Film

User reviews of this film

• James said...

  Posted on Dec 04 2011 15:28 @martinezz. You sure you're talking about the same film we are? The Thing made in 1982?

  Report as inappropriate

• martinezz said...

  Posted on Dec 04 2011 14:36 shitty film, had it worked out from the first 10 seconds of the trailer.
  ignore any reveiw that gave this film any stars at all, you think a toddler wrote the storyline with crayons.
  terrible film -5 stars.

  Report as inappropriate

• Guy said...

  Posted on Oct 08 2011 06:02 You jest, surely? I was 17 when I saw this film and walked out entranced by the chilly, austere mood it evoked. Having watched it again (for what must be the umpteenth time), what is now some twenty-nine years later, I am still entranced by the almost casual means Carpenter generates tension and suspense; for goodness sakes, just the way the dog silently sits in waiting is unnerving. Cudos also to Dean Cundey, Bill Lancaster, the cast and, of course, the great Ennio Morricone.

  Report as inappropriate

• Jason said...

  Posted on Sep 28 2011 00:39 I'd have to agree that the reviewer totally missed the boat. To say that the paranoia is lacking when the opening scene creates it so beautifully (no one here speaks Norwegian?) and the end encapsulates it perfectly is perplexing.
  The reviewer also seems to skip any evidence for commentary.
  heck, the movie scores on the paranoia with Morricone's simple heartbeat bass line. And "Superstitious" playing as the camera pans through the empty areas of the bass, until eventually setting on the dog as it walks into a room, and the shadow turns . . .
  Simply masterful.
  There are a few examples; the gauntlet's been tossed to the reviewer and the "this is just empty fanboy crap" folks. Justify, please.

  Report as inappropriate

• Kevin said...

  Posted on Aug 26 2011 22:07 The premise of this film is quite suspenseful, but the execution seems to rely on natural squeamishness rather than generating genuine fear. By this standard an actual autopsy would count as horror.

  Report as inappropriate

• Jason said...

  Posted on Jun 21 2010 08:35 Apparantly this reviewer didnt watch the movie, as it is one of the most eery horrors to hit the screens as well as an intelligent storyline. Reviewer Either didnt watch the same movie or wasnt intelligent to understand the delicate tension set up by Carpenter.

  Report as inappropriate

• Dylan said...

  Posted on Jun 01 2010 16:27 The old version from 1951 is all right, but it doesn't hold a candle to Carpenter's nightmarish, paranoid classic. Regardless of special effects (which admittedly are incredible), it is actually the excellent cast that makes this film combined with Carpenter's suspense fuelled direction and Ennio Morricone's perfect score. For the Time Out reviewer to say " Carpenter avoids the subtle suspense of the earlier version - all the guessing and paranoia and wonder - in favour of a mindlessly macho monster mash which looks and feels just like an ineptly plotted remake of Alien" - makes me genuinely wonder if he actually watched the film. Tiresome comparisons with the 1951 version are quite redundant as they are 2 very different films, with the more recent version actually being more faithful to the story. What a lazy review.

  Report as inappropriate

• TOMMY said...

  Posted on Aug 31 2009 23:44 This is a masterpiece plain and simple. It captures a real feeling of fear and paranoia with nobody able to trust anybody. Like the characters the viewer is never sure who is the alien and who isn't. The reviewer for Time Out clearly how has no appreciation for suspense and the sci fi/horror genre. Idiot.

  Report as inappropriate

• True SF fan said...

  Posted on Jul 17 2009 03:47 The Time Out critic got it right. This is a ridiculously overrated piece of tripe drooled over by immature and illiterate fanboys who confuse gore and shock effects with genuine scares, and think elaborate FX are all a film needs. Despite the liberties the 1951 version takes, it is still one of the best and most intelligent SF thrillers ever made.

  Report as inappropriate

• Geoff said...

  Posted on Jul 03 2009 15:41 Everybody gives this film 5 stars for a reason!
  If you want fantastic suspense and a sense of utter paranoia as well as superb special effect then this is the sci-fi / monster flick for you. It has a real sense of terror, a definite feeling of 'oh my God, where is it now, who's going to be next!' This film WILL give you the willies if you watch it on your own for sure.

  Report as inappropriate

• Neal said...

  Posted on May 16 2009 14:41 The movie is the flagship of an era of monster flicks that stand out due to the brilliance of their special effects. I find it amazing that the reviewers would bash this movie for being an "Alien" ripoff! This movie still scares people in the modern era of CGI garbage and crappy slasher teen flicks.
  This movie sits on the top shelf of truely scary monster flicks along with others such as American Werewolf in London, The Howling, Jaws, and others

  Report as inappropriate

• James Cameron said...

  Posted on Apr 07 2009 14:21 As I write this, The Thing from Another World has 88% on Rottentoms while JC's unarguably superior version has only 76% It is because of lazy and blatantly uninformed reviews like this one that this anomaly occurs. Quote: "In re-adapting the John W Campbell story (Who Goes There?) already filmed so superbly in 1951..." Reviewers should be careful when referring to sources that they haven't read. If he had, he would know that it actually bears very little resemblance to the 1951 version, aside from an alien lifeform in an Antarctic setting - the novella's intriguing central premise being ditched entirely in favour of standard man in a rubber suit fare. In fact, to call JC's film a remake at all is fairly tenuous.
  Stating that this film in any way resembles Scott's Alien makes me wonder if the reviewer has even seen JC's film at all! It is seriously NOTHING like it whatsoever! Even as mentioned the chest bursting scenes - not remotely similar. If anyone has any idea what this 'illogical ending' is referring to I'd love to know! And as for JC avoiding the paranoia of the original - dude admit it, you really haven't seen this movie have you???! Either that or you were blazing a doobie at the time because JC's film is at it's very zenith is a film ABOUT paranoia, unlike the admittedly classy yet daffy original which is about a man in a rubber suit. With respect, this reviewer should perhaps stick to writing reviews for dull tripe like English Patient

  Report as inappropriate

• Godfrey Hamilton said...

  Posted on Aug 29 2008 23:16 Any chance of amateur "reviewers", however enthusiastic, avoiding "moron" and "retarded"? Just too easy, just too cheap, just so tiresome.

  Report as inappropriate

• Ken said...

  Posted on Mar 02 2008 06:59 I agree with Adam...not even close to Alien in story or life form. What made the movie so enjoyable was the suspense. Yeah, there was a lot of alien flowers, spider legs and teeth, but the real power lies in the creepy feeling it leaves in you for the next few hours, wondering, "God, what would happen if that got to L.A. or New York..or my neighborhood?" Great movie, great ending, great monster, awesome paranoia.

  Report as inappropriate

• Adam said...

  Posted on Jan 02 2008 03:11 This movie is a classic. Only a moron would say it is a rip off of alien. Apart from the fact that has an alien they have nothing in common. This movie is not a "mindlessly macho monster mash" it has strong theme of paranoia, nobody knows who to trust and thats what makes the movie so great, not to mention possibly the greatest ending in a movie ever which people to this day still talk about. You either saw a different movie or you are retarded.

  Report as inappropriate