Movie Review: The Good, The Bad and The Ugly (1966)

The Good, the Bad and the Ugly (1966)
Director: Sergio Leone
Cast: Clint Eastwood, Lee Van Cleef, Eli Wallach

Sergio Leone's films are often characterized by a majestic background score, stylized violence and an assortment of iconic characters. The Good, the Bad and the Ugly(GBU) is no different, and in fact, it was through the immense popularity of this movie that Leone's trademark style of movie-making became renowned. 

GBU is similar to the earlier films of the trilogy in terms of the treatment and setting, but it outshines its predecessors primarily because it is made on a much larger canvas with deeper themes, and the backdrop of the Civil War lends a touch of authenticity to the proceedings.  

The plot is very basic with hardly any complications. Clint Eastwood reprises his role of the detached, lonesome bounty hunter, always in search of means to earn some quick money. He meets Tuco(Eli Wallach), a wanted criminal, and a series of events follow which make them turn against each other. Tuco very nearly kills Blondie but fate comes to his rescue, as a carriage containing several dead bodies passes by. The lone survivor, Bill Carson, knows of some gold buried in a cemetery, and as luck would have it, Tuco ends up with the location of the cemetery, and Blondie with the name of the grave. The two men, previously at loggerheads, thus form an uneasy alliance to get hold of the bounty. But the two of them are not the only ones going for the gold, there's a ruthless murderer Angel Eyes(Lee van Cleef) hot on their trail. Through a series of misadventures, which sees Blondie and Tuco being taken in as prisoners-of-war and later, playing a part in the ongoing Civil War, the three of them reach the graveyard at around the same time leading to a thrilling finale(a Mexican stand-off!!).

When it comes to acting, Eli Wallach as Tuco steals the thunder from under Eastwood's feet as he delivers a knock-out performance, and is the source of vivacity in the plot. He plays out the role of a bumbling criminal in the most natural and effortless manner. Initially, his character appears to be very detestable, but towards the end, the viewer bound to develop a soft corner for him despite all his shortcomings. In this sense, it is a very well fleshed out character and the only one whose background and motivations become known to the viewer.

Due to credit must be given to Eastwood though, as his is a severely underwritten character, but he manages to infuse enough style and substance to deliver an admirable performance. After all, none of the Dollar films would have been what they are without The Man With No Name. Lee van Cleef has very little screen time but excels in evoking disgust and revulsion from the viewer.

The background score can easily be called the fourth character in the movie, such is its significance. Ennio Morricone deserves every bit of acclaim for creating a wonderful score without which the film would have been incomplete. It is rumoured that Leone decided on the music before he filmed the scenes. This technique, though unorthodox, works pretty well in this case.

The cinematography is first-rate, with a fine mix of long shots and close-ups. The scene where Tuco escapes from a train and Mexican stand-off sequence are filmed with finesse. Considering the fact that the  film came out in the sixties, this is a monumental achievement.

Sergio Leone creates a visual masterpiece in the form of The Good, the Bad and the Ugly. The scenes, the music and the characters are bound to remain etched in the minds cinema lovers forever. Despite its excessive length, the movie does not cease to captivate even for a single moment. This is not just a bounty hunting adventure set in the West, it is a breath-taking saga of friendship, trust and loyalty, and if you have followed the plot and the characters closely, you would not be surprised with the outcome of the final shoot-out. Highly recommended!

Movie Analysis: The Machinist (2003)

The Machinist (2003)

Director: Brad Anderson

Cast: Christian Bale

WARNING: Spoiler alert

I felt after watching The Machinist that a review would not really serve any purpose because I cannot discuss a lot of things about the movie without letting out any spoilers. Even elaborating on the themes touched upon in the movie would very well mean letting out the suspense. So for all those people who have not seen The Machinist and have come here expecting a review, I can only say that this is a riveting psychological thriller that will keep you engrossed well after the credits have rolled down, and yes, please DON'T read any further!!

On the surface, The Machinist is simply the story of an insomniac, who, following some intriguing series of events begins to doubt fall apart, with everyone, including himself, starting to doubt his sanity. But as one goes on watching the movie, many doubts crop up. Firstly, why are the things that are happening to Trevor(Christian Bale), whether in real or in his mind, actually happening to him? Secondly, why does Trevor look so severely emaciated and unhealthy, and why has not he been able to sleep for a year? The answer to these questions, as we finally realize, lie in the past. For this is not just a story of madness and sanity, it is a much deeper tale of crime, guilt and redemption.

Trevor can easily be the subject of a case study in psychology, such is the depth and character provided to him by Bale. He is a man torn apart by the guilt of accidentally running over a child, and it is this guilt which has been pricking his conscience to such an extent that he has not even been able to sleep peacefully for over a year. 

