Like the scares and paranoia, but it peters out to the end

Rating: 6/10 (3 April 2002)

I first say this movie on a projection screen at a Take 1 arcade in the early 80's. Can't believe I saw it uncut, either. Perhaps the owners felt the sound from Battlezone and Pac Man would drown out the profanity from young ears.
At the time, I certainly found it frightening, but with time, and repeated viewings, I have to wonder about some of the director's choices. Could someone *please* explain to me why a civilian research station is heavily armed with firearms, not to mention flamethrowers? I mean, c'mon, I can understand maybe a shotgun, but flamethrowers? Were penguins that much of a threat to their survival?
Yes, the original "Thing" from 1951 may not have the gore and body count, but you can't beat the fact that they were lightly armed, even for military personnel, and had to use what was at hand to battle the creature. Here, whatever they need is thrown their way. It's hard to beat the orignal folks fighting off the creature with buckets of kerosene and flare guns in a confined space.
If Carpenter really wanted to impress me, he would have done away with the firepower and focused more on a group of lightly/unarmed scientists improvising their survival as in the earlier film.