Video není dostupné.
Omlouváme se.
Sci-Fi Classic Review: THE THING FROM ANOTHER WORLD (1951)
Vložit
- čas přidán 2. 08. 2024
- Howard Hawks' The Thing from Another World launched over a decade of science-fiction creature features, and was one of the seminal films of the early 1950's.
Thank you for watching! Please don't forget to like and subscribe, if you haven't already.
www.emagill.com
www.patreon.com/emagill
Written reviews:
The Thing from Another World - www.emagill.com/rants/eblog469...
"Who Goes There?" by JOHN Campbell - www.emagill.com/rants/eblog468...
John Carpenter's The Thing - www.emagill.com/rants/eblog470...
The Thing (2011) - www.emagill.com/rants/eblog472...
"The Things" by Peter Watts - www.emagill.com/rants/eblog473...
I probably watched this movie at least a half-dozen times during the late 1950s and early 1960s. It was my favorite.
I forgot to highlight the fact that it was especially the women who reacted coolly and professionally. Compare that to THE CREATURE FROM THE BLACK LAGOON, where ultra--hot Julie Adams screams with every third breath, making repeat viewings nearly unwatchable, which makes me really mad because underwater man-sized creatures really unnerve me (an inexplicable personal quirk) so I really like movies that have those scenes. When I saw the super excellent NIGHT STALKER in 1972, I thought it was really scary, and what haunted me the most was the swimming pool scene, where those brave cops jumped in to get the vampire. So I hate Jack Arnold for ruining THE CFTBL, for me anyway. And I love Hawks for making TTFAW so effing memorizable - I catch something new every viewing, a double entendre or a new horror trope. Last viewing I laughed when I realized Hawks dispensed with a standard trope about alien mindreading with one crack from the co-pilot, thus eliminating the tin foil hat brigade. And all those sly ass man references Hawks puts into every movie!!!! And nobody ever mentions them while poor Quentin Tarantino, whose movies I love, has HIS fetish for feet mentioned and laughed at first thing!!And I DEFY ANYONE to untangle the story of Pat and Nikki's date, how she saw his legs on a supposed date where they sat at.a.table drinking and how she pinned a note (?) to his chest(?) in the morning(?) about his ugly legs, right as she left(?). And "if I start burning up again who's going put out my fire?" "we're awfully proud of our captain-oof!" And the censors.let these pass without a comment? In 1951? But what could.they say? It just plain SOUNDS.salacious? Of course the censors let Lauren Bacall appear in TO HAVE AND HAVE NOT, where she oozed pure sex with every move of her body, every look from her eyes, and every sound of her voice. I apologize for.the length of this reply but when I get going about Hawks, I mean I GO, man, GO!!
@@cwdkidman2266 Most of the things you mentioned went over my head because I was so young when I watched TTFAW. I'll have to watch it again and look for them!
I was born in 1997 I appreciate your views and your history with this film
We care.
The first time I saw this movie was in the late 50's on TV. I was around 9 or 10, and it was a snowy winter afternoon, and we had the very same oil burning stove that is in the movie. Lol!
I wish I still had one. Nothing as reliable and easy to maintain as the old kerosene space heater . . .
@@danielgregg2530 True. I spent a lot for my so called "efficient" furnace and I spend a lot maintaining the monster and it barely keeps my house warm. The old kerosene heater was much better.
You have jus countered up an amazing picture of this in my mind thank you for sharing.😀
Amazing this exactly the same experience I share with your comment, kerosene burning stove and all.
Let's not forget Paul Freeze (opens the wood box containing the blood-drained, frozen husky) in one of his rare feature film appearances who later built a decades-long career as a voiceover artist in live action and animated productions in movies and television.
Yes, lest we also not forget the dramatic horror written into the musical score by Dimitri Tiomkin.
@@18661873 This music set 'THE BAR' in horror movie scores, that has seldom if ever been equalled to this day
Don’t forget he had a great career in radio.
The full body fire scene still gets to me!
