Sandor 459 Posted February 27, 2006 Share Posted February 27, 2006 Recently saw The Thing in my horror-marathon...This film, also from 1982 (wink, wink Joe), worked, for me, a thousand times better than Poltergeist. Not that it is a better film perse, but there's so much suspense in the film that's it's effectiveness is stunning. The test scene where Copper's blood "erects" is jawdropping and often imitated (The X-Files, Deep Space Nine, etc.) The effects are lightyears beyond Poltergeist IMO. These effects were great in 1982 and are still unsurpassed in many ways. No matter how fantastic CGI CAN be, I've not seen anything like The Thing since 1982. I did have one major problem with the film: the final shots of The Thing. A weird combination of stop-motion (horrible) and a truly ridiculously looking creature. This is where the film, after 90 terrific minutes, jumps the shark so to speak. It just doesn't work and the film collapses under it. I loved the last scene between Childs and Russel, but those really bad Thing-shots at the end prevented me from totally liking the film.What a contrast with The Skeleton Key! A horror-film generally regarded as weak. OK, that film had 90 so-so minutes (although interesting), but the final 5 minutes TOTALLY BLEW ME AWAY! It ended a mediocre film with a four star ending whereas The Thing ended with something pathetic IMO. Just my opinion ofcourse.Next up: .............. : why some films from the 80's STILL work... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Salacius 7 Posted February 27, 2006 Share Posted February 27, 2006 you kiddin'?The Thing is one of my favourite films of all time,Unbelievable effects for the those days and still hold today (better than other films because they were simply there and not CG)I know what you mean about the ending but I wouldn't say the film suffers from it. In the end of the day it was a huge monster and it would have been extremely difficult to do it for real.Man what a film though, I think about it and I am having flashes of horror!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeinAR 1,759 Posted February 27, 2006 Share Posted February 27, 2006 I watched Howard Hawk's classic 1950's SciFi/horror film the Thing, From Another World, this weekend.I am absolutely amazed at how timely it still is. Film in the early years of the Cold War, with all its paranoia, it still functions as well today, a half a century later.Beautifully shot in Black and White, it deals with a group of isolated soldiers, scientists, and reporters, who discover an alien space craft lodged in the ice. There is still an awe of discovery, tempered by some political paranoia, and an almost total lack of fear of the unknown. When trying to free the vessel, they accidentally destroy it, they think their discovery is a total loss, only to find a body frozen in the ice.What happens next is when the film goes from SciFi to outright horror. When the Alien is accidentally revived, it escapes, killing both men and dogs. Its arm is torn off in a life and death struggle with one of the dogs. It turns out that while its a biped, its cellular makeup is plant. In one being it has the capability of conquering the entire planet. It sneaks back into the base, and starts to grow newer versions of itself, using animal and human blood, to help grow its plants. This is what separates it from the 80's remake. It uses terror as a methodology for its horror, while the Carpenter remake goes one step further, it uses gore, and lots of it, effectively too. It forgoes the old cold war paranoia, which was still present to an extent in 82, but replaces is with a more internalized paranoia, as in the remake, anyone could be the alien.Both films boast outstanding production values, that fit their era. Both films end with a sense of paranoia, Watch the Skies, the original says at the end, while the 80's ends with suspicsion of the last remaining 2 characters. The fact that the remake relied so heavily on gore effects, weakens the film, simply because it forgets to rely on the story, now virtually ever effects films has this same failing.Both films are outstanding, but the Original inspired a generation of great filmmakers, while the newer film inspired a generations of makeup artist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AC1 3,565 Posted February 27, 2006 Share Posted February 27, 2006 Director John Carpenter and special makeup effects master Rob Bottin teamed up for this 1982 remake of the 1951 science fiction classic The Thing from Another World, and the result is a mixed blessing. It's got moments of highly effective terror and spine-tingling suspense, but it's mostly a showcase for some of the goriest and most horrifically grotesque makeup effects ever created for a movie. With such highlights as a dog that splits open and blossoms into something indescribably gruesome, this is the kind of movie for die-hard horror fans and anyone who slows down to stare at fatal traffic accidents. On those terms, however, it's hard not to be impressed by the movie's wild and wacky freak show. It all begins when scientists at an arctic research station discover an alien spacecraft under the thick ice, and thaw out the alien body found aboard. What they don't know is that the alien can assume any human form, and before long the scientists can't tell who's real and who's a deadly alien threat. Kurt Russell leads the battle against the terrifying intruder, and the supporting cast includes Richard Masur, Richard Dysart, Donald Moffat, and Wilford Brimley. They're all playing standard characters who are neglected by the mechanistic screenplay (based on the classic sci-fi story "Who Goes There?" by John W. Campbell), but Carpenter's emphasis is clearly on the gross-out effects and escalating tension. If you've got the stomach for it (and let's face it, there's a big audience for eerie gore), this is a thrill ride you won't want to miss. --Jeff Shannon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandor 459 Posted February 27, 2006 Author Share Posted February 27, 2006 Ouch! Alex why do you always rely on the opinions of others? