MovieChat Forums > The Thing (1982) Discussion > Crap film

Crap film

posted 8 years ago by frankzappayay
22 replies | jump to latest

I think some films just don't age well, not just effects but the stories too. I am sure I would have liked this more if I saw it in the 80s, especially if I was a kid, but watching it now I just think it is bad.

There are large parts of the story I like, the creature on the loose thing is good, it is an exciting idea and works well for horror. Also the 'which one is still human' thing is cool, reminded me of Agatha Christie. But I just don't think this film does either of those things well and lots of films do both of those things better. There also isn't much left for this film, the action isn't interesting or exiting, none of the characters were developed enough that I cared about any of them, the Thing itself I didn't find scary or creepy and it wasn't shown well enough, etc.. Just bad overall.

I am assuming this was based on a book, and I am assuming as usual the book is great and the film sucks in comparison. But this gets >8/10 so I was expecting more.

Mostly it reminded me of an old X Files episode that was clearly inspired by this, but which I enjoyed more than this film. And also other films like Alien and Predator which I think are much better than this.

[–] NoOneOnEarth (38) 7 years ago

An incredibly effective horror movie and some of the best effects ever. Even if the rest of the movie sucked, it would STILL be a classic for the special effects alone.

[–] brux (14837) 7 years ago

It sucks.

It is all special effects, there are no interesting characters or relationships.
Look at the original movie, it may not have the greatest special effects, but
a lot of the old movies had much better plots, points and characters.

The original is still one of my favorite films. Predator was very similar to this
Thing, which is why I never liked it much. It was boring. Just seeing some
alien monster kill hairy, ugly. stinky, sweaty, old men ... bor-ing!

They merely made a movie from a new animation technology ... whoopee doo.

[–] Starman (412) 7 years ago

The Thing would not be popular even if it was released today or any time in the 80's, it is a film for special kind of audience, whereas the original The Thing From Another World is a more traditional ilmmaking that focuses on development of characters, their struggles are more pronounced and plot changes in new directions. The Thing from Carpenter within the half of the film starts feeling like an action film, war film or video game, it's all about suspense non stop, it doesn't let up. In that way it's a popcon ride full adrenaline, not really a serious type of balanced film like the orginal. On a side note, I wonder if anyone noticed that The Thing as a story has been done every 30 years now. Coincidence? The next one could go back to the novel and start all over again with new interpretations, the novel is written in such a way that it lends itself to so many new directions. Prequel from 2011 tried to follow the formula of 82 film, but the theme of not knowing who is The Thing could be taken to very extreme far more exciting directions by going even deeper, deeper into the conflicts and struggles between the characters.

[–] Cognoscente (2776) 7 months ago

Would you have preferred Brian De Palma as the director?

[–] MikeCable (1911) 7 years ago

When you watch a film from the 80s, especially the early 80s, you need to put yourself into the frame of mind of its time, and consider what had been made to that point in this genre. If you watch a newer sci-fi horror which impressed you, then watch 1982's The Thing, it's not going to impress you much unless you can put yourself into the right frame of mind. Growing up in its period certainly helps, and helps better accept other similar films of its time.

In regards to the characters, I always thought we never got to know them very well because it wasn't the kind of environment many people wanted to show a lot of personality in, and then when the "who is human?" thing came along everyone kept their cards very close to their chest in fear of being knocked off by anyone else.

[–] Starman (412) 6 years ago

It is definitely the most naive and unrealistic film of all 3 versions (special effects don't make it more realistic), the first time I have seen it as a kid in the early 80's, as well as much later as a mature adult, I always felt the film lost its credibility after the first 3rd of the film once the characters started behaving not like level headed scientists, but just some unstable hippies, just regular average people, and the tone shifted away from something that a film like the original The Thing, The Haunting, Alien, The Entity or The Exorcist had, the intellectual psychological approach, it started feeling grotesque and comic bookey. There was a lot that could have been done to retain that initial tone the film started with, they could have delved deeper into the characters, how they are dealing with all that terror and paranoia all around them on a psychological level, however there was a decison made because of the pacing, to keep it fast paced and action oriented. Life is not like that, there are moments for introspection, and that's what this film lacked, something William Friedkin, Robert Wise or Ridley Scott would have never done if they made this film version, this is where the The X Files episode Ice gave us a glimpse of how this version could have been, more science, more sophistication, more psychology creates far more mystery through suggestion, instead of actual graphic showing, the more graphic scenes kept off screen the more powerfui the film would be, because the viewers themselves can't be witnesses to everything, and they have to rely on imagination. The film has that here and there, yet in scenes that don't make the viwers as curious enough to care to delve into imagination because the characters don't encourage them as much, which makes the film less Agatha Christie's Ten Little Indians, more HP Lovecraft instead, where your imagination is not focused, but more absorbing the atmospehere of the unknown, Carpenter was probably not inspired by Val Guest here, who's been a master in using the power of suggestion rather than showing.

[–] [deleted] 6 years ago

You gave it a try and didn't enjoy it. That's fair enough.
I disagree, but you're entitled to your opinion.

[–] [deleted] 6 years ago

If you don't like this movie...you might not be human!

[–] [deleted] 6 years ago

so true.

[–] peterkneter (387) 6 years ago

totally the same here. I watched it because it had 8.1+ rating on imdb which is so over the top for this movie.
It is voted #165 of best Films ever on IMDB, just one above Fargo, Shutter Ilsand or BIg Lebowski. Sorry but this is so overrated. The story is so simple and the characters are flat and onedimensional. The Effects were good as was the soundtrack, but it does not belong to the high league where it was rated here.

[–] SteveG (1370) 6 years ago

In the context of a film made during the early 80's this film was revolutionary and re-defined the sci-fi horror genre for years and perhaps til this day. And yes the cutting edge sfx had a lot to do with that. I still regard this film as having one of the all time best jumps scares [spoiler]when the doctor goes to apply the chest paddles and the mans chest opens up and bites his arms off.[/spoiler] That was a total freak out moment for me and many and left an indelible impression. That being said I can understand how some, newer generations, may not appreciate it so much and find it dated or passe but I can still re-watch it to this day and be entertained by it.

[–] peterkneter (387) 6 years ago

absolutley understand you. What I am expect from a movie with a 8,1 rating is a better story. If that would also have been great I could understand rating it higher but only because of scare moments and effects I would not rate it so high. I'd give it a solid 6/10

[–] [deleted] a year ago

none of the characters were developed enough that I cared about any of them, the Thing itself I didn't find scary or creepy

I agree on these counts. It took me a while to cotton on to why I didn't like this movie as much as some others do, then it dawned on me that I don't give a fuck about a single character in it and they're all grown ass men who act like bickering teens.

The 2011 prequel did a much better job of making you care for the characters.

Also I have never found this movie scary and I say this as someone who saw it when I was 13 years old. For reference I saw Halloween (1978) when I was 11 and was petrified.