|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'd call it a minor classic. Not so much because of the special effects and horror (which I've always enjoyed while agreeing with the "you've gotta be effing kidding me!"). But for the milieu, the ambience, and the opening and closing scenes, which are perfectly chilling.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Oct 4, 2016 - 8:36 PM
|
|
|
By: |
MikeP
(Member)
|
You know, I get that people like The Thing 1982, but calling it a 'classic' or "masterpiece" is hyperbole, good movie - okay, maybe really good movie-okay, classic or masterpiece, no, it is not. It is this kind of hyperbole speak and thinking that is part a part of the lowering of tastes where almost anything that is put on screen with enough action and CG is called "awesome" when it certainly is not. Eh..."masterpiece", maybe not, but horror/paranoia "classic", hell yes. Pretty sure there's no CG in the movie, I think even the saucer at the beginning is a model. I see your point in today's movies, where any director who worked in commercials or music video, and can do all kinds of fancy, flashy visual tricks is called "VISIONARY", and most of them can't tell a story to save their life. Lots of successful big budget pictures are labeled "classic" because they're successful these days. And they're called classic a year or two after their release. But, Carpenter's The Thing, not without faults ( the pretty bad creature at the end ), is indeed classic. Tight, eerie, a movie that deals in drama and paranoia as much as gore. It had the extremely bad timing to play in the summer of E.T and people didn't want something this dark. But it holds up today, whereas lots of genre pictures of that era do not. Last year I watched Carpenter's They Live for the first time in years, and MAN is that a poorly staged, awkward movie. That's also called classic and it's one I'd argue is not classic. It is a cult favorite, and influential in some ways, but so clumsy in others, not a classic. But The Thing sure as sh*t is
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Oct 4, 2016 - 10:48 PM
|
|
|
By: |
Howard L
(Member)
|
A little fuel additive to the 'classic' fires; from the NY Times of June 25, 1982: 'THE THING,' HORROR AND SCIENCE FICTION By VINCENT CANBY JOHN CARPENTER'S 'The Thing' is a foolish, depressing, overproduced movie that mixes horror with science fiction to make something that is fun as neither one thing or the other. Sometimes it looks as if it aspired to be the quintessential moron movie of the 80's - a virtually storyless feature composed of lots of laboratory concocted special effects, with the actors used merely as props to be hacked, slashed, disemboweled and decapitated, finally to be eaten and then regurgitated as - guess what? - more laboratory-concocted special effects. There may be a metaphor in all this, but I doubt it. Mr. Carpenter has demonstrated that he can make good, comparatively plain, old-fashioned scare movies ('Halloween') and effective suspense thrillers ('Escape From New York'), but he seems to lose his own head when he combines two or more genres, as he did in 'The Fog' and does again here. For the record, it should be immediately pointed out that this new film bears only a superficial resemblance to Howard Hawks's 1951 classic 'The Thing,' though both were inspired by the same source material, John W. Campbell Jr.'s story 'Who Goes There?' The Hawks film, written by Charles Lederer and directed by Christian Nyby, is something of a masterpiece of understatement. It's also funny. The new 'Thing' has been written with no great style by Bill Lancaster and directed by Mr. Carpenter without apparent energy or the ability to share his interest with us.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Oct 5, 2016 - 11:15 AM
|
|
|
By: |
RoryR
(Member)
|
In the 35 years or so since this movie came out, our culture has be so dumbed-down and standards so lowered, and terms such as "Classic" and "Masterpiece" so loosely thrown around that they've really lost much of their meaning. And "genius", don't forget that particular devalued currency! I think we're at a point in our culture were there a problem with people not being able to recognize that low-brow entertainment, which the 1982 THE THING is (and to a lesser extent so is the original version) and movies like it are, ARE NOT great art. To insist that they are standards of excellence that makes them truly classics or masterpieces is to simply show your lack of sophistication. I know you wrote this tongue in cheek, so thanks for the laugh - it IS funny when people pompously point out their own sophistication in contrast with others' lack thereof. And to point out that classic films may not be great art was a lovely touch, given that nobody had suggested that they were. Great post! No, I didn't write it tongue-in-check. What makes me laugh is people who get personally offended when you point out the sef-apparent reality that our culture is A LOT less sophisticated than it used to be and on average truly dumbed-down. I do think there are some classic films as I do regard narrative motion pictures as an art form. I just think the term classic is too loosely thrown around and should come with some qualifiers. What I've said is my opinion and only that and can be argued against, but when it comes to some people's opinions, especially of some things such as beloved movies being classic masterpieces, their opinions are so firm, because they've held it for so long and have had so much argeement from others, that their attitude is truly "don't you dare deny it!" It's a stupid attitude to have, but not surprising coming from those that inhabit our modern, dumbed-down culture.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|