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AC1 3,565 Posted February 27, 2006 Share Posted February 27, 2006 Ouch! Alex why do you always rely on the opinions of others?Always? Don't be silly. I could've said something along the same lines but I don't care enough to go through the effort. Jeff nails it just about perfectly, Roald. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robthehand 3 Posted February 27, 2006 Share Posted February 27, 2006 So, correct me if I'm wrong, but is this thread just saying "Why FX films with good special effects are better than FX films with less good effects"? :? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,251 Posted February 27, 2006 Share Posted February 27, 2006 It does, basically. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ollie 859 Posted February 27, 2006 Share Posted February 27, 2006 I'm too lazy to type so what Joe and Alex said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandor 459 Posted February 27, 2006 Author Share Posted February 27, 2006 Well I know you guys think differently BUT Poltergeist and The Thing are two films that were MADE to show the effects. "See what we can do"...These films are NOT Bergman, Eissenstein or Scorsese. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeinAR 1,759 Posted February 27, 2006 Share Posted February 27, 2006 no Roald they weren't made to show the effects, they were made to tell a story, Poltergeist story is advanced because of the effects, while the Thing suffers because of the effects, its best parts were the personal drama. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeshopk 8 Posted February 27, 2006 Share Posted February 27, 2006 They were made to scare audiences. Spielberg and Carpenter love to do that. It is just part of who they are, and the films they loved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AC1 3,565 Posted February 27, 2006 Share Posted February 27, 2006 No personal drama in The Thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeinAR 1,759 Posted February 27, 2006 Share Posted February 27, 2006 These films are NOT Bergman, Eissenstein or Scorsese.you say that as if those filmmakers films are above, when they are not. Bergman made cold and distant films, Eissenstein is so far removed from today, he's just not a decent comparison, and Scorsese has made more than his fair share of crap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandor 459 Posted February 27, 2006 Author Share Posted February 27, 2006 Bergman made cold and distant filmsThan we have seen the work from a different Bergman.no Roald they weren't made to show the effects, they were made to tell a story.Yeah right. In the end it's all about the money you know. you say that as if those filmmakers films are aboveNo I don't. We're talking about effects laden, blockbuster craving productions and people are selling it as The Godfather part II. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AC1 3,565 Posted February 27, 2006 Share Posted February 27, 2006 These films are NOT Bergman, Eissenstein or Scorsese.you say that as if those filmmakers films are above, when they are not. Bergman made cold and distant films, Eissenstein is so far removed from today, he's just not a decent comparison, and Scorsese has made more than his fair share of crap.Oh yes, they are, they went further then just wanting to scare and deliver cheap thrills. Look at Carpenter's oeuvre: his bad movies are sooooo bad. He's not up there with the gods. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeinAR 1,759 Posted February 27, 2006 Share Posted February 27, 2006 tell me Alex, how does Scorsese's remake of Cape Fear go further, it delivered vile and cheap thrills and tried to scare its audience, Bergman used editing to shock his audience, and for the time Eissenstein could be accused of using graphic violence for its shock value to its audience. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandor 459 Posted February 27, 2006 Author Share Posted February 27, 2006 .... and I didn't bring in Bergman, Eissenstein or Scorsese for their scares or thrills... Sigh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AC1 3,565 Posted February 27, 2006 Share Posted February 27, 2006 Cape Fear is not representative of Scorsese's oeuvre. Although i quite like that one . I'm sure there's a deeper meaning in there somewhere .BTW, who is as fond of Dark Star as I am? Pure genius, fellas!Alex Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeinAR 1,759 Posted February 27, 2006 Share Posted February 27, 2006 that is why your arguement fails, you can't use those directors as a direct comparison, thats why all film reveiws of horror films have to be tempered. You can't expect a gimmick film(which all horror films are) to be as indepth, and as provocking as those filmmakers films. They serve a purpose, which isn't necessarily to look deep into the human soul, though some horror films have tried.Horror films are like pizza, good or bad its still pizza.Bergman films are like dining on continental cuisine, which is a different dining experience than pizza. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandor 459 Posted February 27, 2006 Author Share Posted February 27, 2006 Ok, I understand your reasoning Joe. I still feel however that a horror film can be as good as any "continential cuisine". Although rare, I find The Exorcist and George A. Romero's Dawn Of The Dead to be two of the greatest films ever made. Of recent films 28 Days Later comes to mind. Genius. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nightscape94 965 Posted February 27, 2006 Share Posted February 27, 2006 BTW, who is as fond of Dark Star as I am? Pure genius, fellas!Let there be light...Tim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeinAR 1,759 Posted February 27, 2006 Share Posted February 27, 2006 I like 28 days, but I don't think its genius, but I am looking forward to its sequel.As for great horror films, I submit Carrie, and Jaws from the 70's. And Bride of Frankenstein and the Mummy from the 30's. You've given me an interesting idea, which I will post later. Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AC1 3,565 Posted February 27, 2006 Share Posted February 27, 2006 Let there be light...Ah, I'm glad I'm not alone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now