Editing The Thing (1982 film) (section)

===Critical reception===
{{Quote box
|quote = I take every failure hard. The one I took the hardest was ''The Thing''. My career would have been different if that had been a big hit{{spaces}}... The movie was hated. Even by science-fiction fans. They thought that I had betrayed some kind of trust, and the piling on was insane. Even the original movie's director, Christian Nyby, was dissing me.
|source = — John Carpenter in 2008 on the contemporary reception of ''The Thing''{{sfn|Rothkopf|2018}}
|width = 40%
|bgcolor =
}}

The film received negative reviews on its release, and hostility for its cynical, anti-authoritarian tone and graphic special effects.{{sfn|Billson|1997|pp=8, 10}}{{sfn|Lambie|2018b}} Some reviewers were dismissive of the film, calling it the "quintessential moron movie of the 80's", "instant junk",{{sfn|Canby|1982}} and a "wretched excess".{{sfn|Arnold|1982}} ''[[Starlog]]''{{'}}s Alan Spencer called it a "cold and sterile" horror movie attempting to cash in on the genre audience, against the "optimism of ''E.T.'', the reassuring return of ''Star Trek II'', the technical perfection of ''Tron'', and the sheer integrity of ''Blade Runner''".{{sfn|Spencer|1982|p=69}}

The plot was criticized as "boring",{{sfn|Denby|1982|pp=53–54}} and undermined by the special effects.{{sfn|Ansen|1982}} The ''[[Los Angeles Times]]''{{'}} Linda Gross said that ''The Thing'' was "bereft, despairing, and nihilistic", and lacking in feeling, meaning the characters' deaths did not matter.{{sfn|Gross|1982}} Spencer said it featured sloppy continuity, lacked pacing, and was devoid of warmth or humanity.{{sfn|Spencer|1982|p=69}} David Ansen of ''[[Newsweek]]'' felt the film confused the use of effects with creating suspense, and that it lacked drama by "sacrificing everything at the altar of gore".{{sfn|Ansen|1982}} The ''[[Chicago Reader]]''{{'}}s Dave Kehr considered the dialogue to be banal and interchangeable, making the characters seem and sound alike.{{sfn|Kehr|1982}} ''[[The Washington Post]]''{{'}}s Gary Arnold said it was a witty touch to open with the Thing having already overcome the Norwegian base, defeating the type of traps seen in the 1951 version,{{sfn|Arnold|1982}} while ''[[New York (magazine)|New York]]''{{'}}s [[David Denby]] lamented that the Thing's threat is shown only externally, without focusing on what it is like for someone who thinks they have been taken over.{{sfn|Denby|1982|pp=53–54}} [[Roger Ebert]] considered the film to be scary, but offering nothing original beyond the special effects,{{sfn|Ebert|1982}} while ''[[The New York Times]]''{{'}} [[Vincent Canby]] said it was entertaining only if the viewer needed to see spider-legged heads and dog autopsies.{{sfn|Canby|1982}}

Reviews of the actors' performances were generally positive,{{sfn|Schickel|1982}}{{sfn|Spencer|1982|p=69}} while criticizing the depictions of the characters they portrayed.{{sfn|Ebert|1982}}{{sfn|Variety|1981}}{{sfn|Ansen|1982}} Ebert said they lacked characterization, offering basic stereotypes that existed just to be killed, and Spencer called the characters bland even though the actors do the best they can with the material.{{sfn|Ebert|1982}}{{sfn|Spencer|1982|p=69}} ''[[Time (magazine)|Time]]''{{'}}s [[Richard Schickel]] singled Russell out as the "stalwart" hero, where other characters were not as strongly or wittily characterized,{{sfn|Schickel|1982}} and ''[[Variety (magazine)|Variety]]'' said that Russell's heroic status was undercut by the "suicidal" attitude adopted toward the film's finale.{{sfn|Variety|1981}} Other reviews criticized implausibilities such as characters wandering off alone.{{sfn|Ebert|1982}} Kehr did not like that the men did not band together against the Thing, and several reviews noted a lack of camaraderie and romance, which Arnold said reduced any interest beyond the special effects.{{sfn|Ansen|1982}}{{sfn|Arnold|1982}}{{sfn|Kehr|1982}}

