To be perfectly honest, few popular culture things make me nearly as embarrassed as the fact that until recently I had never seen the 1982 version of
The Thing, starring Kurt Russell. Adding insult to injury was the fact that I am a big movie buff, and Lovecraftian stories were always a great love of mine. Even all these years later, I think it remains one of the greatest horror films of all time, and continues to blow even modern practical effects out of the water.
 |
| The story may be subjective, but the impact it left on viewers certainly isn't. You could fill an art gallery with people's custom The Thing posters. |
By now probably everyone and their mother knows the general plot of
The Thing, but in a nutshell it is
Invasion of the Body Snatchers, except with a physical alien being/virus and taking place in a remote arctic research station. The story of isolation and infiltration isn't a very common one today, but what makes the way the story told exceptional is the large amount of subjectivity and ambiguity in the narrative. There isn't really a main character this story, further increasing the feeling of mystery, but the closest thing we have is the rough-and-tumble MacReady. There are plenty of iconic scenes and moments in this film, and first-time viewers like myself will probably know ahead of time how some events go down, but still, there's a lot of surprise to be found here.
 |
| Despite lacking the traditional tools and situation of an action hero, Kurt Russell carries the same energy with him in this film |
The technicals do so much to execute this concept of mystery as well, and truly both sides are performing above and beyond the norm (especially in a horror movie of all things). There's a good deal of long wandering shots that make you wonder what's going on, things moving out of frame, and such. Really, there's a lot of show, but whether anything is told isn't very clear if that makes any sense. There is also a lot of natural light in this film (more that the amount of light makes sense for the location and the sources), with the result being a decently dim film. For that I would recommend watching this in the evening/night to avoid glare. The practical effects are still essentially top of their class, and none are more impressive as the titular Thing (or should it be Things?). The Thing(s) are truly grisly, corrupted, and almost indescribable in their wretchedness, but they are incredible creations.
 |
| Even though I knew it was coming, one of the few times we actually witness the infecting of a person is haunting thanks to amazing acting and practical effects. Top notch. |
Really, if by chance you're like me and haven't watched this masterpiece yet, I strongly advise that you do. A great example of a film that never ages, it's a grisly beauty to behold (those with weak constitutions should consider having a bucket nearby for safety's sake), and is currently on Netflix for the time being. There's also a 2011 prequel (which is essentially the same film with more CGI and Cristopher Hivju) and surprisingly the 1951 original, both of which might be with looking into, though the 2011 one is supposed to be not good I hear. Maybe a good intro horror movie too, for besides the gross-out factor, I doubt that it would scare anyone away from anything, except maybe very calm and silent huskies...
 |
| Ah, an isolated Arctic research station, a place I'd love to live at for a bit, though after this I'm not so sure... |
Comments
Post a Comment