The Thing from Another World (1951) User Reviews

"An intellectual carrot...the mind boggles."

[Hey_Sweden · 8/10 · 3 November 2014]

Classic, wonderful sci-fi / horror feature, a none too faithful adaptation of the John W. Campbell, Jr. short story "Who Goes There?". In this instance, the idea of the alien entity being a monstrosity that can imitate other life forms is jettisoned, in favour of making the creature basically like the Frankenstein monster. It's a super vegetable that requires blood for sustenance, and it makes life very tense for the scientists and military personnel at an isolated Arctic outpost when it's thawed from an icy imprisonment.

With an intrepid hero in the form of 1950s icon Kenneth Tobey on hand, it's a guarantee that "The Thing from Another World" is going to be a good time. It was a fairly odd choice of material for the producer Howard Hawks, who fills the story with overlapping dialogue and a sense of camaraderie among the various protagonists. Unlike the 1982 version, where the characters had the means to destroy the creature but first had to *identify* who the creature was, our cast here have to improvise their survival.

While any genre fan such as this viewer, who'd been brought up on the 1982 John Carpenter film, may be more inclined to favour that brand of horror, this is still very stylish fun. Hawks's editor Christian Nyby gets the directing credit, but it's generally believed that Hawks was pretty much in control of things. The score by Dimitri Tiomkin, utilizing the theremin, is suitably eerie. There are solid shocks, moments of suspense, and atmosphere along the way, as well as a lively finish.

This is a film very much of its time, with our military characters very much a dependable bunch of heroes, and the scientists (most of them) treated as highly suspect, especially the misguided Dr. Carrington, played delightfully by Robert Cornthwaite.

A little too much time is devoted to the romantic subplot with Captain Hendry and his love interest (Margaret Sheridan), but the actors couldn't be more engaging. Tobey, Sheridan, and Cornthwaite are extremely well supported by a strong ensemble: Douglas Spencer as annoying newspaperman Scotty (who has the honour of uttering the memorable closing monologue), James Young, Dewey Martin, Robert Nichols, William Self, Eduard Franz, Nicholas Byron, John Dierkes, George Fenneman, Paul Frees, David McMahon, and Norbert Schiller. A young James Arness, in his pre-'Gunsmoke' days, has great presence as The Thing.

There are images here so striking that Carpenter was wise to pay homage to them in his film: the line of men encircling the buried UFO, and the sight of the burning creature crashing through the building into the snow.

It's definitely a different beast, in more ways than one, than what we would see 31 years later, but it's solid entertainment for its own very good reasons.

Eight out of 10.

Great Howard Hawks production marks this 50's Sci Fi Classic as a must see...

[lrcdmnhd72 · 8/10 · 30 May 2002]

A scientific expedition, located near the North Pole, sends an urgent message to an Air Force Base in Anchorage, Alaska reporting the near-by crash of a very large, unknown, object and requesting immediate assistance. Air Force Captain Pat Hendry, and his crew, then depart to this expeditionary site. Upon arrival, Captain Hendry meets Dr. Carrington, who's in charge. Preliminary scientific evidence rules out the possibility of a meteor. Also, since this crash, a lot of atmospheric and magnetic disturbance has been generated, making radio communications and aircraft navigation difficult, if not impossible. AT this point, Captain Hendry and his crew, along with Dr Carrington with some members of his staff, depart to the crash scene about 50 miles away. Upon arrival, part of an aircraft structure is protruding above the ice and appears to be "alien" in origin. Attempts to remove this aircraft, using thermal "thermite" heat bombs proves unsuccessful. This "Flying Saucer" is destroyed, but its occupant is thrown clear and becomes frozen under the ice. This body is then removed and taken back to this expeditionary site and put in cold storage. Everything appears to be under control until an unforseen accident occurs endangering not only the lives ov everyone at this expeditionary site, but all human and animal life on the entire face of planet Earth. There are some lighter sides to this Sci Fi drama. I enjoy the good natured kidding that Captain Hendry receives from his men after his girl friend pins an embarrassing not on his chest while he's asleep giving everybody ample opportunity to read it. I also get a kick out of the newspaper reporter Ned "Scotty" Scott's on going battle with Captain Hendry in trying to obtain permission to broadcastcast his "Flying Saucer" story to the media and Captain Hendry's refusal to let him until offical Air Force clearance can be given. Also, keep an eye out for George Fennamen, from Groucho Marx's old TV quiz show "You Bet Your Life."

Who Goes There?...

[Xstal · 7/10 · 12 September 2022]

Imagine what you'd if a flying saucer crash landed close to an artic outpost where you were stationed. I guess you'd instinctively get out and about and go looking for it, albeit with some army types in tow (or towing) and, upon discovering it, inadvertently destroy said vessel but manage, through luck or misfortune to capture the alien pilot in a block of ice where it had frozen during its escape. That's what I'd do, then I'd do all I could to ensure (inadvertently again) that the entrapped thing was released as expediently as possible so it could cause rampage and carnage while instilling fear within the occupants of the isolated outpost. Just as well I wasn't around!

You've got to love the old B Movies of the 1950s! Especially those that gave us two belters of cinema in years to come.

After a Half-Century, Still a Joy!

[cariart · 8 August 2003]

THE THING FROM ANOTHER WORLD...the title conjures up lurid images from the countless 'B' SciFi flicks of the 50s, but as many SF, Howard Hawks, and Classic Cinema fans can attest, this is no sleazy schlockfest, but one of the most entertaining and exciting films ever made, by one of Hollywood's greatest directors.

