supersoul

that ranking is scandalous.......

Okay, as Aje says, the Hawks movie may have aged, but I shy away from using that metric to judge films; otherwise, we end up like Poletti... In 1951, we were in the midst of the Cold War, and the film reflects that issue. Nevertheless, it is a magnificent lesson on the clash between reason and instinct. The reason of the scientist, who admires the creature for having no emotions and therefore is superior in every way to man, and the conservative instinct of the captain, who fears it because if it is devoid of emotions, it is without a god, just like the communists!!! It reflects what America was questioning at the time: to fight with weapons or to confront the Russians intellectually. The fact is that in all rankings of the best science fiction films of all time, "The Thing" from 1951 is always among the top ten. Clearly, critics do not take into account the "aging" of a film.

If that's the case, Stuart Gordon also made Re-Animator, based on Herbert West–Reanimator by Lovecraft.

...to be honest, Carpenter even tarnished his reputation with a bland remake of "The Village of the Damned," he could have spared us that...

@blackdog, it's unfair to compare a black-and-white film from 1950 that fascinated us kids in the 70s when it aired on TV with the lavish production of Carpenter's The Thing. The anti-heroic vision of the alien and the distrust of humans is commendable, unlike Spielberg's film (which Carpenter has to share with Ridley Scott's contemporary film), but for me, Carpenter's mastery is not revealed in the splatter of this movie that might excite the kids of the 90s. Unfortunately, I've grown up, and I see the master Carpenter in low-budget productions like "Dark Star" or "They Live," made with masks you can buy yourself at the stationery store, where the irony is strong and the alien threat is no longer communism but Regan-era yuppies...

I would have dedicated some space in the review to point out that it is a poorly executed film by Master Carpenter because the master himself relinquishes his ability to narrate—or rather, to suggest what might happen, what frightens us on the night of “Halloween” or in the fog of “Fog”—while here he shows us what happens, favoring a voyeuristically explicit framing. And he fails, damn it, he really fails compared to the original cult film, even brushing against, albeit with the “visionary” power (in the spectacular sense of the term) of a lavish production, the splatter genre that he is so harmed by.

Giving 5 stars to this album means you don't love music. "...the percussion of Voto latino reminds me of Santana's album 3." (!!!ah!ah!ah!!!! Those guys: Shrieve, Carabello, and Josè Chepito Areas must be rolling on the floor laughing at this nonsense!). A fourth-rate mess for horny wannabes.

Regarding the issue rightly raised by bubi concerning the Tarantino-style filmmaking, it must be noted that this film was released in the USA in the very same year as Pulp Fiction, 1994, but arrived in Italy only in 1996. Therefore, it is not influenced at all by the crazed director, even if many have mistakenly placed it in that pulp pot. Nonetheless, it is worth watching without hesitation.

I have this movie on the shelf, but I never get around to watching it. I know that the director has been through a lot of trouble, even legal issues, but damn, how can you condemn a director when millions of visitors log onto sites like www.rotten.com to see the most disgusting and gruesome photos on this planet, like (real) dismembered corpses and tumors at various stages?

@purpulan, I think you watch too many porn movies (ehehehe...Debbie...) otherwise you would have noticed that we are not at odds about the overall evaluation of the unresolved film balancing between the tragedy of noir and the silliness of the grotesque, but not in the conscious approach that, for example, the Coen brothers take. However, the characters played by C. Walken and Treat Williams remain unforgettable, as the captain says, they would add an extra star to the film.