This is Carpenter's predecessor to The Thing. I thought it too was inspired by The Hallucinated Mountains, but no, it's adapted from the novel Who Goes There? It follows three U.S. Air Force pilots and a journalist who reach a U.S. base at the North Pole after an aircraft crash. When they arrive, the aircraft is damaged, leaving only the pilot, who is brought back to the base in a block of ice. Following an accident, he wakes up and flees. The military want to wait, while the scientists want to study him. Everything is set for an atmospheric winter movie: the base far from everything, the dogs, the woods, it would almost be cozy without the monster... Scientists and military personnel are locked in with the monster, who alone can get out, reappear and feed on blood. The closed-door setting is suffocating, as it's human passions that are as threatening as the monster, between the scientists who favor science (without conscience) and the military who want to prevent the monster from developing. The Geiger counter is, I think, the inspiration for Alien's motion detector, and the survival-movie aspect also works very well (the improvised flame thrower, the electric trap, when the monster sabotages the oil machine). There are also other things that took me out of the film, such as showing too much about the monster, a green-plant version of Frankenstein's monster, and the sound that sounds like its time. On the other hand, the laboratory aspect is quite well done, especially Dr. Cornwhaite's embryo breeding, which is quite frightening. But when you think about it, this version shows much less than Carpenter's The Thing, which goes much further in terms of gore. What can we say about this film? I imagine it had a huge impact, while at the same time being a film firmly anchored in its time, a must-see if only for fans of the master Carpenter!

Excellent effects and direction which perfectly utilizes it's confined location, and the script and story are also very and even the drastic changes, like the main monster just being a Frankenstein clone that's actually a living plant (or rather, carrot) are very welcomed due to how innovative and unique they are.

I get that this is the movie that started it all, the first adaptation of Who Goes There, and that John Carpenter was inspired by this when he made The Thing, but it's just not that good of a movie. It was spectacular for its time, but looking at it now, it isn't amazing. It's alright, but not amazing. I should add, I haven't seen the Carpenter version, this is my first experience with The Thing. So, I won't compare the two. But, allow me to elaborate on my view. At times, it can be quite boring. A lot of it is just talking about science, which can be entertaining to some, but I didn't find the science exposition interesting in this one. This feels like a longer version of a 1960s Doctor Who episode in a sense. However, this does have good effects at times, and the scenes with the Thing are entertaining enough to bump this to a 6/10. Overall, it was great for its time, but looking at it now, it didn't age the best.

It's one of the best classic monster movies of all time! Can't recommend it enough.

Top 10 science fiction horror movies in my book, carpenter's 1982 version was ok but could have done without gore, an no flamethrower from the short story, the least you see the more your imagination can run wild which is what makes Alien the best science fiction horror movie ever made. The 1951 version of the thing from another world is a must see.

3.5 stars; I am old enough to have seen this movie when it was first released in 1951. As a preteen, it gave me nightmares for days. It was an original. It was one of the first to establish the 'gotcha' moment in 1950s sci-fi horror movies—the moment something jumps out of the corner of the screen to scare you. Even though it was one of the pathfinder movie (in many ways) of that genre, it was also a serious sci-fi motion picture. It was based on the novella "Who Goes There?" that dealt with what it would be like for the first encounter with a creature from another world. It greatly benefited in scaring audiences from the cultural "Red Scare" that was going on in the early 1950s. So if you've never seen this movie; wait until dark, turn off the lights, and enjoy a good scare.....

For 1951, this was probably a great movie, however not in 2024. I like the other installments (particularly from 1982) much better. They were more intelligently written, had a plot that kept me engaged the whole time, and were a lot more impressive with their effects and horror, not to mention they even had better dialogue that felt more natural between the characters who you care about more than in this movie. Plus the monster was bad quality and barely scary, you had to constantly view it from a distance since the director probably didn't want you to see how human-like it was. This movie had some good scenes though, like when the generator and lights went out or the pyrotechnic set up and execution behind lighting the creature on fire before it jumped out the window. Plus, I liked the wide shots that encompassed the great and beautiful tundra snow-filled landscape. Even though it was a quick hour an a half though, still wasted a little too much time and I regret saying it. Plus the scientist/professor/doctor guy was pretty dumb as well as his arch.

Apesar do charme P/B, se tornou realmente datado. Mesmo com sua atmosfera claustrofóbica e representar as inovadoras ameaças extraterrestre (pra época), acabou entrando pra lista dos que não envelheceram tão bem e possui um remake muito melhor (de 1982). Vale pela curiosidade e vivenciar o clássico em si.

What the movie captures so well is how quickly chaos erupts, especially when people are terrified. No wonder this traumatized so many boomers in their childhoods.