Yes, the credits list Christian Nyby as director, but Howard Hawks was on the set nearly every day, each scene has elements of style unique to Hawks, alone, and even the cast members, when interviewed, have said Hawks ran the entire show. Perhaps, as Science Fiction films were not highly regarded in the early 50s, he felt his reputation might suffer if he acknowledged his contribution; perhaps he thought it might help Nyby's credentials if he were given credit for this masterfully crafted tale. Who knows? But rest assured...this IS a Howard Hawks film!

The story, based on John Campbell's short story, 'Who Goes There?', is a nifty, claustrophobic tale of a group of soldiers and scientists in the Arctic, discovering a giant 'flying saucer' under the ice. When the ship blows up during the excavation, the 'pilot', a huge green chlorophyll-based humanoid (played by a young James Arness), is recovered, frozen in a block of ice. Bringing the ice-encased figure back to the base, it is then accidentally thawed out...and all Hell brakes loose!

While the cast lacks big-name stars, each actor is wonderful, delivering wryly funny Hawks' dialogue at a breakneck pace. The military commander, Capt. Hendry (Kenneth Tobey), is a no-nonsense boss, respected and lovingly chided by his men, led by Dewey Martin, who constantly try to 'set him up' with a pretty scientist he had 'struck out' with, on leave in Anchorage (Margaret Sheridan). She is now at the base, assisting brilliant yet blissfully naive Dr. Arthur Carrington (Robert Cornthwaite), who, naturally, assumes 'the Thing' is only homicidal because he is misunderstood! As the truly frightening potential of the creature reveals itself, it becomes a race against time to destroy it, before it kills everyone, leaves the base, and reproduces countless seedlings of itself to conquer the world!

The FX are low-budget, but very effective, as is the extensive use of light and shadow, sound effects, and an eerie Dimitri Tiomkin score. Unlike the benevolent 'visitors' of THE DAY THE EARTH STOOD STILL, this alien doesn't warn of total annihilation as the final option, should we carry our nuclear weapons into space; it's ONLY agenda is to kill!

This is a truly amazing film, one that has aged little, and is every bit as enjoyable today as when it was released.

As the tag line to the film warns us, "Look to the sky..."

A nice sci-fi from the 50's

[bsinc · 7/10 · 17 February 2003]

The movie starts out very promisingly, creating a great spooky atmosphere and avoiding possible cheap looking special effects of the spaceship crash. It knows where its true driving force lies; it's not in the silly looking "carrot" creature(that thankfully also doesn't get much screen time), it's in the dialogues and the relationships between characters. This reminds me of Rydley Scott's "Alien". Same concept, same result. Great atmosphere and a good sense for story telling make "The Thing From Another World" well worth the watch. 7/10

Keep Watching the Skies!

[telegonus · 10/10 · 27 October 2002]

One of the best science fiction pictures from the fifties, and one that helped define the genre, The Thing holds up remarkably well today. There's still considerable debate over whether producer Howard Hawks actually directed the film or credited director(and former editor) Christian Nyby. It's a Hawks production either way, and one of his best. The story of an alien invasion near the arctic circle, it builds slowly, relying heavily on the excellent, slangy dialogue of Charles Lederer, and the casual, jokey relationships between the various characters. This is lean, solid, old-fashioned moviemaking. There's not a wasted moment in this one. Hollywood in the studio era was especially good with stories of isolation, and this one's about as isolated as it gets. The monster is rarely seen, as we catch him only in horrifying glimpses, as the characters in the movie do. There's a standard brains versus brawn subtext in the film, but it's not emphasized to the movie's detriment. That the cast consists mostly of relative unknowns give the picture an almost documentary feeling at times, as if one were watching an actual event. Dimitri Tiomkin's spooky score helps spur the action on. This is a fine piece of commercial film-making, with everyone doing his job, and no "star turns". Nobody gets the upper hand here, not the actors, director, writer, cinematographer or alien. Everything comes together in the end. This is a perfect movie of its kind.

Watch The Skies!

[AaronCapenBanner · 7/10 · 13 September 2013]

The original Black & White version of the famous short science fiction story "Who Goes There?" stars Kenneth Tobey as the commander of an Antarctic research base that discovers an alien being encased in thick ice, that is brought back to the base where it is accidentally thawed out, and goes on a killing spree. Robert Cornthwaite plays the scientist who wants to study the creature rather than kill it, an attitude not shared by the others. Future western star James Arness plays the thing itself.

Surprisingly effective film has fine direction and acting, though the effective music score does much to put over the appearance of the creature, which is not very convincingly realized otherwise, though it works if kept in the shadows. Good script, even if atmosphere trumps memorable characters, though does have that famous closing line...

There is something more chilling than the North Pole here.

[Rich-99 · 10/10 · 20 April 1999]

"The Thing" without a doubt is one of the finest science fiction films ever made. A group of scientists and air force officers at an Arctic station discover something in the ice and that something sees them as dinner. The battle goes on in the claustrophobic station in a scenario that without a doubt was the model for the original "Aliens". The cast is a very fine ensemble and the direction is crisp and on the edge. Conversations overlap and at times runs simultaneously but the direction is so good that you miss nothing. Best of all is that this is one of those films where what you don't see is what scares you. There is no splatter or graphic detail but tantalizing hints that lets your mind conjure up your worst nightmare. A great one for a dark and stormy night.

Good for its time

[SnoopyStyle · 7/10 · 29 November 2014]

An airforce crew is sent from Anchorage, Alaska to an isolated scientific outpost. Reporter Ned Scott joins them. Scientist Dr. Carrington reveals that an UFO landed nearby. They find a flying saucer buried in the ice. They try to use thermite but the saucer explodes. They recover a frozen body buried nearby and return it to the base. Captain Hendry orders his men to wait for further instructions. However Corporal Barnes covers the ice block with an electric blanket which is accidentally left on.

