One of those movies that gets better with repeated viewings, and preserves a sense of dread every time

Rating: 9/10 (12 December 2011)

Up until the last ten minutes of its running time, John Carpenter's "The Thing" upholds its contemporary, well-deserved legacy as one of the best of recent science-fiction films. Actually, the picture is more of a mishmash of science-fiction and horror, with a tremendous amount of impact being held up on the part of the second. It is based on the novelette "Who Goes There?" by John W. Campbell, Jr. which was also the source for a much-lauded 1951 Howard Hawks film with a pre-"Gunsmoke" James Arness and, more recently, a prequel to Mr. Carpenter's film. Comparing all three films, I think it is fair to say that Mr. Carpenter's has held up the best: it's the trimmest, the most purely enjoyable, even if it's somewhat unpleasant to watch. Then again, that was the whole idea.
It's also the closest to the original story, about a research team in Antarctica composed of a large group of men who find themselves placed under attack by a shape-shifting critter from outer space, which can seamlessly adopt the characteristics of organisms (men included) that it comes into contact with and walk about undetected until it decides to change shape again. The Howard Hawks version had a monster that, as described by Mr. Carpenter, was a "Frankenstein's monster" as opposed to the other-worldly thing in the story, and the 1982 film.
It is such a fabulous, smashing idea for a science-fiction film as well as a straight-up gross-out horror flick, which "The Thing" marvelously, not clumsily, combines together. One of the fabulous tactics that the filmmakers make is not giving the alien creature a definable, recognizable shape. We never see what it looked like before it started assimilating dogs, men, and who knows what else from all corners of the universe before and after its crash into the Antarctic ice a hundred thousand years ago. This in turn produces a truly effective sense of dread about the creature, as it can appear in and out of nowhere whenever it chooses to. It adds another dimension to the "Jaws" theory, that the unknown or unseen is more effective.
And when we do see the thing, it is done with special effects so tremendous that they actually surpass the digital concoctions in its 2011 prequel. When it changes shape, its disguise starts to spurt blood and protrude with all sorts of strange figures, oftentimes from life forms it attacked before. Whereas Mr. Carpenter kept visual blood to a minimum in his classic 1978 film "Halloween," here he lets it pour in spurts, hoses, and torrents from the disfigured assimilated bodies and the effect is superb. To an extent, the gross-out effect may be a show-stopper, but I think it works to a strong degree. After all, what would it really be like if a human stomach split open and a big pair of jaws appeared at ragged edges of the sliced flesh? Also effective is the decision of Mr. Carpenter and screenwriter Bill Lancaster to reduce the number of characters to a minimum. Some might find problem with the picture for only a few of them being defined, much since the alien is devouring many of them early on, this seems to be hardly a problem at all. Best of all is the way in which the filmmakers develop a sense of animosity and tension between them and this is the core effect of the picture. "The Thing," while gripping and scary, is more or less a "who's who?" fright-tale with the cast, headed by Kurt Russell in one of the actor's very best performances, trying to decipher who is human and who is an alien in disguise. The strongest scene in the movie is when the characters, who think like human beings, learn that every part of the alien reacts to pain, so they strap each other to chairs and draw blood before exposing it to a hot needle. It combines both parts of Hitchcock's surprise/suspense theory and utilizes both of them to a hilt. The tension of waiting for the bomb to go off (or in this case, the creature to get loose) is nail-biting.
The last ten minutes of the movie, do however, prevent "The Thing" from being a wholesome masterpiece. Its raw power, developed by the aforementioned suspense scene, begins to loosen as it approaches a climax which is unfortunately a little rushed and not striking with as much of the intended dread. It's not that the ending of "The Thing" is bad or not effectively done, it's just not as good as what came before it.
However, this is an easily-forgivable weakness, as more than seventy-five percent of this classic is immensely enjoyable. It's a great idea done with skill and affection. Clearly, John Carpenter was in love with the original story and one can feel his affection for it in the way he has cleverly directed it. Best of all is his understanding that it was meant to be a nightmarish tale and his understanding of how much to balance the intrinsic horror and science-fiction elements. Even though it has, in a way, been done, there really is no need to adapt the story again, as John Carpenter has done it in the best way possible, save the very end. It's one of those movies that gets better with repeated viewing and still very effective even when you have seen it a few times and know what is around the corner.