Review of The Thing (1982) by Ric P — 22 Jul 2015

I've always tended to analyse films in a particular way. I feel I have a pretty good, basic theorem for defining a 'great' film.

What does the film do? Or, more accurately, what is it attempting to do? And, consequently, does it succeed in it's aim?

Now obviously this is purely one dude's opinion, and I am acutely aware that I could be very, very wrong about a film's intentions and goals. So I'll set my Mr. Pretentious hat to one side (It's an imported German black cowboy hat with fine stitching on the rim) and get to my point.

John Carpenter's "The Thing" is as close to being the 'perfect' horror/sci-fi movie as you can get. Going by my criteria for great films, this one nails it so far out of the park it ceases to be the same sport.

OK, what does the film do? And what is it attempting to do?

The film essentially tells a very simple story about claustrophobia, dread and paranoia; we follow a group of males (and a dog) stuck in a confined space together, with a big problem that cannot be solved. Carpenter has gone on record with the "Ten Little Indians" analogy, and this fits with the premise very neatly. On a more thematic level, I've always presumed "The Thing" is about the beginning of end of mankind. This group of frazzled, bearded, underfed and & overworked scientists could very well be the last men on Earth.

The Thing really is simplicity defined; an unseen monster in a confined space. Such basic focus seems lost on the majority of movies within the genre (especially today); here, Carpenter is as perfectly-aimed, concise and creatively driven as he ever has been; the direction is flawless, the story perfectly weighted somewhere between terrifyingly claustrophobic and the hilariously absurd (nowhere else does the line between horror and comedy blur so magically).

Rob Bottin's effects, practical and tangible, hold up today because they aren't judged by the standard of technology of the time - how can you compare the ingenuity and creativeness of the work done here with anything else? I've always believed the effects define the film, and present a water-tight case to modern movie-making that practical effects still retain a human quality that someone like George Lucas could never comprehend with his vile Star Wars prequels - the eye can always tell. The blend of real set work and matte backgrounds is as old-school as they come, but the work is of such a quality that it flows smoother than the J&B Mac glugs.

The performances just feel real. That's the only way I can think to describe the ensemble casts' work. Every character has weight, and a story, and a reason to be there. There is a very definite sense that these men have spent time together; a natural chemistry that presumably only works when its got some truth to it. Kurt Russell comes as close as there is to the film's hero but even then he's more lucky with the odds than anything else. His performance is exceptional though; he acts as the film's weighty anchor and brings the sense of reality - his reactions mimic the audiences at set "WTF" moments. Plus, his beard is magnificent.

Does it succeed in its aim? The Thing is one of those films that never loses its shine; the masterly intertwining of direction, effects, story, performance and (particularly) sound creates perhaps the apex of the sci-fi horror genre. From the first second of this film, it feels like WE'RE ALL F*****. The score, and primarily the main theme, rattles the film's intent and motive through your bones from the outset; there is no hope, you have no time, you don't have a chance.

Carpenter's finest hour (superior to Halloween) and finally sitting atop the pile - where it should have been from the beginning - The Thing deserves our respect.