The movie spends a lot of time with the people talking. It doesn't really hold any thrills for modern audiences but it works for its time. Half of it is an endless gab fest setting up the movie. It really only gets interesting after we get to the saucer and then the block of ice. This a simple creature feature at a time when UFOs are a new phenomenon. The creature is a simple guy in a mask. There are some good creepiness coming from the doctor and one great fiery scene. The fire walk is good stunt work.

The Thing: A classic

[robbiereilly · 10/10 · 23 November 2003]

Which version, Hawks or Carpenter? There's a lot of talk about which one is better, etc. I do agree with many that they both are very different films, very different viewing experiences. I love most good sci-fi. Some of 50's sci-fi can be dated after viewing. I do not think The Thing is one of these films which suffers from time . It holds up splendidly. If you like dialogue, you'll love this movie. If you like innuendo, fast paced overlapped dialogue, great characters - and I don't use that word lightly - you'll love this movie.

If you want more suspense, a lot more blood, and a much more gloomy setting, certainly John Carpenter's remake is better in these areas. I own and enjoy viewing both films.

Certainly, the creature in Carpenter's version is much more frightening, and truer to the John Campbell short story from which the story is based. His shape shifting would have been impossible to show in the 50's version with the believability that is possible in today's F/X field.

Carpenter gives us a setting which is darker, colder, and more foreboding. A feeling of hopeless, and nameless dread pervades the camp. Certainly, the notion is clear that this could be the end of all of them, and of the world. There's both a lot less thinking, and a lot more action to be had here in the Carpenter 80's version than in the Hawks' 50's approach.

Hawks, by contrast, created a feeling of "whistling in the dark", which dominates the setting. The characters, and they are many and varied, all have their own particular take on what is happening and what should be done about it. There is a sense of hopeful, "We can do it. We can solve this problem" attitude throughout the entire film. This feeling of "let's keep our heads" is contagious and very quickly the audience finds itself rooting, rather than running.

One more point, and I think it's a big one. The characters in the Howard Hawks' 50's film are all likable, including the "heavy" - the wonderful Dr. Carrington. All the characters are capable, and in many cases, quite resourceful and ingenious. Each, always maintains a humorous, dry wit angle of attack on the situation without resorting to camp or parody seen in most comic film writing today. The military crew members, very quickly in the story, each displays a comical personality ribbing both the captain and the civil service nature of the military with natural ease. As someone once said, a complaining soldier is a happy soldier. So true. This is certainly no "military has all the answers" flick. The mistakes they make are roundly criticized by all in attendance, including the co-pilot's not so subtle comment about the splitting of the atom, "yeah, and that sure made the world happy, didn't it?" (laughter). Add to that, Ned Scott the newspaper man, and you've got a non-scientist, non-military chronicler character to round out the story, and give the audience someone with comparable skepticism about what to do next. Ned is the outsider who is now, like us, on the inside.

The John Carpenter version, by comparison, has mostly losers populating the story, I have to say. From the camp leader, Gary, on down to the radio operator, Windows, most of the characters seem more suited as inmates in a minimum security prison than manning a research science station. (maybe a reflection of the lack of students going into the field of science in recent years? (chuckle) And to make the point even more ironic, there is no military, the usual scapegoats, in the Carpenter version. (Gary, as leader, carries the gun, and we assume has some military/policing role, though it is never made clear in the film.) These are all scientists with the exception of the helicopter pilot, played by Kurt Russell, who seems to be the only clear thinking member of the entire bunch. Why none of the actual scientists approach the problem as clearly, and logically as the rogue washed-up helicopter pilot is also a mystery and in large part, a flaw.

In Hawks' version, Captain Hendry solicits advice from all in attendance, frequently asking the scientists and his crew technical questions for which he has no background to answer. This also gives the non technical audience member another "way in" to the technical side of things. (no pun intended)

Why Carpenter chose to have most of the characters unredeeming, lazy, and in most cases, quite stupid and ill behaving, is a mystery. I find the characters in the Hawks version much more true to life.

With all that said, I enjoy both films, each for their strengths and for their weaknesses. If you want blood and gore, more realistic sets, and are not discouraged by fairly shallow characters, the Carpenter version is for you.

If you want fast paced dialogue, memorable characters, and you enjoy a "can-do" attitude in dreadful circumstances, all done with a minimum of visible gore, then Hawks' The Thing awaits you.

humbleservant

A prime example of a low budget shocker that succeeds due to a fantastic script and top performances!

[thirteenthfloorelevator · 7/10 · 24 February 2006]

"The Thing from another world" is the pinnacle of 1950s horror movies. It is not one of those cheap exploitation pictures that cashed in on the publics fear of atomic energy, no, this film actually takes itself seriously and manages to scare the hell out of the audience in the process. So many future sci-fi/horror movies were influenced by this one, most notably the original "Alien". Gorgeous production design and great performances help to carry the story along, a story that concerns an isolated arctic base and the people there who have to deal with a very unwelcome visitor. Definitely holds your suspense throughout. The zenith of all horror movies to come out of the fifties

Awesome movie that holds up today!

[Lugosi2002 · 10/10 · 14 January 2004]

While I love the remake very much I was finally able to see the original all the way thru without the colorization on TV. It is a truly awesome movie.

Comparing the two is not really fare or easy as Carpenter's version has the benefits of modern movie magic. But that is in my opinion the only place it excels. It seems in the remake all the characters are derelicts and for the most part not very likeable. In the original you had a sense of these people liking each other and sticking together.

Kenneth Tobey is a very good and believable leader of his men. He also shows a very human side in that he realizes he is not the smartest of men. He is what he is. A captain of a small band of Air Force Soldiiers simply doing their job.

Robert Cornblaithe is excellent as Dr. Carrington. He comes of snootish yet still likeable enough because you can see that deep down he really admires Captain Hendry (Tobey) though he can't see eye to eye with him on their situation or dealing of his "Thing From Another world."