I'm such a fan of this film. I love constant opening of doors when the thing is on the loose. Thematically, all that door opening ratchets up the tension: the thing could be behind anyone of them. But soon the audience settles in as door after door is opened. Until they open one and the thing is right there and almost kills Captain Hendry, shattering the doorjamb. All of that constructive planning and overlapping dialogue that sounds reasonable and real and serves a greater purpose and then the thing is RIGHT FLIPPING THERE!!! It is such a marvelous moment.
I saw this film in a cinema playing "classic" films, and before the John Carpenter remake of it, with a girlfriend and found one of the recurring lines so hilarious ("Holy cats!") that we adopted it for weeks in exclaiming surprise or enjoyment of anything that crossed our paths.
My wife and i are split ,i much prefer this movie but my wife likes the Kurt Russel movie.
I warmed to Capt Hendry and his crew and would liked them to have featured in other movies , i love the overlapping dialogue and quick humour amongst our hero's.
Its wearied i am really sad when this movie ends as i like the characters so much.
As to the Kurt Russel film well i will leave that to My wife.
Great review {:
Your channel deserves WAY more subs. You do excellent work.
Thank you so much for your kind words!
The absolute best for being released in 1951. Well ahead of it's time for Syfy. James Arness was given the role of " The thing " because of his height & he did a fantastic job as the creature.
Hell yawww dude was 6'7"
He was big and green and really mean and superhuman, hell he was the Original Hulk !!!👍💪🤢
What makes this film so great is the dialogue between the actors. Quick snappy banter and discussions. The trustworthy military guys. The not so trustworthy lead scientist. The involvement of the press.
Very interesting.
I saw this on the TV Late Show, about 1963. It scared the hell out of me, but I could not stop watching. I would watch it every time it came on TV. I wish it was in color. One of my favorite sci-fi movies. The Day the Earth Stood Still was another one of my must watch movies.
Love this movie....one of my favorites. The first alien invasion on screen.
This is simply the best of the best.
But hard on it's heels is the original version of 'The Invasion of the Body Snatchers'
Why were the true epics as these and few others such as the more ethereal genres such as Portrait of Jenny, and the Ghost and Mrs. Muir seeming to rise from minds of more genius than we see following in their train and often only capable of rehashing the great ones from back in the day?
Always loved this. first viewed on Channel 9's "Million Dollar Movie". aired daily for a week. The Carpenter version might have been closer to the Campbell story. but the sense of being under siege in an isolated and hostile environment is unmatched. the countdown sequence as the counter announces the approaching creature is iconic. it scared the crap out of me. every time. and has been used in countless films since. Even as a kid watching, I realized that they were talking to each other. like for real. Then there was the incredible score by Dimitri Tiomkin. It was scary, When they mapped out the shape of the craft the music made the scene. Years later one reads about how it was shot in LA no snow. soundstage tricks. Monster not really imaginative, yeah. I turn my back, the Magic and menace of The Thing from another world ruled the fifties.
I grew up in SoCal also. We used to watch all these sci-fi movies on KHJ-9 Million Dollar Movie televised twice a day (at 4:00PM & 8:00PM) every day for a week. We'd watch it, at least 3 or 4 times a week. I saw "The Thing" at the kiddie matinee in the late 50's at the Garmar Theater on Whittier Blvd. in Montebello, Ca. We'd always see these 50's sci-fi / monster/ horror flicks just about every week. "The Thing" is my all-time favorite Sci-Fi movie. I can't get enough of it. I own around 600 sci-fi / monster/ horror movies from the 30's, 40's, 50's & 60's (to mid only) and I'm always pulling out The Thing and viewing it.
@@AllanGonnella You are right about the schedule. it was the same in New York. Saw King Kong every time it showed/
I saw it there too, as a kid in NJ in the 1960s. I loved it!
I love this film. I had no idea the 1982 film was based on this, when I saw the 1982 version.
It wasn't based on this one, but the book, "Who Goes There". Although Carpenter was a big fan of this version.
Considering how different the two versions actually are, I'd say that was perfectly understandable. It's like comparing Forbidden Planet with the classic Star Trek episode "Requiem for Methusaleh;" both of which were based on William Shakespeare's play The Tempest but really don't look very much alike to each other.
