text stringlengths 0 238k |
|---|
glowing face. The tagline was also changed from "Man is the warmest place to |
hide" – written by Stephen Frankfort, who wrote the Alien tagline, "In space, |
no one can hear you scream" – to "The ultimate in alien terror", trying to |
capitalize on Alien ' s audience. Carpenter attempted to make a last-minute |
change of the film's title to Who Goes There? , to no avail. [74] The week |
before its release, Carpenter promoted the film with clips on Late Night with |
David Letterman . [75] In 1981, horror magazine Fangoria held a contest |
encouraging readers to submit drawings of what the Thing would look like. |
Winners were rewarded with a trip to Universal Studios . [44] On its opening |
day, a special screening was held at the Hollywood Pacific Theatre , presided |
over by Elvira, Mistress of the Dark , with free admission for those in |
costume as monsters. [74] Box office [ edit ] The Thing was released in the |
United States on June 25, 1982. [12] During its opening weekend, the film |
earned $3.1 million from 840 theaters – an average of $3,699 per theater – |
finishing as the number eight film of the weekend behind supernatural horror |
Poltergeist ($4.1 million), which was in its fourth weekend of release, and |
ahead of action film Megaforce ($2.3 million). [76] [77] It dropped out of the |
top 10 grossing films after three weeks, [78] and ended its run earning a |
total of $19.6 million against its $15 million budget, making it only the 42nd |
highest-grossing film of 1982. [c] [55] [76] [79] It was not a box office |
failure , nor was it a hit. [80] Subsequent theatrical releases have raised |
the box office gross to $19.9 million as of 2023 [update] . [81] Reception [ |
edit ] Critical reception [ edit ] I take every failure hard. The one I took |
the hardest was The Thing . My career would have been different if that had |
been a big hit ... The movie was hated. Even by science-fiction fans. They |
thought that I had betrayed some kind of trust, and the piling on was insane. |
Even the original movie's director, Christian Nyby, was dissing me. — John |
Carpenter in 2008 on the contemporary reception of The Thing [82] The film |
received negative reviews on its release, and hostility for its cynical, anti- |
authoritarian tone and graphic special effects. [83] [84] Some reviewers were |
dismissive of the film, calling it the "quintessential moron movie of the |
80's", "instant junk", [9] and a "wretched excess". [85] Starlog ' s Alan |
Spencer called it a "cold and sterile" horror movie attempting to cash in on |
the genre audience, against the "optimism of E.T. , the reassuring return of |
Star Trek II , the technical perfection of Tron , and the sheer integrity of |
Blade Runner ". [86] The plot was criticized as "boring", [87] and undermined |
by the special effects. [88] The Los Angeles Times ' s Linda Gross said that |
The Thing was "bereft, despairing, and nihilistic", and lacking in feeling, |
meaning the characters' deaths did not matter. [89] Spencer said it featured |
sloppy continuity, lacked pacing, and was devoid of warmth or humanity. [86] |
David Ansen of Newsweek felt the film confused the use of effects with |
creating suspense, and that it lacked drama by "sacrificing everything at the |
altar of gore". [88] The Chicago Reader ' s Dave Kehr considered the dialogue |
to be banal and interchangeable, making the characters seem and sound alike. |
[90] The Washington Post ' s Gary Arnold said it was a witty touch to open |
with the Thing having already overcome the Norwegian base, defeating the type |
of traps seen in the 1951 version, [85] while New York ' s David Denby |
lamented that the Thing's threat is shown only externally, without focusing on |
what it is like for someone who thinks they have been taken over. [87] Roger |
Ebert considered the film to be scary, but offering nothing original beyond |
the special effects, [91] while The New York Times ' s Vincent Canby said it |
was entertaining only if the viewer needed to see spider-legged heads and dog |
autopsies. [9] Reviews of the actors' performances were generally positive, |
[92] [86] while criticizing the depictions of the characters they portrayed. |
[91] [93] [88] Ebert said they lacked characterization, offering basic |
stereotypes that existed just to be killed, and Spencer called the characters |
bland even though the actors do the best they can with the material. [91] [86] |
Time ' s Richard Schickel singled Russell out as the "stalwart" hero, where |
other characters were not as strongly or wittily characterized, [92] and |
Variety said that Russell's heroic status was undercut by the "suicidal" |
attitude adopted toward the film's finale. [93] Other reviews criticized |
implausibilities such as characters wandering off alone. [91] Kehr did not |
like that the men did not band together against the Thing, and several reviews |
noted a lack of camaraderie and romance, which Arnold said reduced any |
interest beyond the special effects. [88] [85] [90] The film's special effects |
were simultaneously lauded and lambasted for being technically brilliant but |
visually repulsive and excessive. [87] [92] [85] Cinefantastique wrote that |
the Thing "may be the most unloved monster in movie history ... but it's also |
the most incredible display of special effects makeup in at least a decade." |
[94] Reviews called Bottin's work "genius", [87] [86] noting the designs were |
novel, unforgettable, "colorfully horrific", and called him a "master of the |
macabre". [92] [85] Arnold said that the "chest chomp" scene demonstrated |
"appalling creativity" and the subsequent severed head scene was "madly |
macabre", comparing them to Alien ' s chest burster and severed head scenes. |
[85] Variety called it "the most vividly gruesome horror film to ever stalk |
the screens". [93] Conversely, Denby called them more disgusting than |
frightening and lamented that the trend of horror films to open the human body |
more and more bordered on obscenity. [87] Spencer said that Bottin's care and |
pride in his craft were shown in the effects, but both they and Schickel found |
them to be overwhelming and "squandered" without strong characters and story. |
[92] [86] Even so, Canby said that the effects were too "phony looking to be |
disgusting". [9] Canby and Arnold said the creature's lack of a single, |
discernible shape was to its detriment, and hiding it inside humans made it |
hard to follow. Arnold said that the 1951 version was less versatile but |
easier to keep in focus. [85] [9] Gross and Spencer praised the film's |
technical achievements, particularly Cundey's "frostbitten" cinematography, |
the sound, editing, and Morricone's score. [89] [86] Spencer was critical of |
Carpenter's direction, saying it was his "futile" attempt to give the audience |
what he thinks they want and that Carpenter was not meant to direct science |
fiction, but was instead suited to direct "traffic accidents, train wrecks, |
and public floggings". [86] Ansen said that "atrocity for atrocity's sake" was |
ill-becoming of Carpenter. [88] The Thing was often compared to similar films, |
particularly Alien , Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1978), and The Thing from |
Another World . [91] [87] [9] Ebert and Denby said that The Thing seemed |
derivative compared to those films, which had portrayed the story in a better |
way. [91] [87] Variety called it inferior to the 1951 version. [93] Arnold |
considered The Thing as the result of Alien raising the requirement for |
horrific spectacle. [85] The Thing from Another World actor Kenneth Tobey and |
director Christian Nyby also criticized the film. Nyby said, "If you want |
blood, go to the slaughterhouse ... All in all, it's a terrific commercial for |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.