Every character in the movie is well played. They all look like they belong in their roles. Their look and attire fit their characters and when one guy is called Professor so and so or whomever, you believe it unlike many movies in those days where they picked anyone to play the supporting actors. There is one thing though, Margaret Sheridan's pants pulled up almost to her neck line (exaggeration...but close) I could have done without. I realize it was a style of the times but I think they could have given her something a little better to show off her figure when you first meet her. Especially since she was the only female love interest and was tagged as "a pinup girl" in earlier scenes. She looks better when her hair is down and she is in different clothes. I know that is being picky but I just had to say it.

The creature is better presented in the original as far as being frightening. You hardly ever see him. When you do it's only for brief periods at a time and usually in the dark. That frightening sound of "The Thing" is very original in that it's not just a growl but sounds like a cat meowing at times. Very eerie!

The story is well known and both are similiar although I must admit the remake is closer to the actual Campbell JR.'s short tale. But the original still gives it a good account and in many ways surpasses the short story because it is easier to identify with the creature since he's humanoid.

It boils down to suspense, drama and mood versus gore, F/X, and fast paced action. Both movies are top notch. I am proud to own both and would not try and say one is overtly better than the other. The remake has the benefits of the then modern movie technology. The original had the benefit of black and white to add to the suspense and utter danger they are in. The choice is yours. I myself enjoy the original a little more as it holds up today probably better than any other Sci-Fi movie from that era.

Down to earth Sci-Fi film of the 1950s

[SimonJack · 7/10 · 18 June 2017]

"The Thing from Another World" is a good example a type of sci-fi film of the mid-20th century that engrossed audiences. The plot had some intrigue (the scientific wonder), interest in understanding a different life from outer space, and a conflict between study and survival. The latter most often was portrayed as science and the military or law being at odds.

As in this film, usually the scientists want to dig right into the discoveries and start examining them, while the military want to secure them first and then wait for orders. The scientists usually are on the losing side, but they or someone else are the means for the aliens to get loose and wreak havoc. The humans wind up winning, but only after a few of them have been eaten, groveled, drained of their blood or brains, or otherwise disposed of. Naturally, audiences of the time went with the strong arm group who would protect and defend civilization. In other words, wipe out the invaders.

But this type of sci-fi kept one's interest. And, it didn't require a great deal of expense for models and suits and makeup of freak creatures. The creatures were seen less often, but just enough to remind the audience that they are there. Modern sci-fi films, by contrast, are almost continuous mayhem of battles and encounters with the monsters.

One nice aspect of this film is that some of the ideas for tackling the monster came from minor characters – one of the Air Force sergeants. That was a little more common in movies of the past – someone other than the hero or lead roles could have good ideas that others would act upon. Nowadays, it seems always to have to be the lead character(s) who are the only thinking members of casts.

Kenneth Tobey, who plays Captain Hendry, was a regular lead character in these type of films in the mid-20th century. He and a few others were good actors who weren't able to break into major films in any lead roles. An interesting character here is Scotty, played by Douglas Spencer. He's a news reporters and a source of humor in this film, but his good-natured sarcasm bounces off the captain and others. Spencer was in more than 90 films with small roles but some very good ones. And, for many years he was Ray Miland's stand-in. He died at age 50 from diabetes. The female lead, Nikki, is played by Margaret Sheridan. She was good in just 11 movies she appeared in over 13 years, but she quite acting in 1964. She was just 55 years old when she died from cancer in 1982.

Dr. Carrington's character (played by Robert Cornthwaite) is a Nobel Prize winner in the film. He is overly Darwinian, reflecting the level of some thinking in science of that time – that man evolved from worms. Here's an exchange between two of the science team in the film. Dr. Vorhees (Paul Frees), "Arthur, what if that aircraft came here not just to visit the earth, but to conquer it? To start growing some kind of horrible army? Turn the human race into food for it?" Dr. Carrington, "There are many things threatening our world. New stars, comets shooting through space….There are no enemies in science, professor, only phenomena to study. We are studying one."

When the military team can't figure out how to defeat the alien, Nikki provides the answer. Scotty," The $64 question – what do you do with a vegetable?" Nikki, "Boil it!" Scotty, "What'd you say?" Nikki, "Boil it, Stew it. Bake it. Fry it."

Sergeants are supposed to be smarter than the dodo who puts the electric blanket over the block of ice. This should be a good lesson for Air Force sergeants of the future – don't ever put an electric blanket on a block of ice that contains a frozen creature from outer space.

A major disappointment

[pninson · 3/10 · 30 March 2005]

I realize this may upset a lot of people as this movie has a devoted audience. I finally watched it last night and I have to say, it's really boring. There is very little action, and not much in the way of characterization or dialogue to offset its glacial pace (sorry about the pun). Normally if a movie bores me this much I'll shut it off but because of its classic status I felt it deserved at least one complete viewing. Still, I wound up reading during the last half hour, glancing up only when something actually happened. It was very easy to follow the story while paying minimal attention.

If you're thinking that I'm a young whippersnapper who has been spoiled by flashy visual effects and needs constant action, I assure you this is not true. I'm over 50. I see all kinds of movies, including "sumptuous literary adaptations" i.e. "Wings of a Dove." I grew up without TV and didn't own one until I was in my 20s. I am not a huge fan of "Star Wars" or "The Matrix" and my idea of a good SF film is "The Man Who Fell to Earth." I will admit I may have been spoiled by John Carpenter's 1982 film "The Thing", which is really another story altogether. I feel Carpenter's film is a classic that not only features ground-breaking visual effects but a mounting atmosphere of suspicion and paranoia that speaks directly to the meaning of Campbell's story title, "Who Goes There?" In the Howard Hawks story, you basically have a standard crew of 50s film characters having discussions. There is virtually no tension or atmosphere of any kind.