Another superb review......informative, interesting, excellent production. You have a great way of keeping things moving along while making the content fascinating for someone like me, who has seen this movie many times. A+. Keep it going!!!
Excellent discussion! Thank you! Along with "The Bride of Frankenstein," my favorite science fiction movie. Splendid acting. Interesting, intelligent, varied characters. Wonderfully snappy dialogue. And what a setting! Terrifyingly isolated and forbidding. Although it has been pointed out that a 24-period near the North Pole would not have an obvious combination of bright sunshine and pitch darkness. Only one big criticism of the film: It's highly unlikely the "thing" would bear any resemblance whatsoever to a human being. But one must remember, this was made in 1951.
I was born in 1936!
I am astounded how movies in the 40's and even the 50's were so important to Americans in those days!
"The Thing From Another World" and "Invasion of the Body Snatchers" were extremely popular in those days!
People went to movies twice a week and kids also went on Saturdays for a cowboy, a serial, and cartoons!
Young people seeing movies on T.V. these days are not even close to the experience of going to the movies in the 40's and the 50's!
I had to remove this movie from the 82 version and the book mostly because the monster and characters are to different
Almost eveything is way to different.
A good reason to not call the Carpenter Movie a Remake.
If you are able to do that {I am}, it is much better. Sometimes people have trouble "relaxing" and enjoying a movie {loosely} based on a book or novella. So, I understand that some people can't do that.
My favorite example is "Wanted". All the movie took from the graphic novel was the names of characters and gave everyone the same superpower only two people had in the graphic novel. Even trying to keep an open mind, I had trouble "separating" that one from the source. Which dud make me enjoy it less than I wanted to.
@@dracometeors3010I agree. Carpenter adapted the novella or short story.
Hawkes not so much.
Some films are more producer-driven than director-driven. Basically it boils down to who had the 'vision', or who oversaw the script-development. Christian Nyby had done vital editing work on the long post-production of Hawks' 'Red River', which was released 2 years after it was filmed. Hawks may have assigned Nyby as director in gratitude, or in recognition of his abilities, or in a similar role as George Pan Cosmatos was hired for 'Rambo' and 'Tombstone', as a nominal director. Regardless, this film still holds up and has at least two genuine jolting moments (besides the kerosene sequence). And Dimitri Tiomkin's score was very influential.
I would like to make a note about Karrington in the movie. He is basically alone in his opinions, with the other scientists basically turning against him when he starts attempting to grow Thing saplings. I would so much say it's anti-intellectual movie as it is more so a warning against mad science. About going too far in the name of discovery, considering Karrington was willing to sacrifice the entire base just to preserve The Thing.
The Carrington character is basically Blair in the novella. The MacReady character was not only an inspiration for Hendry but my favorite character in the movie, Dr. Chapman. Slap a beard on John Dierkes and he'd look exactly the novella's MacReady.
Also, I have theory that the Thing can indeed read minds and also influence them, as it can in the novella. It was able to take advantage of both Carrington and the soldier with the electric blanket because they were both sleep deprived.
Karrington was willing to sacrifice the entire human race......
"All other considerations are secondary."
I absolutely LOVE this movie. It's one of my very favorites, and I've got o have a bowl of popcorn when watching it. Now, I have to go watch it again, lol.
Great review of my favorite movie, with some new insights. Well done.
Thanks! I'm thrilled to have a cult icon and the director of Death Machines in my comments section.
@@TheUnapologeticGeek I'm looking forward to more of your postings.
Although Carpenter's version is much more faithful to the short story, the '51 take is still a great movie in my humble opinion. And the fire-gag, holy smokes! Didn't know before now that it was a "milestone" in such stunts, just knew that the guy who worked the gag had some _serious_ walnuts down below. After he's ignited and the bucket of accelerant gets doused on (and _that_ guy was in nearly as much danger as the main stuntman tbh), that fireball is unbelievable! I'd suspect that the douse-dose was isopropyl alcohol in order to achieve big fire but with a quick (relatively speaking lol) burn rate/burnoff. Amazing bit, and thanks for the review.
