The Thing from Another World (1951)

• On the surface, The Thing from Another World (The Thing for short) would appear to be just another of the hundreds of sci-fi/horror films that flooded the market in the 50s. The basic story of the discovery of a UFO near the North Pole with an inhabitant frozen in a block of ice sounds typical for the period. But this film is anything but typical.

• There are so many positive things to say about The Thing that narrowing them down to fit into a manageable size review is difficult. Very briefly, some of the things that impress me about The Thing include: the opening title sequence, the wonderful music score, the sets, the amazing kerosene fire scene, the terrific jump scare the first time we see the creature, and the desolate North Pole setting. Everything about the movie is near perfect as far as I'm concerned.

• One of the most impressive things to me, however, is the decision to use the creature sparingly throughout the movie. Because we only catch glimpses of the alien, he remains a mystery and, as a result, more frightening. I don't know if this is the case or not as I've never heard John Carpenter speak on the subject, but as I watched the movie last night, I couldn't help be think of Carpenter's decision to use The Thing in his movie, Halloween. Surely it wasn't a coincidence (or a cheap plug for his upcoming remake). Instead, I've always felt that the way Carpenter used The Shape in Halloween is much like way the creature is used in this movie. I don't know if anyone agrees, but I definitely see similarities.

• I can narrow down what makes this film so special to me into two words - Howard Hawks. If you're so inclined, there are any number of articles you can read on the internet about who really directed the movie - Hawks or Nyby. I don't know and I don't care, but it's easy to see Hawks' fingerprints all over The Thing. The most obvious example is the whole dialogue thing. In most of Hawks' movies I've seen, the dialogue is incredibly intelligent, snappy, and witty. It's part of what makes his movies so much fun. Hawks also had a way of getting actors to sound less like they were reciting lines and more like they were having actual conversations. Actors routinely step all over each others' lines and interrupt one another just like real people do. If you've ever seen His Girl Friday, you know exactly what I'm talking about. I love it.

• I could literally go on and on discussing The Thing from Another World. I haven't even touched on the comparisons with The Day the Earth Stood Still (released the same year) or the treatment of the scientists vs. the treatment of the Army or the portrayal of women or the whole Soviet invasion subtext or the "Watch the skies" speech or ... you get the idea. It's truly a remarkable movie.

Fmovies: The Thing From Another World is one of the top ten science fiction movies of all time. The original version feeds on our paranoia of the times as well as the fears of the atomic age and invasion from outerspace. Remember Mr. Arnold first saw what was called flying saucers only a few short years earlier. The acting and storyline are tight and first rate. The claustraphobia from being confined inside the North Pole with an alien running amoke is done very well. The cast rounds out the movie quite well with great performances of all of the characters. Granted to soem the movie may seem dated and lack special effects of the remake, but the remake does not capture the times and the fear of the so called Reds that this does. The Thing From Another World has to rank in the top ten. As a kid I thought it was one of the better, not to mention more frightening science fiction movies, up there with War of the Worlds and The Day The World Stood Still. This stands up story wise. Not all science fiction needs to have effects on the order of Star Wars. Sometimes, like horror, it's what you don't see that can get to you. This is a timeless classic. IT has to be in the top ten sci-fi films of all time. If you don't rent it, buy it. You will love it!

Classic, wonderful sci-fi / horror feature, a none too faithful adaptation of the John W. Campbell, Jr. short story "Who Goes There?". In this instance, the idea of the alien entity being a monstrosity that can imitate other life forms is jettisoned, in favour of making the creature basically like the Frankenstein monster. It's a super vegetable that requires blood for sustenance, and it makes life very tense for the scientists and military personnel at an isolated Arctic outpost when it's thawed from an icy imprisonment.

With an intrepid hero in the form of 1950s icon Kenneth Tobey on hand, it's a guarantee that "The Thing from Another World" is going to be a good time. It was a fairly odd choice of material for the producer Howard Hawks, who fills the story with overlapping dialogue and a sense of camaraderie among the various protagonists. Unlike the 1982 version, where the characters had the means to destroy the creature but first had to *identify* who the creature was, our cast here have to improvise their survival.

