The Thing (1982)
Tie everybody down real tight. What for? For your health!
THE SUMMARY: Kurt Russell assumes the role of a well-bearded Dr. Fauci, tying people down for their own good, frantically hunting a hidden shapeshifting infection, and killing people to save lives, except in this case, the infection will actually rip your face off. I like Kurt, I like John Carpenter, I like this movie, but I don’t love it - it lacked the best of both men that makes their other work much more memorable to me.
DISCLAIMER: I watched this movie on Tuesday night, about six hours before my wife went into labor, so obviously my attention was strongly diverted immediately after watching it. I do keep good notes when I watch so I can remember my thoughts later, but this movie especially is probably a victim of instant memory loss for me. That’s a bummer and a disservice to the first audience-nominated movie, I know - but those are the circumstances.
Dr. Fauci’s wildest dream
THE BEST:
If ‘rona was as advertised: Throughout the movie, I kept thinking to myself ‘wow - this is what it would be like if coronavirus was actually the danger it was hyped to be’: shooting at people within any close proximity, axing dogs out of fear of exposure, shackling people to chairs to save them, and more. That latter scene was the most memorable to me - Russell’s character MacReady has everyone tied down for their own good while he conducts tests by slicing people for blood to see who’s positive. MacReady directs Windows and Palmer to tie everyone down tightly, Childs asks what for, and MacReady replies ‘for your health!’ It was Dr. Fauci’s wildest dream - taking everyone hostage in the name of protecting them.
Don’t get me wrong - perhaps such extreme measures are a perfectly reasonable response to a shapeshifting mystery virus that actually will bring hideously violent death upon you with exposure. If a mere whiff of it causes instant face-melting doom, it makes sense that maybe some minor inconveniences and injuries are necessary to prevent catastrophic ones. But did the strategy work? Did tying people up as hostages and slicing their fingers save anyone in the end? Or was it just additional abuse?
I know I sound absurd trying to extract public health policy lessons out of an ‘80s horror movie, but the point stands - when you start sacrificing rights in the name of safety, you usually receive neither, as a famous saying goes. Killing people to save people… doesn’t.
Dogs make horror more horrifying: The strongest way this movie tugs emotions isn’t just by its graphic horror, which is actually pretty good for its era, but graphic horror though dogs. We often care more about dogs than we do people. Sometimes we’re actually satisfied to see human suffering, depending on if we think that human deserves it or not (not that it’s right, it just is) - but rarely are we satisfied in seeing dogs suffer. It’s why there was so much outrage about the Afghanistan service dog controversy. It’s why Michael Vick is more hated than actual murderers. It’s why Blonde actually donates to charity - foreign charity, no less. When there’s dog abuse involved, or dog suffering, we humans get bothered.
So if emotionally troubling horror was the aim, this movie achieves its heights through the use of a dog as the vehicle of infection, the graphic infection of other dogs, and the violence committed against dogs to try to stop the spread. Whether that makes for good horror or bothersome viewing, the use of dogs was memorable. And speaking of memorabilia, if anyone can track me down the action figure of MacReady pumping buckshot into the dog monster, I’m an interested buyer.
This is an actual action figure somewhere.
THE WORST:
Serious Kurt Russell isn’t the best Kurt Russell: Much like my disappointment with Harrison Ford in Blade Runner (though not nearly as extreme), this role for Kurt Russell abandoned his strengths. Kurt is a great action character, but much like Harrison, he needs a certain comedic and sarcastic charm. This movie has him in a totally serious role, which leaves much of his natural charisma behind. In many ways, Kurt’s character is actually a loathsome one - he shoots dogs, he ties people up, he eagerly snatches authority from others, and maybe that’s the point - but Kurt Russell isn’t at his best when he’s dramatic or debatably evil. He’s at his best when he’s the hero with snappy one-liners with cheesy flair. This movie wasn’t that.
Where was the trademark John Carpenter shock ending? Similarly, John Carpenter is supposed to have premier shock endings. I loved the ending sex scene in They Live. I loved the weird bigfoot monster hitching a ride before the credits roll in Big Trouble in Little China. I expected something similar here, but instead it’s just MacReady and Childs sitting in the snow waiting for their deaths with a bottle of scotch. No shock, no twist, just lame. The ending was the worst part to me, but I suppose if demonstrating futility was the point, maybe Carpenter had a point. If we humans think we can exercise control over the natural world by abusing each other, look forward to a grim future of loneliness, hopelessness, and alcoholism.
THE RATING: 3/5 Wickies. Worth a watch, but not as worth the other works of Carpenter and Russell if I want some ‘80s horror or cheese. Acceptable, but not exceptional.
YOUR RATING: Vote here ⬇
NEXT WEEK: Sicario (2015)
AFTER THAT? YOU PICK - VOTE! September’s movie nominations come from listener James!
Want to be the movie nominator for the month? Here’s how - fill out the form below.