That scene still gets me. It looks SO dangerous and terrifying.
@@TheUnapologeticGeek It sure does!
One Halloween week the local station showed a monster movie every afternoon. M-Th had monsters that never interested me. The Mummy, Werewolf, Dracula, Frankenstein. But Friday was "The Thing From Another world." It has been one of my favorites every since. Flawed, yes. But the sharp dialog and great acting carried the day.
This movie scared the short pants off me!!! Still dose I have watched it over 60 Times.
A true Classic in the Sci-Fi genre. A great example of using subtlety and music to build some terrifying moments. That period saw the release of some great Science Fiction films. Considering what was available to them the effects they created were noteworthy. Then you add Ray Harryhausen to that mix, he made film magic happen.
A good film overall, although the slant towards Toby's character is perhaps overly-strong. It probably shouldn't be surprising that the military is viewed generally favorably, as this was only six years after the victory over the Axis in WW2.
I under that author John W. Campbell, Jr. was not terribly pleased with this adaption of his story. I can certainly understand why a a much-simplified version of "The Thing" was used, given its shape-shifting abilities in the Campbell novella. It's difficult to see how that could have been accomplished with the special effects of that period. The 1982 version was much more faithful in that respect, but Campbell had been deceased some years by then. Been interesting to have known what he would have thought of the 80s re-make.
All in all, Hawks probably had as much influence on the direction as Nyby did. Since I believe all the cast members are deceased now, one can only rely on statements from the past, and comparisons of directing styles.
I still remember when the ice was melting and as a kid, this was the scariest scene in the whole film.
A very good movie. I've liked it ever since seeing it on TV when I was a kid.
Love these scoops on the movie! Thanks!
Thanks for watching!
One of my top 5 sci-fi films. Have no idea how many times I’ve seen it. More than 50 I’m sure.
Also let's shout out Lovecraft's "Mountains of Madness", very possibly an inspiration.
The central conflict between the humans -- should we fight the alien or not -- is very well covered terrain. Since the scientists are almost always right in those stores, it's nice to see a twist where Worf was right.
The electrocution sequence really brought home the "shrinkage factor" difference between humans and aliens.
An oldie but goodie...!
Still ranked in the top 100 movies ever made
"Joseph" Campbell is actually John W Campbell
Yeah, I know. Big booboo.
Good Catch.
Loved this movie!!!!!!!
I have watched a number of episodes of Adam-12 directed by Christian Nyby with Kenneth Tobey playing the part of a police supervisor.
Coincidence?
"Never be ashamed to do what you love."
- Jeffrey Dɐhmer, 1992
Yeah, he neglected the second part.
I remember watching this one night, because I was bored.
This was on Tubi. Not sure if it still is.
As I do every 3-4 weeks, I just finished Hawks' TTFAW and after every Hawks film I see and/or watch reacted to, I always marvel that, once again, Hawks got away with murder and nobody noticed. First, it was the template for all horror/sf thrillers to come, from creature from the black lagoon to alien to any movie about a small group of men and women facing danger in a confined space or area. Hawks used it himself in Rio Bravo, Hatari, El Dorado, and Rio Lobo. Ridley Scott said he learned from TTFAW as to how to make Alien. And no less an authority than Roger Corman called it the only work of genius in 50s cold war sci-fi and that he used Hawks' TTFAW template for his the day the world ended.
Second, for a sf-horror movie it's just about unique in the fact that NOBOODY SCREAMS!! Not even Hawksian women Nikki or the camp nurse/medic Mrs. Chapman. In the big fire scene, Hendry even enlists Nikki as part of the crew, giving her a job and only checking on her after the brief battle. Nikki even comes up with two of the big plot points (use heat to fight the Thing and is the first to notice that it has cut off their own heat by pointing out that they can see their breath). And this from the man who enjoyed being a man's man (racer, hunter, pilot, and womanizer).
