Watch The Thing from Another World For Free

Very very predictable, including the post credit scene !!!

People are voting emotionally.

I like movies that are aware of what they are selling... without [any] greater aspirations than to make people laugh and that's it.

Fun premise, good actors, bad writing. This film seemed to have potential at the beginning but it quickly devolves into a trite action film. Ultimately it's very boring.

No pun intended but this "Thing" kind of... left me cold, even by fifties' standards, something was way off. Sorry but even by taking into account the limitations of the era in terms of special effects, I couldn't pretend to ignore that a certain movie called "The Day the Earth Stood Still" was made the same year, was more visually convincing, no less irrelevant in its contemplation of the future of mankind and had more three-dimensional protagonists AND antagonists. Yet Christian Nyby's "Thing" is considered a landmark of the sci-fi genre as well as the one with Gort. I can only attribute this status to its timely relevance and the fact that the film (for its defense) doesn't fall into the predictable camp so typical of lousy B-movies, it's not "Ed Wood" bad. And the film is hailed by sci-fi aficionados as a powerful allegory of the atmosphere of paranoia induced by the Cold War and the pessimism and defiance toward science in the atomic age. Fair enough, but I think it's digging a bit too deep and this block of meaningfulness is ultimately as disappointing as the one that revealed the monster, a cheap-looking thing that can't fool an audience used to more mature, shocking and -let's just be honest about it- entertaining material.Is there any good thing about "The Thing"? Two actually: an iconic opening and a classic ending, when the curtain call-line came, I had totally forgot it came from this film. But in between, "The Thing" was nothing like what the chilling score promised and nothing justifying the journalist's enthusiasm at the end, it was a dud, a verbose abundance, people talking, smoking, commenting on military bureaucracy and flirting in total 50's fashion. At the end, what we've got despite a few attempts to reveal a menacing presence is a weird feeling of... not emptiness, but harmlessness. Even the coldness never seems to be an issue. The Monster has its moments of course and some jump scares are efficient but the film was so slow in its pacing, so unambitious that it needed more than adrenalin shots, it needed a defibrillator.Notice that I'm making a nod to the remake, seriously, in John Carpenter's "The Thing", moments of total stillness, a simple shot, could fill your heart with the thrills of morbid anticipations and the Thing from the other world was one we couldn't see coming. In its predecessor, we don't even have the luxury of moments of stillness, or quietness, we beg for them, we beg for one minute of death glares, of silence, of anticipations, one minute of nothingness, just let us hear the blizzard in the background, but seriously, this got to be the most talkative movie ever and given how the appeal of science fiction depends on atmosphere, this is a disastrously uninspired directing. And don't get me started on characterization, how could the "remake" be criticized on that level when it's "The Godfather" compared to this.What we've got in the film is all good and clean-cut American heroes steady and focused like in a Simpsons parody, the scientist is recognizable by his white hair and self-righteousness, the nerd by his baldness and the fact that he faints during the battle while the hot secretary in tight skirts keep on flirting with the handsome captain... and we even have a scene where she ties him and offers him a drink, as if it had any relevance. Granted not every scene should enhance the plot but I expect a movie to be listed in the American Top 100 Thrills to be more concerned with the thrills and feature a few scenes where lives are at stakes, it does happen at times but when the real excitement starts, the countdown to the conclusion started with it. Nyby denied that Hawks directed the film, and I'm inclined to believe him.For the fourth or fifth time, here's a reminder of Hawks' golden rule for a good movie: three good scenes and no bad scenes. I don't think "The Thing" was made with that mindset, the film contains many bad scenes or awkward in the best case or good scenes that aged badly... and I sincerely can't think of a third impactful scene between the opening and the ending. Even the monster's entrance is nothing new since Frankenstein and his demise is laughable, let's not kid ourselves about it. This is not even to dismiss the film, I didn't even mention the implausible stuff or the plots holes, but its greatest fault is the lack of entertaining value.That's "The Thing"'s main flaw, it either never tries to be more than a B-movie, or it doesn't even try to be a plain and fun-to-watch B-movie. Its greatest flaw is that it's a serious film, taking itself seriously... and getting quickly and seriously boring. Five for the historical relevance. (Interestingly, this film and the "making of" of John Carpenter's version has the same running-time, and at least one of them keeps you excited in every single minute, it's a miracle if "The Thing" ever keeps you awake or at least focused)

