MovieChat Forums > The Thing (1982) Discussion > Roger Ebert on 'The Thing'.

Roger Ebert on 'The Thing'.


it seems clear that Carpenter made his choice early on to concentrate on the special effects and the technology and to allow the story and people to become secondary. Because this material has been done before, and better, especially in the original "The Thing" and in "Alien," there's no need to see this version unless you are interested in what the Thing might look like while starting from anonymous greasy organs extruding giant crab legs and transmuting itself into a dog. Amazingly, I'll bet that thousands, if not millions, of moviegoers are interested in seeing just that.

https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/the-thing-1982

reply

Ebert seemed very nostalgic for the 1951 film and it appears he had a hard time detaching himself from it. He spends two paragraphs talking about what it was like to see the 51 film in theaters as a 9-year-old. Most critics in 1982 seemed to have difficulty separating the two films. Though Ebert was not entirely hostile, he actually praised the effects, the acting, and the film's atmosphere.

reply

That happens with all remakes. The slasher remakes of the 00s got so much abuse from people who have nostalgia for the 70s and 80s versions.

reply

True but I don't think any of the 00's slasher remakes have even touched the reassessed critical acclaim that The Thing found. I think the Texas Chainsaw Massacre 03 has been called a good movie in hindsight by a few people, and some may have letten up a bit on the Nightmare On Elm Street 10, but that may be it as far as I can recall.

reply