If I'd seen this in a theater at a younger age, I might have loved it as do its many fans. But I'm sorry, folks; this one just never came to life for me.

Rhythmic masterpiece of sci-fi

[jaywolfenstien · 3 November 2004]

Let me get my two (minor) complaints out of the way first: the attempt to get the UFO out of the ice felt rushed (as in the filmmakers wanted to get to the rest of the film) because I saw the result coming a mile away . . . it just felt soulless and obligatory. Second, the scientist Dr Carrington, rubbed up with the 'mad scientist in pursuit of knowledge risking everyone's life' cliché a bit too much for me . . . and I was trying to be forgiving since this was 50 years ago and far less cliché then.

All right, now . . . I have to say, I loved The Thing from Another World. I loved the dialogue in this movie. It's been a long long (Jesus Christ, a loooong) time since I had this much fun listening to exposition. Yes, exposition. The obligatory plot details that no one cares about that some poor sap spells out? Yes, that exposition! Thing from Another World actually gains momentum with its exposition whereas your typical film slows down and comes to a screeching halt for it.

Nyby spreads the exposition across about half a dozen characters, and they have real conversation with overlapping, quick fire, back and forth, dialogue, and in brief instances multiple conversations going at the same time. The result? Five minutes of exposition becomes one minute of exposition. Will the audience catch every single detail of their plan? No, but the audience doesn't need to either. Thank you Howard Hawks!

Lace this exposition with characterization, inside jokes amongst characters, hints at their history together, and friendly pranks, and The Thing from Another World not only knocks out exposition with one blow, but develops their characters simultaneously, yielding a wonderfully complex and realistic relationship between the characters and plot. No spot light and overdone Shakespearian aside with melodramatic boo-hoo backstory that brings elicits yawns and groans, no little nerd with all the answers getting to explain everything while everyone asks stupid questions--nope--the Thing from Another World is above that drivel.

Nyby and Hawks sold me on the characters from the get go, placing emphasis on how they introduce the characters and not so much in what their character backstory is. I salute the filmmakers for this decision, and in response was more than willing to suspend my disbelief for the sake of the film's needs.

Follow it up with well lit and well staged action sequences--the fire scene was perhaps one of the most beautiful and glorious moments caught by b/w photography--and the Thing from Another World delivers with all its 1950s charms. I'll take a film with narrow corridors and electrodes over all out war with CGI bugs/machines any day of the week.

Keep Watching the Sky

[claudio_carvalho · 7/10 · 1 October 2011]

In 1949, in the Officers Club in Anchorage, Alaska, the pilot Captain Patrick "Pat" Hendry (Kenneth Tobey) is summoned by General Fogarty to fly to a remote outpost to investigate something that has crushed on Earth. Captain Hendry flies with his crew and meets Dr. Arthur Carrington (Robert Cornthwaite) and his team of scientist and they fly to the location. They discover a flying saucer buried in the ice and they use Thermite bombs expecting to release the spacecraft. However, it explodes and is totally destroyed by the bombs. They also find a frozen life form and bring it to the research station. When the creature deices, it attacks the dogs and loses one arm. Dr. Carrington researches and discovers that it is a vegetable life that reproduces like plants. Captain Hendry believes that the dangerous creature is an invader and decides to find a way to destroy it with his team. But Dr. Carrington believes that the scientific discovery is more important than lives and protects the creature.

"The Thing from another World" is an engaging classic sci-fi film with a good story that is the source of inspiration of the 1982 John Carpenter's masterpiece "The Thing". The differences between the military and scientific viewpoints are very interesting and reflect a historic moment of the American history when the military forces were respected by the society after the WWII and during the Korean War. Margaret Sheridan is a decorative but funny character and people of my generation will certainly love this film that has been released on DVD by the Silver Screen Collection label. My vote is seven.

Title (Brazil): "O Monstro do Árrtico" ("The Monster from the Artic")

"An intellectual carrot. The mind boggles."

[bensonmum2 · 9/10 · 4 August 2005]

• On the surface, The Thing from Another World (The Thing for short) would appear to be just another of the hundreds of sci-fi/horror films that flooded the market in the 50s. The basic story of the discovery of a UFO near the North Pole with an inhabitant frozen in a block of ice sounds typical for the period. But this film is anything but typical.

• There are so many positive things to say about The Thing that narrowing them down to fit into a manageable size review is difficult. Very briefly, some of the things that impress me about The Thing include: the opening title sequence, the wonderful music score, the sets, the amazing kerosene fire scene, the terrific jump scare the first time we see the creature, and the desolate North Pole setting. Everything about the movie is near perfect as far as I'm concerned.

• One of the most impressive things to me, however, is the decision to use the creature sparingly throughout the movie. Because we only catch glimpses of the alien, he remains a mystery and, as a result, more frightening. I don't know if this is the case or not as I've never heard John Carpenter speak on the subject, but as I watched the movie last night, I couldn't help be think of Carpenter's decision to use The Thing in his movie, Halloween. Surely it wasn't a coincidence (or a cheap plug for his upcoming remake). Instead, I've always felt that the way Carpenter used The Shape in Halloween is much like way the creature is used in this movie. I don't know if anyone agrees, but I definitely see similarities.

• I can narrow down what makes this film so special to me into two words - Howard Hawks. If you're so inclined, there are any number of articles you can read on the internet about who really directed the movie - Hawks or Nyby. I don't know and I don't care, but it's easy to see Hawks' fingerprints all over The Thing. The most obvious example is the whole dialogue thing. In most of Hawks' movies I've seen, the dialogue is incredibly intelligent, snappy, and witty. It's part of what makes his movies so much fun. Hawks also had a way of getting actors to sound less like they were reciting lines and more like they were having actual conversations. Actors routinely step all over each others' lines and interrupt one another just like real people do. If you've ever seen His Girl Friday, you know exactly what I'm talking about. I love it.