Third, for a movie that was inducted into the National Film Registry for permanent preservation in 2001, it (or rather Hawks) pays little attention to continuity as far as minor details goes. Is Barnes a corporal or a sergeant? He's referred to as both. Who's Lt. Erickson? He's in the credits as played by Robert Nichols, but Nichols played Lt. MacPherson. Why do half the scientists want to examine the Thing in a very non-sterile environment, when you know that they know the scientific method? And immediately after the ship explodes from the supposedly safe thermite charges, why does the same group want to unfreeze the Thing and expose it to our air, endangering it to our germs and/or endangering us with alien germs?
Lastly, this is the dirtiest film in classic Hollywood, second only to any other film by Hawks. Just listen to the opening dialogue in 1938s Bringing Up Baby. And the double entendres usually refer to anal sex. The scientists are, according to Mac, looking for polar bear tail. "Barnes flushed a polar bear," says Bob. "We got up in there," says Mac after he and Eddie rib Pat particularly well.
Examples of non-ass man smut include Nikki's "if I start burning up again, who's going to put out the/my fire?" And Mac answers "we're very proud of our captain." We're shown Anchorage in a below zero blizzard to start off the movie, then told that Pat and Nikki had a date there only THREE WEEKS earlier. Now, can any viewer untangle the story of that date without coming to the conclusion that they spent the night together? She said he was an octopus and that his legs were ugly. Huh? How'd she see his legs on a date in Anchorage 3weeks prior to a way below zero blizzard? How could she hang a sign around his neck about his ugly legs at a supposed dinner table without anyone else taking it off him? And he says "other people got up before I did" Huh? What? Where did he fall asleep? Then he asks "where were you? when I got up you were gone." Again, huh and what? But, for the sake of the censors, he was an octopus and far too forward. Yet any damn fool can tell what really happened; in fact, we're told what really happened in every other line of dialogue. My two guesses are that they were used to Hawks' double meanings after a decade and a half, and also that Hawks was so damned funny in his off-color humor. His most off-color movie would come in 1952s MONKEY BUSINESS, where a chimp belonging to research scientist Cary Grant mixes a fountain of youth potion when he's out of the room.
Since he loved improvisation and rewriting scenes on the spot, Hawks' scripts probably never reflected his humor. In fact he told Peter Bogdanovich that if he took any credit himself or gave any to William Faulkner, his favorite script doctor that he'd never get the really good screenwriters he needed to provide a good jumping off point.
Hawks is woefully unemulated, even by John Carpenter, Ridley Scott, Tarantino, and Craig Zahler. Yet you can ID a Hawks film in a minute or two, almost all made loads of money, and even the heavy dramas were cheerfully optimistic and free of Hitchcockian neuroses. And Hollywood's most pessimistic director is called "the Master" despite his neuroses, his slavishness to his scripts and his clunky visual effects (like the PI in Psycho falling backwards down the stars). I guess pessimism will always be rewarded and optimism is just too hard to even fake much less emulate. Even in the mid 1960s the Rolling Stones had dozens of copycats while the Beatles were unreachable, though the Electric Light Orchestra tried. I guess a cheerful sanity is always hard to come by in any artist or artistic endeavor. Too much failure at the start of successful careers followed by too much compromise doesn't really make for a truly happy artist. Or so it would seem. At least we have Hawks' films, even if we no longer have the man himself. And we have The Thing From Another World.
I'd sooo like to discuss this film with a professional, compare it to other movies from the same time etc.
The author of "Who Goes There?" was John W. Campbell, not Joseph Campbell. Edit: sorry, I missed the flash of "John" during the video.
I had a brain fart while recording the audio. It happens, and I always cringe when I catch it.
Well done. Subscribing.
Much appreciated!
Is it true that the movie was re-edited with multiple cuts after the test screening was deemed to scary
Great film and review.
Always wondered what the audience back then thought about a woman tying up a man.
