perfect

Yo, there's no way for me to review this film without saying, take your *insert ethnicity + "ass" here* to see this film,like now. You have to see it in order to know what you're really messing with.

By the time the dramatic fireworks start popping off, each one feels earned.

One of the worst ways to make a cult movie is to set out to make a cult movie.

Indeed it does boggle, and so it should; in a slightly cynical post-war, post A-bomb world, anything is possible, including a visitor from another world, one that can't be reasoned with and which has intentions far from benign.Considering this film is now 67 years old (well past retirement age....) it holds up pretty well. Of course the later remakes have more gore, more horror, more everything, more or less.... but this is still worth watching.

Probably the best science fiction movie of the early atomic age, and one of the best sci-fi movies ever. Even performances from the cast, a suspenseful, well-written plot, and an iconic man vs. (alien) Nature conflict add up to amazing entertainment.I've seen The Thing From Another World many times since the early 1960s, and it never fails to hold my interest throughout. This time around I noticed some 'Things' that hadn't really occurred to me before. The Thing clearly influenced another classic sci-fi thriller, 1956's Invasion on the Body Snatchers. The little pepper-shaped alien pods growing in the greenhouse, with the implicit threat of limitless aliens taking over the Earth, is the core premise of Body Snatchers.The remote location for The Thing also resonates with other monster/alien movies; the difference here is that we never leave the polar outpost, as the alien is destroyed before he and his potential replicants can wreak more havoc. The more interesting strand in The Thing isn't what it influenced, but the horror genre that influenced it.Some have found tracings of film noir in the claustrophobic setting, with the stark black and white lighting adding shadowy depths to the unfolding mystery. But I see the alien as a Frankenstein monster/Dracula figure. He has the lumbering menace of the Frankenstein monster--his fight with the dogs during a blizzard seems very much like a scene from a Frankenstein movie. And then, the alien seeks dirt, and lives on blood: Dracula's exact habits. The dimly lit passageways of the base look as much like gothic caverns and the hallways of decrepit castles at least as much as the dark corners and alleys of noir.So I think it's this blending of horror and sci-fi scenes and motifs that gives The Thing its abiding power; it takes old myths and recasts them with a modern, quasi-scientific veracity.

This undervalued classic has sadly had most of its impact taken away by John Carpenter's remake which followed thirty years later. While that was admittedly a masterpiece, most people forget that the first version of the story "Who Goes There?" was also a classic of the genre, a '50s monster movie with more atmosphere and suspense than you would find in a dozen imitations. The influence of this forgotten chiller can still be seen today in films like ALIENS, and in many aspects this is one of the first "people in isolated location face enemy while being picked off one by one" formula which worked so well for all those slasher/monster movies of the '80s and beyond.The acting is great along with the script, which helps to breath life into the stuffy military characters that this film has at its core. I'm pretty sick of all the boring army types we have to put up with in '50s movies, but THE THING FROM ANOTHER WORLD bypasses all of that by making them real people. There is a varied cast of characters, from the heroic captain to the sneaky, misguided doctor, the love interest (who isn't too bad), and also an irritating bald reporter. The usual arguments between the scientists and the army take place, except unusually it's the army who is right in this case, not those devious scientists. The sole flaw of this film is the quick-fire dialogue, where in some instances a number of characters are all talking at the same time, which makes it impossible to hear what they're saying.Along with the intelligent script, there are plenty of atmospheric, scene-setting visuals to enjoy, like the bit where the men discover the huge spaceship under the ice. We don't actually get to see the spaceship, but by some fairly simple effects, we might as well have. There's an eerie feel hanging over the first part of the film which erupts into outright fear and horror once the alien comes to life. Unlike Carpenter's remake, the special effects here don't threaten to overwhelm the film, but are used sparingly and effectively. They range from the simple (a moving hand) to the great (a fine electrocution complete with crackling electricity) but all are nicely impressive.This is a genuinely frightening film, with the best moments being scenes of foreboding. For a lot of the time the Thing stays out of sight, so it could be hiding anywhere around the complex - the fear of the unknown is what makes this work. That combined with the helplessness of the characters and the totally remote, isolated location turn this into an exercise of growing terror. Occasionally the film will burst into shock - I loved the scene where a character pulls open a door, only for the monster to burst right in from the other side - or excitement, where they attempt to burn the creature alive, scenes which help to counter and strengthen the otherwise unseen menace.James Arness, who plays the Thing, is pretty good. He's encased in a makeup job which seems to have been heavily inspired by Karloff's FRANKENSTEIN. The film only threatens to become cheesy when the scientists are describing the monster and call it a "giant carrot" - something to have the audience rolling with laughter rather than recoiling in terror, I fear. Otherwise, this is an expertly-paced, fine little example of the genre at its finest, and genuinely one of the best monster movies of the '50s, if not of all time.

I feel pretty bad for not liking this more. Come on, I would still recommend it, I just didn't think it was a classic! Looking back, the 1982 one is definitely better for me. I guess I was just hoping for the alien to be a shapeshifter so we could show off more creativity. What's also different is that there are a lot more people in this version. It's much less minimalistic, even if it still takes place in the North Pole. I thought it was built up well with how the monster rarely appeared on screen at all.When it did, I mean the action was great! These are some really exciting moments that truly hold up after decades. I just thought it could have used a bit less talking. The John Carpenter one is more faithful to the story. I guess every sci-fi/horror movie made in the 1950's seems like a long episode of "The Twilight Zone" to me. The story is pretty basic with people in the frozen North thawing out an alien. While I liked the newer one better (and I honestly think most people do) this is still nice because it has good dialogue at least and it's built up quite well. ***