• I could literally go on and on discussing The Thing from Another World. I haven't even touched on the comparisons with The Day the Earth Stood Still (released the same year) or the treatment of the scientists vs. the treatment of the Army or the portrayal of women or the whole Soviet invasion subtext or the "Watch the skies" speech or ... you get the idea. It's truly a remarkable movie.

impressive early 50's sf flick

[HelloTexas11 · 7/10 · 11 September 2008]

I don't think anyone screams in 'The Thing from Another World.' Not even the women. That alone would set it apart from practically every other sci-fi/horror film of the 1950's. But it's different in other ways. It takes a decidedly non-hysterical approach to the idea of finding a being from another planet alive, frozen in ice near the North Pole. The being is extremely dangerous, as it proves in a couple of remarkably well-staged and believable scenes. The Air Force crew that discovered it and who for a time, are trapped with it at an isolated Arctic station, are all business when it comes to dealing with the creature and tend to show the kind of annoyance one might associate with the soldiers in, say, 'Objective- Burma!' rather than shock and fright. Hence, no screaming. Howard Hawks produced (and, some say, directed) 'The Thing' and he brings with him his trademark style of 'overlapping' dialogue. That is, in order to make characters and situations more realistic, they speak in fast clips and constantly cut in on others' dialogue; the way, supposedly, people do in real life. The fact that it is noticeable tells me it's not completely effective. I think the problem with the technique is that it's used too much. It would have been better to have a mix of traditional phrasing and overlapping because that more closely resembles how people really talk. The other problem with the script, somewhat related to the first, is that everyone is extremely cavalier about the danger they're in. It's one thing to be dismissive of a far-fetched threat before it occurs, but once the creature is seen and there is ample evidence of its destructive capabilities, it just seems silly for the characters to act as though their biggest concern is running out of coffee. At one point deep into the film, there is a rather remarkable conversation between two of the principals concerning the danger they face, and someone just walking into a screening at that point might think they were talking about a pet that wasn't housebroken. But there is a lot too that is right about 'The Thing.' It is fast-paced with interesting characters and situations, excellent special effects for its time, and the cast is uniformly fine, including Kenneth Tobey and Margaret Sheridan as an Air Force captain and secretary, respectively, who are kinda sorta in love. But if the characters aren't scared, we sure are, particularly in one scene where a geiger counter tips them off that the creature is approaching and they all fall back to a room, wondering how to kill or injure it. They finally decide on fire, so they fill buckets with kerosene and next thing you know, here comes the creature through a door, the lights go out, and we see it set afire. It's a fantastic scene, built up to so quickly and unexpectedly, and staged so intensely, we barely have time to catch our collective breath before it's over, the final shot showing the being, still on fire, running off into the freezing Arctic night. 'The Thing from Another World' is like that, always another ace up its sleeve, right up to the end. One of RKO's best, for sure.

A B&W science fiction classic for the ages ... they are out there

[Ed-Shullivan · 8/10 · 12 May 2022]

Now this is what filmgoers go the movie theater to see. Young men could bring their dates to watch this science fiction classic and without even having to slowly and discretely drape their arm over their girlfriends shoulder the ladies AND THE MEN would be hanging on to each other wondering what harm this creature from another planet will do.

I loved it. Yes it is in black and white which only adds to the history of film and allows the viewer to really consider life beyond earth exists or not.

The film has a great cast, and the spellbinding and gradual release of the creature from the huge block of ice in the arctic atmosphere adds tense drama to the film's story line.

I love this film and I give it a most deserving 8 out of 10 IMDB rating. This film was so highly respected by filmgoers that a remake was brought to theaters in 1982 starring Kurt Russel and directed by John Carpenter as a homage to The Thing From Another World.

Good Stuff !

[mikelcat · 7/10 · 25 March 2009]

In spite of several shortcomings this film still holds up for the same reason a lot of films from this era do , its simple and the storyline is clever .The idea that on another planet plant life underwent a similar evolving was to me very believable . That it couldn't be hurt by bullets because it was just like drilling holes in vegetable matter and the question ''what do you do with a super carrot?'' , answer , boil it, stew it etc. I found this very clever .All the more so because it differs from the short story ''Who Goes There ? '' . Which John Carpenter was able to present with the advent of special effects and cg effectively .''The Thing from Another World '' had no such effects at its disposal but still manages to be an effective sci-fi classic .

Thank God for Bob

[The Berm · 10/10 · 1 September 1999]

As all lovers of the SciFi film genre knows, The Thing (1951), is undoubtedly one of the the finest ever produced. It's almost a perfect movie from a purely technical standpoint. The direction, no matter who it was, was scintillating, moving from moment to moment at breakneck speed. Tiomkin's gut-wrenching score, highlighted by the extremely futuristic Theremin, crushing basses and bleak windswept strings are the epitome of horror/sci-fi film scoring. The acting is legendary for it's naturally fluid feel, it's backhanded asides and well documented over-speak not matched in many movies before or since. Unlike today's boringly formula rip-offs the station is usually "well lit", at least as well lit as you would imagine a 1950's Arctic Lab to be; aided by the superb efforts of the film makers own lighting crew. This allowed for those brief moments of darkness when the lights were out to have a very real panicking effect. Not only on the audience but the besieged occupants of our Arctic fortress. I also found it refreshing that after the one incident where the "Thing" is carelessly freed, the expedition members subsequently and intelligently arm themselves as best they can and form into groups. I believe that the creature's first close up appearance is only 3 seconds long but it was enough to make me rapidly exit the living room and stop me from watching this film from when I first saw it at age 7 in 1958 until I was about 15. This chilling scene when viewed in a stop frame mode is astonishing in it's precision and choreography, check this out my sci-fi brethren. A scene my own dear father managed to duplicate with great effect, as a joke, using our dark and seldom used front porch door, which reduced me to a sniveling jelly-legged puddle when I was about 10!, which, in homage to both Dad and Arness, I duplicated some 20 years later on not only my son, but the cleaning lady and my wife with equally devastating effect. You know , they even manage a little romance without destroying the story, truly amazing. Don't we all wish Margaret Sheridan was our girl?