There are a few unlikelyhoods in the movie but not nearly as many that are in most sci-fi pics. Solid acting, directing, writing, aid in having this classic shine through. Has a few moments of fun and frivolity to add to the intense storyline. Overall, a great B&W pic.

5/10. 56/100. | This film walked or even crawled, so "The Thing" (1982) could run.

A unique take on John W. Campbell's work, The Thing from another world is a sci-fi movie that should be watched if you're feeling nostalgic or love classic movies.

The 1950s saw a revival in the science-fiction movie. In 1951, two of most influential sci-fi films of the decade were made – The Day the Earth Stood Still, and The Thing from Another World. The latter release was the most successful sci-fi film of the year. While The Thing is now viewed as a classic of the genre, and one of the best science-fiction films of the decade, it did not please everyone. For those who enjoyed intelligent sci-fi, The Thing issued in a succession of bug-eyed monster movies, many of very low quality. Even the title of this film – The Thing from Another World – was distinctly lowbrow. However we must see the movie in context. The sci-fi purists may have felt that their genre was degraded by The Thing, but in cinematic terms it was one of the productions that finally made science fiction films popular. The film is credited to Christian Nyby, but there has been much speculation that the real genius behind it was the great director, Howard Hawks. Even members of the cast including the lead star Kenneth Tobey insisted that Hawks directed it. Nyby and others denied this, and insisted that Hawks was more of a mentor and influence on Nyby. Be that as it may, the hand of Hawks is felt at all points in the film. Hawks bought the rights to the story, commissioned the script, planned the film, rehearsed the actors and supervised the shooting. More than anything though the film resembles a Hawks work. The plot is essentially a science-fiction version of Rio Bravo, Hawks' classic western. Only here the lawmen who were besieged by criminals are replaced by the military fighting off a monster. The film contains many Hawks trademarks. The dialogue overlaps. There is a camaraderie among the men, but they express it by needling one another, rather than through displays of affection. The men are tough and not easily fazed. When a man opens a door and sees the titular monster behind it, he does not scream or panic. This is no time for hysterics. He simply slams the door shut. The relationship between hero and heroine is also pure Hawks. Captain Patrick Hendry (Kenneth Tobey) is a capable officer when it comes to the action, but gauche when it comes to handling a woman, especially the kind of ‘insolent' woman that Hawks likes. This is Nikki Nicholson (Margaret Sheridan). Their initial relationship is awkward after Nikki gets the better of Hendry by outdrinking him, and then leaving him abruptly, to the amusement of his comrades. Nikki insists that Henry was pushy, and like an ‘octopus' in his attentions to her, and he complains that it was only because he liked her. Despite this bad start, it is clear that they are attracted, and she is more amused than repelled by his behaviour. At a later meeting, she insists on tying Hendry's hands behind his back while they talk. This faintly titillating scene is more naughty than kinky. Another typically Hawksian aspect of the film is the emphasis on working together and the solidarity shared between the characters. For all his right-wing beliefs, Hawks was often drawn to the idea of men working together for a common goal, rather than pursuing selfish or individualistic ends. This is reflected in the look of the film. It contains few if any close-ups. Most of the camera shots are at medium range, allowing us to see everyone at the room. This is sometimes unengaging when it comes to listening to the dialogue, as we cannot appreciate nuance or facial expression, but it is appropriate to the movie's theme of people working together as a group, rather than acting for themselves. In a similar vein, the film contains no actors in the opening credits, and we need to wait until the end to see them. The hero of this film is not a maverick or a renegade. He is a team leader, Captain Hendry. He does not tyrannise over the men, and it is not his individual genius that achieves victory over the unfamiliar threat. Most of the good ideas come from Hendry's crew, and he adopts the better ones. Teamwork is the order of the day, and a good leader is one who listens to what the men say, and co-ordinates their work. The Thing faces the usual problem that old sci-fi movies face. This was not yet a reputable genre, and there was little budget for special effects. How to make a convincing spaceship or monster with little money? The film gets around the problem in subtle ways. We do not see the spaceship at all, only something that looks like a tail fin. There is a dark shadow on the ice, and when the men spread out to learn its shape we realise that it is a flying saucer. Monsters were an even bigger problem, and the 1950s produced its share of laughable scenes of men in rubber suits. This film solves the problem by keeping the alien off-screen for as long as possible. For nearly an hour we only get brief glances. Even when the creature appears, it is glimpsed in brief scenes with low lighting, so that we barely get a proper look at it. This works very well in keeping the film's monster convincing. The depiction of scientists reflected the mood of the early 1950s where the H-Bomb had caused many to feel negatively about the work of experts in the field of science. In The Thing, the scientists cause problems, and the army clear up the mess. There are even a few references to the nuclear threat facing the world at the time. Defending science Carrington proclaims: "We're not animals. We're a brain that thinks! Nothing else counts, except our thinking. We've thought our way into nature. We've split the atom." He is interrupted by one of the men who sarcastically responds: "Yeah, and that sure made the world happy, didn't it!" The film ultimately celebrates the efforts of these cheerfully brave men as they learn, and adapt new way to combat this unprecedented crisis. There may be more dangers from space in the future as Scotty warns, but the film strikes a cautiously optimistic note about the capacity of humans to overcome adversity. I wrote a longer appreciation of The Thing from Another World on my blog page if you would like to read more: https://themoviescreenscene.wordpress.com/2019/01/25/the-thing-from-another-world-1951/

