Acensbart Excellent but underrated film

Micransix Crappy film

Hattie I didn’t really have many expectations going into the movie (good or bad), but I actually really enjoyed it. I really liked the characters and the banter between them.

Justina The film never slows down or bores, plunging from one harrowing sequence to the next.

Michael_Elliott The Thing from Another World (1951) **** (out of 4)Scientists and members of the Air Force are doing various projects in the Arctic when they discover a spacecraft buried under the ice. They fail at saving it but they also discover some sort of alien. They take the alien, still in ice, back to their living quarter but when it thaws out they are forced to deal with it before it kills them.We can debate on whether Christian Nyby or Howard Hawks directed the film but either way this is without question one of the better science fiction films ever made. I wouldn't put in on the same level as THE DAY THE EARTH STOOD STILL but as far as a monster movie goes it really doesn't get too much better than this.What works so well here is that you really do get a claustrophobic feel. The small spaces inside the station are a major plus simply because there aren't many places to go. I really loved the design of the living quarters and there's no question that it helps add some tension once hte monster breaks loose. The film also benefits from an extremely effective music score and a brilliant opening title sequence.The cast are another major plus with everyone fitting their roles nicely and turning in good performances. I thought the cast perfectly matched their roles meaning that they seemed like a legit group of characters and not just a bunch of actors. James Arness also deserves a lot of credit in his role as the monster. SOme have said that the monster is more like Frankenstein's monster rather than an alien and I understand that feeling but it's still very effective.The film does have one terrific jump scare to it and this sequence is just one of many reasons why this is a classic.

Woodyanders A group of researchers in the Artic run afoul of a lethal predatory humanoid being (hulking James Arness) that they find buried deep in the ice.Director Christian Nyby keeps the gripping story moving along at a brisk pace, ably crafts plenty of claustrophobic tension, and offers a vivid evocation of the desolate snow-swept and storm-bombarded setting (the strong sense of isolation and vulnerability give this picture an extra unsettling impact). Charles Lederer's taut and smart script crackles with lots of witty dialogue as well as presents a bunch of sharply drawn characters who for the most part work together like a well-oiled machine to make a stand against and defeat a formidable alien foe. The excellent acting by the uniformly top-notch cast rates as another significant asset, with especially stand-out contributions from Kenneth Tobey as the stalwart Captain Patrick Henry, Margaret Sheridan as the spunky Nikki, Robert Cornthwaite as the austere Dr. Arthur Carrington, Douglas Spencer as excitable wisecracking reporter Scotty, James Young as the eager Lt. Eddie Dykes, and John Dierkes as the rugged Dr. Chapman. Dimitri Tiomkin's robust score hits the rousing spot. Russell Harlan's crisp black and white cinematography provides a pleasing sharp look. Very tightly plotted and executed with a sure feeling of total professional both behind and in front of the camera, this film certainly lives up to its status as an all-time classic.

ethansanders-40501 While yes, John Carpenters remake is superior and is one of the finest horror/sci of films of all time, that shouldn't devalue the original which is a tense and thrilling ride. One unique aspect about this film is the dialogue, it overlaps and feels natural making the characters more likable which in turn increases the tension. The movie never has a single slow moment or dull scene as there is constant dread throughout making this film a compelling watch. This movie is also note ale for being one of the first to pioneer the "less is more" technique as we never really get a good look at the monster which adds to the tension. Therefor,ancestry are all excellent with the character of Scotty being they standout character who is funny but not in a way that dissolves the tension. Overall I highly recommends this gem, but go in with the mindset that its own film and don't unfairly compare it to the remake as they are so vastly different I actually believe it would be more accurate to call alien (1979) a remake of this film then the Thing.

Eric Stevenson 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. ***