But I have written this comment not to just rehash what we all know to be true; but rather to pay homage to the one man who ultimately is responsible for the survival of the human race. Bob, the crew chief. Yes, Bob. In a situation where we have a rafter of genius scientists, alongside of battle hardened veteran Air Corps officers and a smart funny, gritty, albeit nerdy, newspaper reporter; we are all very lucky to have had BOB, the crew chief on the job. I will not enumerate (and spoil the fun) but his mighty contributions to the survival of this hearty group are something to behold. If you veterans who love this movie as much as I do watch this movie again, as we all will, watch it this time and see if you don't agree that Bob comes up with 90% or better of the intelligent suggestions.

For those of you who have not had the pleasure of seeing this movie it is a "must see". From a time when movies gave free rein to our own fertile imaginations; it terrified without graphic gore; amazed without a gazillion dollars of special effects and best of all entertained at a pace rarely attained by any movie from any genre in any generation.

Very good Sci-Fi classic about a creature discovered by an Arctic research and military team

[ma-cortes · 7/10 · 30 January 2017]

The earlier first version loosely based on short story ¨Who goes there¨ by John Campbell (published in 1938) is titled ¨The Thing from another world¨ by Christian Nyby and under the guidance of Howard Hawks with Kenneth Tobey , Margaret Sheridan , Edward Franz , Dewey Martin , John Dierkes , and James Arness as the monster , later to win fame as Marshal Matt Dillon from ¨TV's Gunsmoke¨ . Being a potent lesson how to direct a film in low budget and it holds a subtle but efficient intrigue . It deals with a team of military and scientists at a remote outpost discover a buried spaceship , as the astonishing crew form a ring around the flying saucer frozen in the ice (it was shot at the RKO Ranch in the San Fernando Valley in 100-degree weather) . Monster movie in which an alien menaces an isolated scientific community , it is a giant seed-dispersing vegetable and runs amok . It is set in Arctic : an extraordinary continent of awesome beauty . It is also home to an isolated outpost where a discovery full of scientific possibility becomes a mission of survival . It deals with a lonely group of scientists who take on the most dangerous creature of universe that sucks the blood from sled dogs and scientific alive and unaffected by missing body parts , cold or bullets . Then , the creature , accidentally unleashed at this marooned colony , in this vast , intense land a parasite will pit human against human as it tries to survive and flourish . In the thriller ¨The Thing¨ , paranoia spreads like an epidemic among a group of researchers when an accident frees the alien from its frozen existence .

Acceptable , estimable and well-made action/terror/thriller in which scientists and military in the Arctic are confronted by an alien craft and a monster that is accidentally thawed and wreaks havoc . Being professionally directed by Christian Nyby , assisted substantially by Hawks (and its said filmmaking) , who provides a punchy suspenseful Sci-Fi about an unwelcome alien survivor alive . The gradual as well as notable built-up suspense is quite superb as when the monster is shown largely to create a real menace , though some moments looks a little clumsy as well as awkward and when the creature is doused with kerosene and set ablaze is believed to be the first full body burn accomplished by a stunt man . There are also some implausibities but they are carried some measure of conviction thanks to Howard Hawks . This exciting film packs chills , thrills , guessing , paranoia , absence of all characterization and spectacular FX by that time , though nowadays dated . It takes a liberal stand in exposing the tension of men when confront an alien that is unearthed by a crew of international scientists . It packs a thrilling and intriguing musical score by Dimitri Tiomkin . Cameraman Russell Harlan contributes an evocative as well as appropriate cinematography , though there is available a horrible colorized version . And being partly filmed in Glacier National Park and at a Los Angeles ice storage plant . ¨The thing¨ emerges as a distinctly Sci-Fi/terror movie and one might be recommending for its solid cast , FX , special makeup , cinematography by Harlan , and being masterfully made by Christian Nyby and supervised by the great Howard Hawks . It is one of the best of the Cold War allegories and a lot of filmmakers cited the movie as a key , influential film in their lives.

This one was remade in 1982 , being the best version directed by John Carpenter , it was starred by Kurt Russell and an all-star-secondary cast as Wilford Brimley , T.K. Carter , David Clennon , Keith David , Richard Dysart , Charles Hallahan , Peter Maloney , Richard Masur and Donald Moffat ; here the monster has the ability to turn itself into a perfect replica of any living being , it can look just like you or me , but inside , it remains inhuman . And the modern version in which producers convinced Universal Studios to allow them to create a prequel to John Carpenter's The Thing instead of a remake , as they felt Carpenter's film was already perfect with a shape-shifting alien .¨The Thing (2011)¨ by Mattijs Heijmingen with Mary Elizabeth Winstead and Joel Edgerton resulting to be inferior to previous but still being acceptable . This ¨The Thing¨ serves as a prelude to John Carpenter's classic 1982 film of the same name that is one of the great Sci-Fi classics . However , the filmmaker copies several scenes from Carpenter movie and Christian Nyby film .

THE NEGATIVE REVIEWS ARE EITHER ANONYMOUS OR IGNORANT OF HISTORY-THIS IS A TRIUMPHANT CLASSIC!

[baroncoco · 10/10 · 12 May 2022]

Absolutely brilliant film, in many ways better than the book and certainly better than Carpenter's remake. Hawks' patented run-over machine-gun-banter dialogue was never better, and the cast of B actors turn in uniformly great performances.