Eh. It's a movie. It's almost worth watching, as it's an interesting enough premise that it inspired one of the greatest horror movies of all time, but it's a boring slog with too much talking and a dollar store alien parading around as a glorified Frankensteins monster. I don't like it. Don't recommend it. Just watch The Thing.

I tried liking this movie I really did, it's just bad in comparison to movies like The day the earth stood still, and even Them! both of those movies have atleast an entertaining plot to drive them. It feels like this is more a camera is put in a room to hear a conversation that is not important to the audience. Movie to put on to goto sleep to. I watched this last night and I couldn't tell you what the monster looked like, that's a problem.

When I first watched John Carpenter's The Thing, I had no idea it was a remake (sort of) of The Thing From Another World from 1951. Both are based on a book that I wont claim to have read, but after having seen both versions, I can comfortably say that the 1982 film is far superior. Not just in terms of budget or equipment availability, but in terms of character, suspense and overall storyline. The 51 version is classic mid-century sci-fi, where so much time is spent listening to characters talk about what's going on, what their plans are, and banter between individuals that just feels random and unimportant. I don't know what it was about actors in films back them, but they all seemed to talk as fast as possible while barely flexing their jaws, and as a result it's hard to make out everything they're saying. After a while it just becomes a drone and I started zoning out. I did like how the outdoor scenes were directed, capturing the vast emptiness of the North pole, but inside the facility everything just feels so mundane, with characters pretty much always walking towards the camera which rarely changes angles. The Thing itself, like a lot of aliens in science fiction movies, is disappointingly unimaginative. In this case, it's a tall man wearing some kind of spacesuit, because aliens wears clothes like us apparently, and its death is hugely anticlimactic. Think about Carpenter's film, how the creature entered the men's bodies, and how this bred suspicion and paranoia among a previously tight-knit team. None of that is in this film. A group of people walk into a room, talk about something, then walk into another room and talk about something else, and so on and so forth. There's a central female character, who boldly proclaims she'll be coming along on the dangerous mission towards the end, but her most important contribution is serving coffee. It might appeal to those who love the genre, but I just found it rambling, uninteresting, not frightening and inferior to the 82 film in every regard.

Another in a long list of notorious "20 Minute Creature" films, so called because a bare-bones budget only allowed for limited special effects. It's actually a formula followed by "Jaws" two decades later when the mechanical shark wouldn't function reliably. Kenneth Tobey in one of his innumerable B Movie military officer roles is competent enough; he could probably roll out of bed and do that shtick blindfolded. We have the semi-hot lady scientist as a love interest to fill out some of the 90 minutes, give or take, and the usual number of script gaffes such as broad daylight in November above the Arctic Circle. It wouldn't hold the attention of a young audience accustomed to CGI-based blockbusters, and apart from Marshal Dillon in the monster suit there's not much to recommend it to nostalgia seekers, either.

The Thing was later reproduced in the eighties with a better and more tense version. That said I enjoyed this original even though the actual thing was pretty underwhelming. Rest of the film plays out easily. Shame this was Margaret Sheridan's only real film role. She is really saucy.

Thank God for John Carpenter. This overpraised and incredibly boring B picture has one distinction: it's short. But you'll be fighting sleep within minutes of the beginning as a group of wooden actors play cards, drink coffee and talk over each other at great speed. Almost nothing happens, and for long stretches. Why it has built up such a reputation is genuinely baffling. James Arness appears briefly in three scenes, mainly to be set on fire, shot and electrocuted. His are the only dramatic scenes.

Looked good for the age of the movie. Really nicely shot and believable special effects. Sound was clear but a little flat due to the limited channels. Obviously not really comparable to modern films.  The concept of the alien mimicking humans and that anyone could be the alien is lost. There is one alien that could take over the world as it is basically a plant which is clever. I think that it was ahead of it's time for horror films compared to the Universal horrors. Really enjoyable older film. My favourite from the era as it is a little different and a little clever. There are some really creepy moments and the feeling of being trapped is there. The monster is a bit slow but quite menacing. Excellent fifties horror that took a long time to be beaten.