Scientists and American Air Force officials fend off a bloodthirsty alien organism while at a remote arctic outpost. The Thing from Another World is the original The Thing film long before the one in 1982 and the prequel in 2011 and to be honest? It was better than i thought it was going to be, really fun and even tho we don't see the alien alot of times it does keep you quite hooked on it plus the ending was pretty cool how they defeated it and i think if you loved the other 2 you're going to love this version as well that holds quite well in my opinion. (7/10)

2/8/17. This is the movie that spawned 2 remakes which were successful in their own right. But, this was the original. A National Film Registry pick, this was your typical Grade B sci-fi movies of the '50s, with awful special effects, somewhat talky dialogue that was much too serious for the genre and eerie soundtrack we have come to associate with old sci-fi movies. Nevertheless, it is worth catching just to remember that it didn't take too much to scare us (as kids), leaving us nightmares of unimaginable terror.

"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.

"The Thing" doesn't date well and seeing this now after the remake, I must admit that the remake, despite its gorishness, is more suspenseful after all. Despite a good build-up of atmosphere at points (the team forming a circle around the ice, the electric blanket melting the frozen alien) and some effective staging in the action spots, the film tends to be over-weighted with dialogue and one-dimensional characterizations (the scientist who wants to communicate, the army man who lives by the book, the eager-beaver subordinate. But by far the most irritating of all is the single- mindedly-after-a-scoop newspaperman breezily perpetrated by Douglas Spencer. Why the other characters defer, kowtow and play along with such a cretin is not satisfactorily explained despite a lot of lip about freedom of speech, the U.S. constitution and the taxpayer's money). Some of the special effects are not much either (e.g. the plasma-grown "plants"), despite all the hoo-haa that is made about them in the film, and continuity tends to be somewhat choppy. Just as suspense is being built up, the alien is pushed out of focus for some dull dialogue scene frequently featuring the tedious Mr. Spencer. The very careful staging of the players and the way they are grouped and the careful cutting indicates to me that a lot of the film was certainly directed by Nyby and not by Hawks as is often claimed. It's dull, over-respectful-to-the-script direction which, despite a great use of overlapping dialogue, does not ultimately convey the realism or the semi-documentary approach the director is obviously aiming for. A music score which is silent for many sequences and then suddenly obtrudes doesn't help either. Production values are very moderate. Despite the film's classic status it is not — and never was — all that good. It would have been more suspenseful with much tighter direction, with slicker continuity, with about 15 minutes trimmed from the running time and with more concentration on atmosphere rather than talk. The players are an uninteresting, B-grade lot too!