No, no, no, no, no-no-no . . . when will we be spared kids trying to evaluate movies from before they were born without first acquiring the necessary background? The reviewer's comments on whether this movie is "anti-military" or not proceeds in post-1960's ignorance of what it was like to live in 1951. As a history instructor (and World War II museum official) I will endeavor to set everybody straight. There was practically no such thing in America in 1951 as "anti-military" per se. No popular media would even consider not only taking such a perspective, but even asking such a question. It wouldn't even occur to anybody making popular entertainment in 1950. Rather than such a naive, overly idealized, fundamentally immature perspective, what the movie was doing was dealing with the then-entirely-topical question, born of the experience of the Whole Nation (and not just a select few volunteers) of the recently-ended World War II, of just who it is that wins your wars - the regular, basically anonymous little guy actually out in the field with his immediate comrades-at-arms, or the big brass and other elites back at headquarters? Clearly the movie comes down on the side of the little guy, as was the generally popular view among the general public at the time. Moreover, in a country saturated in the war stories of more than 12 million veterans returned from the war at that time, episodes like having the thermite bomb destroy the saucer were par for the course (that's a golf metaphor, children; google it), because the war was full of such paradoxical events, from invading Aleutian islands with troops trained for desert fighting ( ! ) to using the ultimate high-altitude bomber ever conceived, the B-29 Superfortress, at a mere 6000 feet instead of over 30,000 as it was designed for. Literally countless boondoggles, mistakes, and "snafus" (another one for you to google) were daily fare during the war, and so the movie indulges in this one to great entertainment value.
In a similar vein, this reviewer goes on and on about the female lead here, without ever once noting that ALL the female characters in Howard Hawks movies are strong, independent, etc -- it was one of his trademarks, fully on display when he debuted Lauren Bacall in TO HAVE AND HAVE NOT, which was shot as early as 1943. Anyway . . . (heavy sigh).
In sum, please, PLEASE, do your homework before posting allegedly authoritative material on the internet.
I agree with your assessment 1000%. I have also seen reviews of this movie by other filmmakers who have (in addition to many of the points you have made) pointed out that prior to the nuclear age, the scientists were the ones who were seen as the saviors of mankind against the baddies. After that, it was much more the military usually working against the often misguided but sometimes outright evil scientists who were the protectors of America and the world.
There is always a danger in looking back some 60 years and trying to interpret things with a 2019 mindset when those things either weren't there or weren't present. An excellent rebuttal.
This "version" is not even the third best adaptation of Campbell's story.
But ,if you ignore the changes, many of which were probably done because of limits of the state of the art at the time, it's a pretty good 1950s sci-fi horror movie as a standalone project.
keep watching the skies.
The film puts people in an unfamilar situation. The characters deal with the situation according to their experience. The scientist has a once in a lifetime find, studying and trying to communicate with the creature makes sense. The fact it's dangerous only make study and attempts to communicate more important. The military officer sees a threat to the people he's responsible for and probably others. This calls for destroying the threat. Ignoring what seems a stupid order is not unusual. Keep in mind there is the stereotype of the U.S. military fighting against two powers whose soldiers couldn't think for themselves less than a decade ago. The Soviet soldiers were thought of the same way.
I wish I could reply to a reply, but since I can't, for Michael Martin and those who insist the 1982 film wasn't a remake of the 1951 masterpiece, why didn't Carpenter call it "Who Goes There?"
Why did he keep.the title crawl? Why did he have a burning Thing jump out of the window and into the snowy night.just like in the 1951 film? and let us never forget the block of ice.Cribbed that one, too, didn't he? So the 1951 film was the framework for the 1982 film as much as DePalma's 1983 Scarface was a remake, if loose, on Hawks 1932 Scarface, to which DePalma dedícate his film. And, like Carpenter, Depalma kept a few.dozen things.
And then we have CARPENTER'S remake of Hawks'1959 classic, Rio Bravo.This was mid-1970s Assault On Precinct 13. Back then, Carpenter didn't keep as much, but close. And Carpenter retitled his film, just as Peter Bogdanovich retitled his remake of Hawks 1938 classic Bringing Up Baby, calling his remake What's Up Doc. He even.says as much on his DVD commentary for Bringing Up Baby. He also acknowledged the difficulty in redoing a Hawks film. They look easy to emulate. Until.you actually try. Then you.discover why Hawks was an otherworldly genius. Bogdanovich said "you can copy every scene, every frame and you'd still come up short. Even if you had Tom Hanks and Meryl Streep instead of Grant and Hepburn. Something would still be missing, something that pushes a film from greatness to pure magic. And you'll never know what that is, no matter how hard you try. And believe me, I tried."
