Guy Cry Cinema
5 Reasons Why John Carpenter Horror Classic The Thing Makes Guys Cry

Firefilm | 10 Sep 2014 09:00
Guy Cry Cinema - RSS 2.0

Just because a movie's manly doesn't mean you won't be shedding any tears, as you'll find out if you watch 1892 horror flick The Thing.

The goal of this series is to show that being "manly" and being disconnected with your emotions do not necessarily go hand-in-hand. While the approach to these articles is one of comedy and satire, the emotional core of these movies is very valid. Manly movies make guys cry, for example:

The Thing

Like my previous article about horrible horror film The Mist, this film is manly in how much pain one can withstand, supplemented with an extremely healthy gore-factor. The entire film has so much testosterone being thrown around that it could probably be renamed "Pissing contest, also aliens." There's dogs being murdered, people's heads popping off their bodies and becoming spider-monsters...

In short: it's no date movie. It is, however, a film that makes guys cry.

To be clear, we're going to be dissecting the horror masterpiece released in 1982, not the cinematic equivalent to plastic vomit that came out in 2011. Why they decided on using the exact same title is beyond me, but one theory of my own is that they were hoping to confuse people who wanted to watch the first version, thus tricking them into spending money on the new one. Is the new one really that bad? Unfortunately, it's more insulting than bad, and that's what brings me to the first reason for tears in The Thing:

1. Its benchmark of quality is so high that Hollywood doesn't even try anymore
The original Thing was a testament to the animatronic genius of Stan Winston. You know, the guy who built the Terminator and the dinosaurs from Jurassic Park. And the aliens from Alien. And the Predator. And the original Iron Man suit. Let's just leave it with GOOD GOD HE'S GOOD!

So when he makes an animatronic dog that looks like a real canine until it explodes into a mass of murder-tentacles, you better believe it's going to look horrifying. Not only that, but the effects he helped create stand the test of time. Modern CG still can't hold a candle to the terror that Stan Winston crafted for this film. It's just sad that the prequel of the same name that came out three decades later looked like crap in comparison, because they went all computer effects and no puppetry.

It was said the original looked "too much like an 80s movie," which to me is nothing but the highest of compliments. This film can still scare the pants off of any passerby, and the fact that Hollywood had the chance to replicate it and chose to use Jar Jar Binks instead brings a tear to my eye.

Comments on