AND IF YOU HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THE LAST LINE: 1) Remember the era in which it was made:? Stalin threatening the world and the equally horrifying reaction of McCarthy an HUAC being on the rise; and 2) Remember where threats to America HAVE always come from, in modern times: THE SKIES. Pearl Harbor, the Cuban Missile Crisis, 9/11, the Kims and North Korea-all powerful dramatic backing. Try reading history, BALANCED history, instead of hack voices from the Right and the Left.

The Thing from Another World: Cult classic

[Platypuschow · 6/10 · 28 April 2018]

For the few of you who aren't aware, John Carpenters classic The Thing (1982) was a remake and this is where it all began.

Telling the story of a research base in Anchorage Alaska that discovers a crashed UFO. Before they know it they find themselves under attack from what dwelled within.

Now let's be clear this is nothing like the remakes, there is no paranoia, no body swapping or horrific scenes here. The Thing From Another World contains an almost Franksteins monster looking alien creature and that's about it.

What immediatly stands out is how good it all looks, it's hard to believe that this was made in the early 50's. Clearly a lot of love went into this sci-fi piece that would later become considered as a true cult classic.

I don't see quite the overwhelming appeal as many, maybe I'm simply not the demographic but I can't argue that movies quality.

The Good:

Ahead of its time

Looks great

The Bad:

Oddly paced

Things I Learnt From This Movie:

I always seem to side with the cantankerous scientist in every movie

Most errors ever in one movie?

[FlickMan · 3/10 · 1 January 2006]

When I first saw this movie, as a kid, I found it kind of scary. Watching it last night on TCM, however, I was underwhelmed. The sets are primitive, the acting is hammy, and James Arness as The Thing was just pathetic. He looked like Frankenstein's Monster in a wet suit. Worse, however, was the total disregard for scientific and technical accuracy. In fact, by the end of the movie I concluded that "The Thing" contains more errors of this nature than any other movie made – ever!

*** SPOILERS !!! ***

To start with the obvious, the movie is set at or very near the North Pole, in November – when it's dark outside 24 hours a day. Even at 80 degrees North latitude, there are less than two hours of daylight on November 3. Yet the crew that sets out to find the crashed spacecraft seems to have quite a lot of daylight to work in.

There are no airlocks on the doors to the polar station; people just waltz in and out. The sled dogs are left out at night (which would be always) even though someone mentions a temperature of 60 below.

The crashed spacecraft is described as weighing 20,000 tons, and affecting compasses for hundreds of miles around. That sounds like a lot of metal, but battleships weigh a lot more than that and compasses work just fine even when one is nearby.

Based on sizes and weights of other aircraft, a 20,000 ton disk-shaped spaceship would be about 300 feet across – larger if it were made of something like titanium. Yet when the search party fans out and stands around the ship's perimeter it is only about a 100-ft circle. A ship that size would weigh a few hundred tons at most. Why didn't they just describe the crashed object as "highly magnetic" and have the file get irrevocably stuck to the tail fin when one guy tries to file off shavings?

Attempting to thaw out the ice surrounding the ship with a couple of thermite charges simply wouldn't work. Those charges could melt a few cubic yards of ice, at most. And what were they hoping to accomplish, anyhow? Assuming they could melt the ice, what are they gonna do? Dive into ice-cold water, in the Arctic winter, to look at the ship close-up? almost certainly, they would have radioed back to civilization and the higher-ups would have told them not to disturb anything. Then, come Spring, there would be a major scientific expedition equipped with excavating equipment and sophisticated instruments.

There wasn't even any good plot-related reason to try to excavate the ship from the ice. They could have discovered The Thing nearby anyway, and used the thermite to get HIM out of the ice. The amount they had might be enough. Instead, they remove a block of ice that had to weigh at least 3000 pounds, using hand tools and perhaps chainsaws. This would take at least a day, yet apparently it takes them almost no time.

When the crew gets the block of ice back to the station, they bring it inside. Why? Wouldn't it make more sense to leave it outside? Who's gonna steal it?

Once it's inside they put it in a storeroom, where some bozo inadvertently places an electric blanket on top of the ice. This would have almost no effect on a 3000 pound block of ice in a cold room; it would take months to melt the block this way.

Once The Thing is on the loose, they try to stop it by sloshing kerosene on it and setting it afire – inside their only shelter. Yeah, that's a really good plan.

When The Thing disrupts the fuel supply to the heaters that keep the station warm, they come up with another great plan: electrocute him. OK, what does the generator run on: pixie dust? Wouldn't it be hooked in to the same fuel source as the heaters? If not, why couldn't they use some of the generator fuel to heat the place for a few hours?

The setup they devise to electrocute The Thing is ludicrous. For something like that to work, he'd have to be in direct contact with the wires carrying the electrical current – yet they put the floor grid under a wood walkway (wood is a fairly good insulator) and run some wires along the walls and ceiling. One of the characters says something about stepping up the voltage (using what?) to allow the electricity to arc across to The Thing. "That'll provide plenty of amps," he says. Wrong.

When you step up the voltage, amperage drops correspondingly. To form arcs that long would take about half a million volts. If the polar station was equipped with a 100 KW generator, that would give you about 0.2 amperes – barely enough to tickle. (Remember those Van de Graf generators at high school science fairs? Big sparks, but totally harmless!) To provide high amperage, you'd reduce the voltage – but then you'd have to get the monster to actually touch the wires, and there'd be no cool sparks to look at.

Oh, and one final question; If The Thing had come to Earth to plant his seeds and grow an army of Things, why would he be cruising around the North Pole? Wouldn't he be likely to head for a tropical jungle region, where the climate is more conducive to plant growth and there is a plentiful supply of food?

Geez.