UHD Review A Few Words About A few words about...™ The Thing (1982) -- in 4k UHD Blu-ray (1 Viewer)

[Peter Apruzzese]

Yes, the shot of the theater screen shows an aspect ratio of approx. 2:1 instead of the 2.40 it should be.

 

[Stephen_J_H]

Was a finalist in the Fangoria "Draw The Thing" contest and still have my button and name in the magazine. Saw it opening weekend and kept laughing in wonder at the efx. I could tell the audience hated the ending and then Siskel/Ebert told America not to go see it (can we acknowledge Ebert was a terrible critic although a lovely person?). Even as a 15 year old I knew this should have come out in the fall and witout that terrible parka monster ad that helped kill it over the superior "Man is the warmest place to hide" early ads.

I saw it on 35mm with a print from Universal last night and if you want an informal comparison, I found the 35mm frame shorter (could be the screen, etc.) but much darker and that could be the screen/projector tho it did look great on the big screen while the 4k is much wider and lighter -- look at that jacket -- and it definitely shows in this scene.
View attachment 148814 View attachment 148815

Yes, the shot of the theater screen shows an aspect ratio of approx. 2:1 instead of the 2.40 it should be.

In modern theatres, correct AR is a crapshoot at best. Only guys like Peter take the proper care of masking and aperture plates to ensure it’s as close as possible.

 

[Kent K H]

I know I should get this. I have the Universal blu and I'm sure this is a nice upgrade with all the special features. But man, does my wallet scream at me every time I think about pulling the trigger.

 

[ManW_TheUncool]

I know I should get this. I have the Universal blu and I'm sure this is a nice upgrade with all the special features. But man, does my wallet scream at me every time I think about pulling the trigger.

Well, if you're patient, it'll probably drop below $10 at Gruv.com at some point (at least after applying the perpetual 20%-off coupon, if not before)... maybe as we approach Halloween perhaps... OR it'll probably also get there come BF week...

_Man_

 

[Tino]

(can we acknowledge Ebert was a terrible critic although a lovely person?).

How absurd. Of course not.

 

[Tino]

then Siskel/Ebert told America not to go see it

They did no such thing. Siskel actually gave it a thumbs up and Ebert gave it 2 1/2 stars and said this in his print review.

“there's no need to see this version unless you are interested in what the Thing might look like while starting from anonymous greasy organs extruding giant crab legs and transmuting itself into a dog. Amazingly, I'll bet that thousands, if not millions, of moviegoers are interested in seeing just that.”

Here’s the video

 

[Neil S. Bulk]

After watching the movie, enjoy the musical.

 

[Robert Crawford]

They did no such thing. Siskel actually gave it a thumbs up and Ebert gave it 2 1/2 stars and said this in his print review.

“there's no need to see this version unless you are interested in what the Thing might look like while starting from anonymous greasy organs extruding giant crab legs and transmuting itself into a dog. Amazingly, I'll bet that thousands, if not millions, of moviegoers are interested in seeing just that.”

Here’s the video

The Siskel and Ebert comments are in line with what I thought they would be in 1982. During our movie theater experience back in 1982, my brother and I thought this film was cutting edge with the special effects, but extremely gross. So gross, we laughed out loud several times during the course of the movie. During our afternoon matinee, there were less than 10 other people in the audience and I think all of us were pretty shocked as to what we were seeing that afternoon. We loved it and thought the movie was awesome! However, I can see why some people would be grossed out by this ground breaking movie.

 

[Matt Hough]

To be honest, I was hiding behind my hands through several tense moments of the movie which I found sometimes almost unbearably suspenseful. Yes, I was grossed out by some of the effects, but I went in expecting that. I was just so pleased that Carpenter could wind me up so tightly. That's what you want from a thriller.

 

[Worth]

It was a bleak, nihilistic film at a time when audiences wanted something light and upbeat. It was probably never going to be a big hit, but it had particularly bad timing.

 

[Stephen_J_H]

It was a bleak, nihilistic film at a time when audiences wanted something light and upbeat. It was probably never going to be a big hit, but it had particularly bad timing.

Never release depressing sci-fi during an economic recession?

 

[dpippel]

Never release depressing sci-fi during an economic recession?

Audiences were totally consumed floating in the euphoric feel-good cloud that was E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial when The Thing hit theaters two weeks later. They just weren't in the mood for something that was about as far as you could get from puppies, rainbows, and cute aliens.

 

[Stephen_J_H]

Audiences were totally consumed floating in the euphoric feel-good cloud that was E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial when The Thing hit theaters two weeks later. They just weren't in the mood for something that was about as far as you could get from puppies, rainbows, and cute aliens.

And I present as Exhibit 'B': Blade Runner. People wanted feel good entertainment overall, and before you point to Poltergeist, while certainly scary, the ending is upbeat.

 

[ManW_TheUncool]

And I present as Exhibit 'B': Blade Runner. People wanted feel good entertainment overall, and before you point to Poltergeist, while certainly scary, the ending is upbeat.

Poltergeist really isn't/wasn't (ever) that scary anyway. And Blade Runner was probably too much of a dreary, melancholic slow burn (and yes, w/ no upbeat ending/closure) for most people's expectations/desires for sci-fi/fantasy, especially back then...

_Man_

 

[WillG]

And I present as Exhibit 'B': Blade Runner. People wanted feel good entertainment overall, and before you point to Poltergeist, while certainly scary, the ending is upbeat.

Upbeat? It’s like some of the scariest 15 minutes of all time. And how does it all end? Family loses their home and are crowding into a single room at a Holiday Inn with a completely uncertain future.

Poltergeist also had some unsettling gore/gross effects

 

[Malcolm R]

Upbeat? It’s like some of the scariest 15 minutes of all time. And how does it all end? Family loses their home and are crowding into a single room at a Holiday Inn with a completely uncertain future.

Poltergeist also had some unsettling gore/gross effects

The tree eating the kid is one of my earliest nightmare-inducing scary moments of film.

 

[Kent K H]

Poltergeist really isn't/wasn't (ever) that scary anyway.

Says you.

 

[Robert Crawford]

Says you.

Right, it's funny how people state their film opinion as if it's fact for everyone else.

 

[David Norman]

Poltergeist really isn't/wasn't (ever) that scary anyway.

You must have seen a different cut than I did. I was mid 20's and scared the crap out of me almost as much as teh original Halloween. Those were about my upper limits back then.

Upbeat ending only really in teh sense that the family was all alive.

 

[Tino]

Right, it's funny how people state their film opinion as if it's fact for everyone else.

Waitaminnit….. that never happens here!