While any genre fan such as this viewer, who'd been brought up on the 1982 John Carpenter film, may be more inclined to favour that brand of horror, this is still very stylish fun. Hawks's editor Christian Nyby gets the directing credit, but it's generally believed that Hawks was pretty much in control of things. The score by Dimitri Tiomkin, utilizing the theremin, is suitably eerie. There are solid shocks, moments of suspense, and atmosphere along the way, as well as a lively finish.

This is a film very much of its time, with our military characters very much a dependable bunch of heroes, and the scientists (most of them) treated as highly suspect, especially the misguided Dr. Carrington, played delightfully by Robert Cornthwaite.

A little too much time is devoted to the romantic subplot with Captain Hendry and his love interest (Margaret Sheridan), but the actors couldn't be more engaging. Tobey, Sheridan, and Cornthwaite are extremely well supported by a strong ensemble: Douglas Spencer as annoying newspaperman Scotty (who has the honour of uttering the memorable closing monologue), James Young, Dewey Martin, Robert Nichols, William Self, Eduard Franz, Nicholas Byron, John Dierkes, George Fenneman, Paul Frees, David McMahon, and Norbert Schiller. A young James Arness, in his pre-'Gunsmoke' days, has great presence as The Thing.

There are images here so striking that Carpenter was wise to pay homage to them in his film: the line of men encircling the buried UFO, and the sight of the burning creature crashing through the building into the snow.

It's definitely a different beast, in more ways than one, than what we would see 31 years later, but it's solid entertainment for its own very good reasons.

Eight out of 10.

The Thing from Another World fmovies. A scientific expedition, located near the North Pole, sends an urgent message to an Air Force Base in Anchorage, Alaska reporting the near-by crash of a very large, unknown, object and requesting immediate assistance. Air Force Captain Pat Hendry, and his crew, then depart to this expeditionary site. Upon arrival, Captain Hendry meets Dr. Carrington, who's in charge. Preliminary scientific evidence rules out the possibility of a meteor. Also, since this crash, a lot of atmospheric and magnetic disturbance has been generated, making radio communications and aircraft navigation difficult, if not impossible. AT this point, Captain Hendry and his crew, along with Dr Carrington with some members of his staff, depart to the crash scene about 50 miles away. Upon arrival, part of an aircraft structure is protruding above the ice and appears to be "alien" in origin. Attempts to remove this aircraft, using thermal "thermite" heat bombs proves unsuccessful. This "Flying Saucer" is destroyed, but its occupant is thrown clear and becomes frozen under the ice. This body is then removed and taken back to this expeditionary site and put in cold storage. Everything appears to be under control until an unforseen accident occurs endangering not only the lives ov everyone at this expeditionary site, but all human and animal life on the entire face of planet Earth. There are some lighter sides to this Sci Fi drama. I enjoy the good natured kidding that Captain Hendry receives from his men after his girl friend pins an embarrassing not on his chest while he's asleep giving everybody ample opportunity to read it. I also get a kick out of the newspaper reporter Ned "Scotty" Scott's on going battle with Captain Hendry in trying to obtain permission to broadcastcast his "Flying Saucer" story to the media and Captain Hendry's refusal to let him until offical Air Force clearance can be given. Also, keep an eye out for George Fennamen, from Groucho Marx's old TV quiz show "You Bet Your Life."

Which version, Hawks or Carpenter? There's a lot of talk about which one is better, etc. I do agree with many that they both are very different films, very different viewing experiences. I love most good sci-fi. Some of 50's sci-fi can be dated after viewing. I do not think The Thing is one of these films which suffers from time . It holds up splendidly. If you like dialogue, you'll love this movie. If you like innuendo, fast paced overlapped dialogue, great characters - and I don't use that word lightly - you'll love this movie.

If you want more suspense, a lot more blood, and a much more gloomy setting, certainly John Carpenter's remake is better in these areas. I own and enjoy viewing both films.

Certainly, the creature in Carpenter's version is much more frightening, and truer to the John Campbell short story from which the story is based. His shape shifting would have been impossible to show in the 50's version with the believability that is possible in today's F/X field.

