Now the story for the film itself is unique, blending drama and gore. The film is set in the 1980’s at Antarctic research bases. The story begins with a dog being pursued by a Norwegian helicopter. Eventually, the dog makes it to the American research base, where the Americans are caught by surprise to see the helicopter firing at the fleeing dog. After an accident with some explosives the helicopter is blown up by the piolet, while the shooter manages to escape the wreck. Now, on foot the desperate Norwegian tries to kill the dog one …show more content…
But, I think that the film would have benefited a little more from some character development scenes. Or better yet, if the first half of the film focused on the Norwegian crew and what had happened to them. And it is funny I mentioned that because the 2011 prequel film also called “the thing” did just that. With that films ending being the beginning of the john carpenter film. And if you view that film first then you find the biggest flaw to “the thing” 1982, and that is that once you know who or what the monster is then the tension goes out the window with the second viewing. Mostly because you scratch your head and wonder “when did he change?” or “why did he do x?” So, this is a film that is not the same on future viewings. But is that so