The film's special effects were simultaneously lauded and lambasted for being technically brilliant but visually repulsive and excessive.{{sfn|Denby|1982|pp=53–54}}{{sfn|Schickel|1982}}{{sfn|Arnold|1982}} ''[[Cinefantastique]]'' wrote that the Thing "may be the most unloved monster in movie history{{nbsp}}... but it's also the most incredible display of special effects makeup in at least a decade."{{sfn|Hogan|1982|p=3}} Reviews called Bottin's work "genius",{{sfn|Denby|1982|pp=53–54}}{{sfn|Spencer|1982|p=69}} noting the designs were novel, unforgettable, "colorfully horrific", and called him a "master of the macabre".{{sfn|Schickel|1982}}{{sfn|Arnold|1982}} Arnold said that the "chest chomp" scene demonstrated "appalling creativity" and the subsequent severed head scene was "madly macabre", comparing them to ''Alien''{{'}}s chest burster and severed head scenes.{{sfn|Arnold|1982}} ''Variety'' called it "the most vividly gruesome horror film to ever stalk the screens".{{sfn|Variety|1981}} Conversely, Denby called them more disgusting than frightening and lamented that the trend of horror films to open the human body more and more bordered on obscenity.{{sfn|Denby|1982|pp=53–54}} Spencer said that Bottin's care and pride in his craft were shown in the effects, but both they and Schickel found them to be overwhelming and "squandered" without strong characters and story.{{sfn|Schickel|1982}}{{sfn|Spencer|1982|p=69}} Even so, Canby said that the effects were too "phony looking to be disgusting".{{sfn|Canby|1982}} Canby and Arnold said the creature's lack of a single, discernible shape was to its detriment, and hiding it inside humans made it hard to follow. Arnold said that the 1951 version was less versatile but easier to keep in focus.{{sfn|Arnold|1982}}{{sfn|Canby|1982}}

Gross and Spencer praised the film's technical achievements, particularly Cundey's "frostbitten" cinematography, the sound, editing, and Morricone's score.{{sfn|Gross|1982}}{{sfn|Spencer|1982|p=69}} Spencer was critical of Carpenter's direction, saying it was his "futile" attempt to give the audience what he thinks they want and that Carpenter was not meant to direct science fiction, but was instead suited to direct "traffic accidents, train wrecks, and public floggings".{{sfn|Spencer|1982|p=69}} Ansen said that "atrocity for atrocity's sake" was ill-becoming of Carpenter.{{sfn|Ansen|1982}}

''The Thing'' was often compared to similar films, particularly ''Alien'', ''[[Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1978 film)|Invasion of the Body Snatchers]]'' (1978), and ''The Thing from Another World''.{{sfn|Ebert|1982}}{{sfn|Denby|1982|pp=53–54}}{{sfn|Canby|1982}} Ebert and Denby said that ''The Thing'' seemed derivative compared to those films, which had portrayed the story in a better way.{{sfn|Ebert|1982}}{{sfn|Denby|1982|pp=53–54}} ''Variety'' called it inferior to the 1951 version.{{sfn|Variety|1981}} Arnold considered ''The Thing'' as the result of ''Alien'' raising the requirement for horrific spectacle.{{sfn|Arnold|1982}}

''The Thing from Another World'' actor [[Kenneth Tobey]] and director Christian Nyby also criticized the film. Nyby said, "If you want blood, go to the slaughterhouse{{spaces}}... All in all, it's a terrific commercial for [[Justerini & Brooks|J&B Scotch]]".{{sfn|Beresford|2017}} Tobey singled out the visual effects, saying they "were so explicit that they actually destroyed how you were supposed to feel about the characters{{spaces}}... They became almost a movie in themselves, and were a little too horrifying."{{sfn|Lambie|2018a}} In [[Phil Hardy (journalist)|Phil Hardy]]'s 1984 book ''Science Fiction'', a reviewer described the film as a "surprising failure" and called it "Carpenter's most unsatisfying film to date".{{sfn|Hardy|1984|p=378}} The review noted that the narrative "seems little more than an excuse for the various set-pieces of special effects and Russell's hero is no more than a cypher compared to Tobey's rounded character in Howard Hawks' ''The Thing''".{{sfn|Hardy|1984|p=378}} Clennon said that introductory scenes for the characters, omitted from the film, made it hard for audiences to connect with them, robbing it of some of the broader appeal of ''Alien''.{{sfn|Abrams|2016}}

John Nubbin reviewed ''The Thing'' for ''[[Different Worlds]]'' magazine and stated that "At its best, this film is scary. At its worst it lacks the power to involve us within its confines, making it just noather horror film in the end."<ref name="dw23">{{cite journal | last = Nubbin |first = John | title = Fantasy & Science Fiction Films | journal = [[Different Worlds]] | issue = 23 | pages =51-52 |date=August 1982}}</ref>