Carpenter gives us a setting which is darker, colder, and more foreboding. A feeling of hopeless, and nameless dread pervades the camp. Certainly, the notion is clear that this could be the end of all of them, and of the world. There's both a lot less thinking, and a lot more action to be had here in the Carpenter 80's version than in the Hawks' 50's approach.

Hawks, by contrast, created a feeling of "whistling in the dark", which dominates the setting. The characters, and they are many and varied, all have their own particular take on what is happening and what should be done about it. There is a sense of hopeful, "We can do it. We can solve this problem" attitude throughout the entire film. This feeling of "let's keep our heads" is contagious and very quickly the audience finds itself rooting, rather than running.

One more point, and I think it's a big one. The characters in the Howard Hawks' 50's film are all likable, including the "heavy" - the wonderful Dr. Carrington. All the characters are capable, and in many cases, quite resourceful and ingenious. Each, always maintains a humorous, dry wit angle of attack on the situation without resorting to camp or parody seen in most comic film writing today. The military crew members, very quickly in the story, each displays a comical personality ribbing both the captain and the civil service nature of the military with natural ease. As someone once said, a complaining soldier is a happy soldier. So true. This is certainly no "military has all the answers" flick. The mistakes they make are roundly criticized by all in attendance, including the co-pilot's not so subtle comment about the splitting of the atom, "yeah, and that sure made the world happy, didn't it?" (laughter). Add to that, Ned Scott the newspaper man, and you've got a non-scientist, non-military chronicler character to round out the story, and give the audience someone with comparable skepticism about what to do next. Ned is the outsider who is now, like us, on the inside.

The John Carpenter version, by comparison, has mostly losers populating the story, I have to say. From the camp leader, Gary, on down to the radio operator, Windows, most of the characters seem more suited as inmates in a minimum security prison than manning a research science station. (maybe a reflection of the lack of students going into the field of science in recent years? (chuckle) And t

While I love the remake very much I was finally able to see the original all the way thru without the colorization on TV. It is a truly awesome movie.

Comparing the two is not really fare or easy as Carpenter's version has the benefits of modern movie magic. But that is in my opinion the only place it excels. It seems in the remake all the characters are derelicts and for the most part not very likeable. In the original you had a sense of these people liking each other and sticking together.

Kenneth Tobey is a very good and believable leader of his men. He also shows a very human side in that he realizes he is not the smartest of men. He is what he is. A captain of a small band of Air Force Soldiiers simply doing their job.

Robert Cornblaithe is excellent as Dr. Carrington. He comes of snootish yet still likeable enough because you can see that deep down he really admires Captain Hendry (Tobey) though he can't see eye to eye with him on their situation or dealing of his "Thing From Another world."

Every character in the movie is well played. They all look like they belong in their roles. Their look and attire fit their characters and when one guy is called Professor so and so or whomever, you believe it unlike many movies in those days where they picked anyone to play the supporting actors. There is one thing though, Margaret Sheridan's pants pulled up almost to her neck line (exaggeration...but close) I could have done without. I realize it was a style of the times but I think they could have given her something a little better to show off her figure when you first meet her. Especially since she was the only female love interest and was tagged as "a pinup girl" in earlier scenes. She looks better when her hair is down and she is in different clothes. I know that is being picky but I just had to say it.

The creature is better presented in the original as far as being frightening. You hardly ever see him. When you do it's only for brief periods at a time and usually in the dark. That frightening sound of "The Thing" is very original in that it's not just a growl but sounds like a cat meowing at times. Very eerie!

The story is well known and both are similiar although I must admit the remake is closer to the actual Campbell JR.'s short tale. But the original still gives it a good account and in many ways surpasses the short story because it is easier to identify with the creature since he's humanoid.

It boils down to suspense, drama and mood versus gore, F/X, and fast paced action. Both movies are top notch. I am proud to own both and would not try and say one is overtly better than the other. The remake has the benefits of the then modern movie technology. The original had the benefit of black and white to add to the suspense and utter danger they are in. The choice is yours. I myself enjoy the original a little more as it holds up today probably better than any other Sci-Fi movie from that era.