The scene I like best is, when the guy fires his machine gun into the door and you see nothing.
Then, in the next shot, suddenly there are bullet holes.
The monster looked like Frankenstein light.
And the monster jumping like a ballerina when they throw an axe at him! Priceless..
Carpenter changed the beginning and the end, invented a shape-shifting monster and made a real classic.
I agree. The films are allegories for russians. They look advanced and peaceful, but they just want to do us harm.
shareCarpenter didn't invent the shapeshifter. The original story that both films were based on had a shapeshifting alien. Carpenter re-introduced the concept.
shareLol, wrong movie, bub. Carpenter - see 1981 version of the movie.
Sig, you want a sig, here's a SIG-sauer!
No , this is the right movie. The OP mentioned Carpenter's work in relation to this film, made an erroneous assumption, and I was correcting it.
shareSo it was already in the original story?
The shape-shifting is the most important aspect of the monster.
I guess they couldn't do it in 1951.
But this is still no excuse for the borderline Ed-Wood-directing sometimes.
It's simply not the great horror film that people make out of it.
Without Carpenter's masterpiece this would have been forgotten long ago.
Without Carpenter's masterpiece this would have been forgotten long ago.
The OP definitely doesn't have the best grasp of movie history. I still have my old books and magazines from the sixties and seventies to attest to the high regard The Thing from Another World was held in.
shareThe shape-shifting is the most important aspect of the monster.
But this is still no excuse for the borderline Ed-Wood-directing sometimes.
Yes. Go read "Who Goes There?". It's the original story that both movies are based on.
Carpenter's version is closer to the original story than The Thing From Another World, but the inspiration for this movie is still obvious, despite the artistic liberty.
The OP said this movie wasn't scary. Maybe today it's not scary, but when it came out, it was. The same goes for Dracula, Frankenstein, The Wolf Man, and how many others.
shareThe OP said this movie wasn't scary. Maybe today it's not scary, but when it came out, it was.
"How do you know?" Can be explained by either personal experience or just plain common sense. Depends on his age. I'm old enough to understand that as we grow accustomed to what is allowed on film, the more we are desensitized. People reacted to Frankenstein, Dracula & Freaks like they did with the exorcist in the 70's. Psycho & The Twilight Zone horrified viewers of all ages in the 60's. The original Thing 'did' scare the crap out of people because it was new to them. I know. I was there.
shareNot scary at all?
You weren't at the theater in 1951. (I was eight years old.)
People gasped in fright when The Thing's shadow appeared, the human-guy turned and began firing, and ran out the door.
The whole bottom half of the screen disappeared as people jumped and screamed when The Thing almost burst through the hot house door.
The terror began when the guy says he can see whatever's-encased-in-the-ice, and he thought The Thing could see.
For the time, it was definitely scary.
Unfortunately I didn't think it was all that great either and yes I am taking into account the era this film is from. The monster was barely in it and frankly, kinda sucked. The tension and paranoia wasn't there (which could have easily been done even without the shapeshifting aspect). And it was all too cut and dry (especially when they have the monster figured out under a microscope almost immediately).
It's not terrible by any means, but it does leave a lot to be desired and I certainly applaud Carpenter for getting ahold of it and making the premise truly great.
I'm genuinely convinced that every movie would be better with Arnold Schwarzenegger in it.
The reason it is not scary to you is you are focusing on the technical aspects of the movie and the details of the original story. Try paying attention to the characters and relating to them. Feel what they are going through. When you do this, you will then begin to feel some fear. No movie is perfect. A good movie is one that helps you identify with and feel for the characters. This movie was scary to me because I know I would scared if I was going through what each of these people were experiencing.
"Do All Things For God's Glory"-1 Corinthians 10:31
I try doing this with my posts
[deleted]
Just saw this for the first time today and was a bit underwhelmed. I thought the dialogue and performances were quite sharp for 1950's picture but the overall tension and suspense was lacking for me. There was way too much plot told rather than shown. It made for honestly, a bit of a slog to sit through despite its brief running time and the thing itself honestly lacked any real presence as not only is it not onscreen much, but it also just doesn't do enough to make an impression, let alone be a palpable threat.
I do really wanna check out some Howard Hawks comedies after this as I did love the a lot of the banter and interaction between the characters(my favorite scene was actually the captain playing the drinking game with his hands tied behind his back), I just don't think his style makes for a particularly effective horror or thriller.