Why cant you reply to an reply?
Click on the comment you are replying to. It will "@" the person.
Always had a huge crush on Margaret Sheridan
No less an authority than Roger Corman called this the only work of pure genius to emerge from the cold.war sci fi genre. In 2001 it was picked by the Library of Congress for the National Film Registry. And NOBODY SCREAMS IN TERROR!!!!
I liked the setting and the characters, basically (if not what they stood for), but really this film was pretty disappointing to me when I first saw it at 13-14-ish years old. I'd heard it was this important sf film based on WHO GOES THERE That story had left a huge impression on me--i-'d read it a year or 2 before I'd seen the film----, the concept of absorption and exact duplication (plus the fact the being they find is an actual creature and not just a big bald guy), so I didn't find the menace terribly, well, er, menacing. But as a character study and for the atmosphere it created I still wound up liking it. This is what happens when you come into a film excited about seeing one thing (ha) and getting something (ha) not much like it at all. It also might've helped to have had a title that didn't hint at something much stranger than just an alien shaped like a human being.
I'm very puzzled at the budget quoted. What did they spend the money on? (Guess I could look that up. Maybe it was so expensive because of an unusually long shooting schedule and having to carry so many actors all the way through...or mostly all of them most of the way through?)
I imagine some of the actors really preferred to think of themselves as having been directed by Hawks rather than a first time director, ie an ego thing, which could explain why some of them said Hawks had directed them, and others claimed that Nyby was the director. As you suggest, the truth of who directed may be more of a mix of Nyby and Hawks. Having worked closely with Hawks as an editor, I can imagine---given good actors and good dialogue (and plenty of it!) that Hawks' style wouldn't have been all THAT hard for Nyby to imitate...Maybe Hawks had worked so closely with Nyby that he'd really kinda sort've taken over Nyby, and that's how Nyby was able to so perfectly imitate Hawks' style/make such a Hawks-like film? Or some...thing? (Sorry, getting tired.)
I think you can see where the money was spent in the meticulously detailed sets, those shots of the military plane flying/landing/taking off in snowy conditions, and the incredible (for the time) special effects and stunts. In particular, the outdoor scene where they discover the strange pattern in the ice is visually spectacular.
It is a great movie however the overlapping dialoge is a bit irritating.
Obviously Rigley Scott took this into Alien!
Flying sussee
Early 1950s movies were not actually likely to be"anti-military". Just saying.
There were two main things that, for me, detracted from this movie and made far less scary than it should have been. The first is that I didn’t feel the characters seemed suitably fazed by what they’ve discovered or how the situation escalates, incessantly quipping during those “trademark overlapping dialogue” bits (which I personally find wearisome anyway). The second is the romantic sub-plot which, again, persists in parallel to the unfolding horror… but as if it didn’t exist.
Overall, I found the tone far too light-hearted throughout. The anti-science/pro-religion/pro-military stuff was also grating, but I would have forgiven it for a genuinely frightening experience. That said, I thought the cinematography, musical score were outstanding, and were what kept me watching until the end. But it’s not a patch on The Day The Earth Stood Still, IMHO.
You find the anti-science/pro-religion/pro-military stuff grating because you are viewing the film from a perspective outside the timeframe in which it was released. I seriously doubt anyone complained about that who saw it in the 50's. By the way, what was "pro-religion" in your opinion? Scotty's turn of a phrase for his story regarding the "arc/ark" that saved the world? That is a bit of a stretch. It was just a reporter's clever use of words to tell a story.
Oh please please . . . do apologize. I so love to hear geeks apologize. It's so um . . . you know . . . geeky.
Nicky was kinky lol
:) yeah!!
Amazing movie love this and carpenters version so much. It’s sad that because of the garbage 2011 prequel which they decided to call the thing smh people have seemed to forgotten this gem