Movie Review: "The Thing From Another World" (1951)In the year 1951 when the final distributing decade for Golden Age Hollywood Mini Major RKO Radio Pictures had toll the first bell before closure of the studio in 1959, "The Thing From Another World" based on a story by John W. Campbell Jr. optioned by producer Howard Hawks, denying his own direction on the picture, focus on "The Big Sky" starring Kirk Douglas and the comedy "Monkey Business" (both 1952), considering the picture even all too silly at the time of release with the wish to pull his entire name from the production.Now in retrospective and after an indulging remake directed by John Carpenter, called just "The Thing" (1982) starring Kurt Russell, which eventually brought out the horror with skillful camera work and engaged acting towards splatter gore f/x, where the original version from 1951, just before television invaded citizen's living room, giving still some entertainment for the classic movie lovers with striking on stage pyro-effects of the inflamed creature from outer space, behaving mainly like Frankenstein's creature on acid, making this picture directed by future "Bonanza" (1959-1967) television director Christian Nyby, who occasionally moves the 35mm camera set through above-average B-movie, close-to A-listers, production design and hammering score by composer Dimitri Tiomkin.The acting ensemble surrounding by professional Industry actors from again future television cast as Kenneth Tobey and Magaret Sheridan keep face as North pole scientists discovering an invading parasite from outer space and confront it as a team toward annihilation, tolling the bells together with "The Day The Earth Stood Still" (1951) directed by Robert Wise for an era of an Hollywood Horror revival as Universal monsters in the 1930s, stating clearly that filmmaking, story-wised drive, runs in circles to be hyped again.© 2017 Felix Alexander Dausend (Cinemajesty Entertainments LLC)

This undervalued classic has sadly had most of its impact taken away by John Carpenter's remake which followed thirty years later. While that was admittedly a masterpiece, most people forget that the first version of the story "Who Goes There?" was also a classic of the genre, a '50s monster movie with more atmosphere and suspense than you would find in a dozen imitations. The influence of this forgotten chiller can still be seen today in films like ALIENS, and in many aspects this is one of the first "people in isolated location face enemy while being picked off one by one" formula which worked so well for all those slasher/monster movies of the '80s and beyond.The acting is great along with the script, which helps to breath life into the stuffy military characters that this film has at its core. I'm pretty sick of all the boring army types we have to put up with in '50s movies, but THE THING FROM ANOTHER WORLD bypasses all of that by making them real people. There is a varied cast of characters, from the heroic captain to the sneaky, misguided doctor, the love interest (who isn't too bad), and also an irritating bald reporter. The usual arguments between the scientists and the army take place, except unusually it's the army who is right in this case, not those devious scientists. The sole flaw of this film is the quick-fire dialogue, where in some instances a number of characters are all talking at the same time, which makes it impossible to hear what they're saying.Along with the intelligent script, there are plenty of atmospheric, scene-setting visuals to enjoy, like the bit where the men discover the huge spaceship under the ice. We don't actually get to see the spaceship, but by some fairly simple effects, we might as well have. There's an eerie feel hanging over the first part of the film which erupts into outright fear and horror once the alien comes to life. Unlike Carpenter's remake, the special effects here don't threaten to overwhelm the film, but are used sparingly and effectively. They range from the simple (a moving hand) to the great (a fine electrocution complete with crackling electricity) but all are nicely impressive.This is a genuinely frightening film, with the best moments being scenes of foreboding. For a lot of the time the Thing stays out of sight, so it could be hiding anywhere around the complex - the fear of the unknown is what makes this work. That combined with the helplessness of the characters and the totally remote, isolated location turn this into an exercise of growing terror. Occasionally the film will burst into shock - I loved the scene where a character pulls open a door, only for the monster to burst right in from the other side - or excitement, where they attempt to burn the creature alive, scenes which help to counter and strengthen the otherwise unseen menace.James Arness, who plays the Thing, is pretty good. He's encased in a makeup job which seems to have been heavily inspired by Karloff's FRANKENSTEIN. The film only threatens to become cheesy when the scientists are describing the monster and call it a "giant carrot" - something to have the audience rolling with laughter rather than recoiling in terror, I fear. Otherwise, this is an expertly-paced, fine little example of the genre at its finest, and genuinely one of the best monster movies of the '50s, if not of all time.

THE THING FROM ANOTHER WORLD is indeed a classic science fiction and horror genres. Deviations from the stories on which the movie is based are partly justified.Unusual movements of "meteor" on the radar are sufficient for alarm. The group of scientists and soldiers launch an investigation into an isolated cell reveal a flying saucer buried in the ice in their base yields frozen corpse of an alien creature that comes to life and began to attack them. The thing who was created in alien costume, despite the year filming and everything else, is the weakest link in the whole movie. It is much more about him best, which from the looks, as one of its action against the crew members. The dialogues are long and intelligent, but my concern amazing relaxation of characters, and this fact considered the tension and atmosphere. The effects are not bad. The characters are passive. The final calculation of the alien is sure to remember.Some elements are simply incompatible. At the beginning of the great atmosphere in the cold and the growing tension, are "loss" in totally inappropriate and unnecessary romance. The conflict between the Nobel laureate and a captain who comes down to a simple decision to investigate or kill is pretty good. An interesting movie with a lot of smart dialogue, cold conflict and unconvincing alien who deserves to be burned.