One of Carpenter's best thrillers

Rating: 7/10 (2 February 2003)

**definite spoilers**
Next to "Halloween," "The Thing" is perhaps John Carpenter's best film. Although it was a critical and commercial flop when first released, it has since gained its own cult following--not as large as the former, but large enough to convince horror fans to reevaluate it. Set near the South Pole, the film concerns a deadly space creature that infiltrates a scientific outpost. This being can absorb any living organism and duplicate its characteristics with chilling precision. If left unchecked, it may wipe out the human race. After a good twenty years, it still holds up for the most part. It is a simply-plotted but well-crafted effort, generating an eerie, desolate atmosphere, not unlike that of Ridley Scott's influential "Alien." Filmed in Alaska, the bleak cinematography makes it seem like it really was filmed in Antarctica. There is an acute feeling of isolation, the sense that we are thousands of miles away from any other human being. It is just them...and it.
"The Thing" is a more explicitly violent film than "Halloween," but delivers just as much in terms of good, honest shocks. There are moments that still compel the viewer to jump, moments that are genuinely creepy. The special effects work used to bring the alien to life are still very good--nice and gooey, and the fact that the creature makes its presence known when we least expect it only adds to the terror. Inevitably, it attempts to infiltrate this unfortunate group of people. The screenplay cleverly second-guesses the audience's attempts to devise the identity of the creature. Just when we think we've guessed who it is, the film surprises us. The paranoia and claustrophobia is nearly unbearable at times. The creepy music adds more to the atmosphere.
In some ways, this is arguably a better film than "Halloween;" Carpenter's pacing is more assured, and the shocks more intense. Yet, the characterizations prove to be the film's major weakness. Aside from Kurt Russell, most of the characters tend to be fairly interchangeable, unfortunately hampering the effectiveness of the material to some degree. It's still a well-made thriller that is obligory viewing for genre fans. I will not compare it to the 1951 original, unseen by myself. The remake is good enough to stand on its own merits, and many have argued that it is actually a superior film. Whatever its flaws, it delivers.
*** (out of ****)
Released by Universal Pictures