The Thing (1982)

Rating: 5/10 (1 May 2009)

John Carpenter is probably the horror genre's single most famous export. I think the reason why, other than the fact that he built his career with a couple highly successful low budget horror films at the box office (Halloween and The Fog), is because those films had his name all over the advertisements. You knew it was a John Carpenter film when you went to see it. But any biography of John Carpenter reads a little funny when you consider how big a name he is in the genre, because shortly after those films were so successful, his 1982 epic The Thing absolutely tanked at the box office. Things didn't get much better for him following that. Neither 1983's Christine, 1984's wonderful Starman, nor 1986's Big Trouble in Little China did any better. I'll bet Universal was having greater luck when they acquired the rights to the sequels for Halloween. Though even there, Part III: Season of the Witch most likely didn't make too much more than John's remake of The Thing. Though some say it's not even a remake, but a more faithful adaptation of the original story, Who Goes There?
Now, that's a scary concept. Not knowing who is around you, as well as whether or not they're human. I'll admit to the world (apparently full of fans of this movie), this is a scary enough idea. But almost all the actual scariness is drained right out of the film by Carpenter's love for old-movie clichÃ©s. Literally, there are pieces from science fiction, western, and action films plastered all over The Thing. I like my horror a lot more pure than this. I don't get excited when I see scenes that are clearly being shot and added into the film for the purpose of watching someone sling-shoot a gun, or argue over who should be in charge, or smoke a joint, or drink a bottle of whiskey. I'm almost instantly reminded of Jaws, the big Hollywood adventure / drama that many people think is a horror film. The Thing is still a horror film, but my reason for bringing it up is there is an equal sense that much of Jaws is about "good ol' boys" and their dramatic situations and conflicts. But, this is horror. Why should I care just because that's the attitude of older military or western films? I sat down wanting a horror film.
Okay, so The Thing isn't pure. And it's not that scary, either. I'm in my mid-20's, I'm probably not going to be too scared by 99% of all horror films anyway. The film has a few undeniable good qualities. John Carpenter is a visual master of the genre, so his films always look amazing. This one is no exception. 1980's The Shining and 1974's Black Christmas had already captured the creepiness and starkness of being somewhat isolated in winter conditions. But, The Thing is much colder. Credit to Carpenter for managing to get some real dread from the viewer about potentially being in the characters' position and possibly freezing to death in the incredibly cold Antarctic climate. The film is literally a harsh snowy desert, which Carpenter at times paints with red and blue light. Not as pretty as Argento's 1977 masterpiece Suspiria, but I'll take it. Ennio Morricone's score for the film has its' moments and sounds like Morricone trying to imitate Carpenter's previous scores somewhat, or the style of them. But overall, it's not nearly as effective as Carpenter's scores for Halloween or The Fog.
And now, comes the part I always dread when talking about The Thing... Rob Bottin's special effects. The film's characters already do a good job of making this stylish film boring, but Rob's effects slam the book on why I dislike this film shut. They turn what is hopefully a restrained and tight paranoia piece into an out-and-out freakshow, like a circus of oddities. Which does not do much to add to any mood of suspense Carpenter was hoping to achieve. They stop the movie dead in its' tracks (though as I pointed out in another review, that's a Carpenter specialty), which I almost never care for. Bottin's work in Joe Dante's films previous, The Howling and Piranha, was flawed only because of the low budgets, but Bottin's and Dante's usage of them was remarkable and skilled. In The Thing, like I said, it's freaky and grotesque. Which I do think will knock your socks off if you're seeing the film for the first time. But will never scare you on repeat viewing. Rather, the sequences are just so disgusting, they make you want to turn the film off. Unless you're a budding special effects artist, who I'm sure will want to study every frame.
However, I will admit that one sequence definitely still gets me and I am impressed (after seeing the film about six times to date), the spider-head sprouting legs. But for me, the quality of the special effects are never as important as how they are used. Too much is actually too much. John would go on to show much more restraint and skill in this area 5 years later with Prince of Darkness. A film that's nowhere near as good as The Thing, but used special effects to better overall effect. When the big effects scenes in The Thing are pretty much over, the film gets a lot more interesting. For example, the famous "blood test" scene is a total home run for Carpenter and company (shy of the stupid effects), but afterward, the film actually becomes beautifully eerie, dark, and very enjoyable. When MacReady and a few survivors are walking through the camp, discovering Blair's secret, and making final plans. This is what the entire film should have been like. No scene previous really made this film. But this ending is actually on par with Carpenter's earlier and excellent work in the horror genre.