Nothing that I write about The Thing is as interesting as this page about Thing related merchandise: The Thing's Monstrous Merchandise.
The Thing was a bit of a letdown after Dawn of the Dead, but that's only saying that it was good, not great.
The sense of dread and mistrust achieved is praiseworthy and surely the most horrifying aspect of the film, but this same aspect suffered from my utter confidence in Kurt Russel's ability to handle any crisis. Honestly, Russel is a bit too much of an action hero here.
The special effects are great. I'm becoming increasingly convinced that the late 70s through the 80s were the greatest period of cinematic special effects that we've yet seen. CGI will continue to improve, but I'll still prefer rubber monsters.
The Thing is more impressive as a smart science fiction film (with John W. Campbell, Jr. source material!) than as horror (but, then again, I'm still trying to figure out what horror is). Smart movie SF is still a rarity. I don't think I'm being that controversial when I suggest that film SF is decades behind print SF. There have been lots of decent to good SF films (I love Moon from this year) and these films, like The Thing, need to be championed for what they are, but there have been very few genuine masterpieces as of yet.
1 comment:
I love The Thing, but I'm willing to admit that it's because of nostalgia. I remember one Christmas when my father's side of the family invited us to their drunken version of the holidays. This movie was on television and my father and I watched it together. I was so surprised to see my father laughing so hard at the violence in a way that I could tell that he genuinely appreciated it. Plus it's based on both the Howard Hawk's original (Carpenter has fashioned his whole career around Hawks homage) and of course it's based on Who Goes There?.
As for the Lord of the Rings debate, we'll have to part ways on this one. I read the books well before I saw the films and I didn't have anywhere near the reaction that you did. You'll have to cringe when my top ten lists for the years 2003,2002, and 2001 get up. Sorry buddy.
I obviously love The New World and don't know how to defend my pick of History of Violence at the top of the list. I'm not sure what film I would select as best of the decade. It's a tough one. There have been excellent films to laud and they are all of a different stripe. I could go out on a limb and say No Country for Old Men simply because to me it is a perfect movie. But I would quickly recoil.
Yeah, I don't think you are a hypocrite for disliking Wolf Creek. Part of me wishes that I hadn't liked it. It will be interesting to see what we both think of AntiChrist. Andy was over last night and quickly declared that he would never see it and tagged it with the dreaded Torture Porn. It's funny reading early reviews in which critics are dodging the term, claiming that it aspires to something higher. How so? It's one of the biggest annoyances I have with the critical community. They want Von Trier, Haneke, and Tarantino to represent something higher so they make silly excuses. Dave Kehr once said "that the arthouse audience has the same desire to see graphic violence and sexuality as their supposedly less sophisticated peers. They just prefer it with a lecture or sermon." (I'm quoting this based on memory of course) I totally agree and I'm saddened by this.
I wished that I hated Bruno and Wolf Creek because I know damn well that I hate something that is intrinsically the same. I guess we have to chalk it up as subjectivity.
I can't wait to hear your thoughts on Basterds. 2004 list should come sooner than later.
Post a Comment