So I just watched this for the 1,000 time. I love this film to death, it very nearly perfect. I think this a *** (3 star) film, maybe even *** 1/2. Obviously the story is well told and what this film did for Sci-Fi is not able to be measured.

I think what holds this film back is some stilted dialogue and some bad acting (particularly the scientist). Can anybody back me on this? Do you agree that the acting leaves much to be desired? A huge debate is brewing here at work....

ECHO-7

So....much....bold....

Yes, it is a cheesily-acted 50s sci-fi film; I don't see how there can be much debate there.

Also, how can you call the film perfect and yet only give it 3 stars? Wouldn't a perfect film by default get maximum stars?

I did go a bit crazy on the bold..

I said it was very nearly perfect...not perfect which yes i agree would be four stars. I have talked with countless people about this today and you would be surprised how may people think this thing is well acted.

I'm in the minority that likes it even more than The Thing 82, which i do consider a sequel not a remake.

Yeah - and it had the up-and-coming Marshal Dillion -- James Arness in the title role.

Got to see this on the big screen in 2001. A local revival house had a 50th anniversary festival of sci-fi films from 1951. It was called the "Area 1951 Festival". The Thing was the highlight. Both Forrest J. Ackerman and Robert Cornthwaite were there. Cornthwaite took questions from the audience. Definately one of the better 50s sci-fi.

The original is far superior to the 1982 remake, in my opinion.

Both films are landmarks in their respective sub-genres. I don't feel they must necessarily compete with each other, especially given the 30 year separation of productions and the (adjusted) difference in budgets, target audiences, etc.

I feel the same way about Dawn of the Dead and DotD'04. Two different subgenres, 26 years apart, different budgets, etc. Each film stands as an achievement on its own merits.

Agreed. And, if memory serves, more faithful to the original John W. Campbell story "Who Goes There?"

Agreed here, too.

The remake is much more faithful to the story.

Don't believe me? Read it here: http://www.outpost31.com/books/who.txt

Here's the start:
"The place stank. A queer, mingled stench that only the ice buried cabins of an Antarctic camp know, compounded of reeking human sweat, and the heavy, fish oil stench of melted seal blubber. An overtone of liniment combated the musty smell of sweat-and-snow-drenched furs. The acrid odor of burnt cooking fat, and the animal, not-unpleasant smell of dogs, diluted by time, hung in the air."

I like the remake much more than the original, but the original's ok. First time I saw it was in 3D.

Know what? I must have quoted without really reading. Of course, I was talking about the remake. Sorry about that. The remake is FAR superior, although the original has its charms.

Oh. Then disagreed.

I remember seeing the original on late night local broadcasts, and it being one of the reasons that I became such a horror fan.

I haven't seen it in years, but recently bought the DVD.

The Carpenter version is in my top ten films of all-time.

Count me in as another that likes the original, but the remake of '82 is my absolute favorite film of all time.

Carpenter FTW!

The remake is the best horror movie of all time. Best remake of all time. Love the original too but will watch the remake over and over before the original.