WHAT REALLY HAPPENED:

A year before the events in the story, Trevor, while trying to light his cigarette in a moving car, moved his eyes off the road, causing the tragic death of a young boy. He quickly drove from the scene of the accident and destroyed his car. Though he escaped punishment by law, he could not escape his own conscience. He lost his sleep and started to become increasingly weaker. From the time the events in the film are shown, Trevor has already become so weak and thin that he has begun to look severely emaciated. 

WAS HE ALWAYS A MACHINIST?

Before the life-changing accident occurred, Trevor used to work in the same factory but as can be made out from his photograph with Reynolds and also from the conversation between the workers in the initial scenes, he was much more outgoing and sociable. Whereas, after the tragic incident, he had become quiet and withdrawn. His relationship with Reynolds had also clearly deteriorated, as they hardly ever indulge in any fruitful conversation during the film.

WHO IS IVAN?

Consciously, Trevor had forgotten the incident, but his conscience was still disturbed by what had transpired a year ago. Ivan was a manifestation of himself and his ugly past. He used drive the same car which Trevor had destroyed after the accident. The strange and repulsive physical appearance symbolized the sin he had committed. His presence seeks to remind Trevor of who he actually was - a killer. In the end, when Trevor turns himself in, we see Ivan smiling in acknowledgement, which goes to show that he had achieved his true purpose, and Trevor could finally sleep in peace, without his haunting presence.

MARIE & NIKOLAS :

Marie and Nikolas were also a figment of Trevor's imagination, whom he had created in order to lessen his sense of guilt. Nikolas, in fact, was the child who was killed in the accident and Marie, his mother. Developing an endearing bond with the both of them was his way of lightening the burden of guilt and also of proving to himself and his conscience that he is a much better person than what he has actually turned out to be. 

Another point to be noted is the fact that the time shown by the clock during all of their meetings is 1:30, which also happened to be the time of the accident. Also, the amusement park was a place Trevor had previously visited with his mother. What this proves is that every meeting with Marie and her son was a dream with the detailing done by Trevor using his own memories.

Another reason for the aggravation of his tremendous guilt were the fond memories of his late mother, and the realization that he was responsible for breaking an equally cherished relationship between Marie and Nikolas.

ROUTE 66:

The ride in the amusement park was another trip down the troubled psyche of Trevor, the grotesque imagery representing the guilt-ridden and tormented state of his mind. In his dream, Nikolas was driving the car, but actually, it was his conscience that was driving this journey, and that is probably why it took a turn towards the Highway to Hell when there was the choice of going towards the Road to Salvation. Subconsciously, he found it impossible to forgive himself for what he had done.

THE REFRIGERATOR:

The refrigerator too has been given special emphasis in the movie. The notes in which the game of hangman plays are all stuck on the refrigerator. Although initially it is implied that the notes are being put there by some unknown person, it becomes clear at the end that the notes were stuck by Trevor himself, not consciously perhaps, but he was most definitely driven by his guilt to stick those notes which eventually label him as a 'KILLER'. 

THE IDIOT:

At various points in the film, Trevor is shown reading  Fyodor Dostoyevsky's The Idiot. Coincidentally, Dostoyevsky is a writer famous for exploring human psychology through his works and not very surprisingly, the most novel by him is called Crime and Punishment. Besides the symbolism, the scenes could well be the director's way of paying homage to the writer. 

DID TREVOR REALLY NOT SLEEP FOR A YEAR?

Sleep deprivation for over a year is next to impossible physically, which leads me to conjecture that Trevor actually did sleep, only that he never came to realize it. This was probably because thinking his dreams to be true. If the film is watched closely, it can be observed that Ivan appears whenever Trevor attempts to catch some sleep. In reality, it could be that Trevor has actually fallen asleep and Ivan is a part of his dream. Moments before Miller loses his arm, he tells Trevor off for sleeping, though it appears to us that he is watching Ivan work. Moreover, when Trevor halts his truck bang in the middle of the road, the scene quickly cuts to the airport where he is chatting with Marie. The scene at the amusement park is also preceded by a shot of Trevor looking intently at a cup of coffee. It is quite possible that at all these times, Trevor inadvertently dozes off and starts dreaming. However, he is too distressed and disoriented to distinguish between dream and reality. 

Through this analysis, I have attempted to touch upon all those aspects about the plot and the theme of The Machinist that came to my mind. This is a very well-made film, though not as complicated as it appears at first. But the director does well in the sense that after the final plot twist, every minute and apparently trivial events which occur before in the movie attain considerable significance and can be easily related to the larger picture.For example,the hit-and-run accident in which involves Trevor victimising himself intentionally seems crazy at first, but when we come to know of his back story, the incident attains tones of dramatic irony, more so if we consider the fact that the vehicle was being driven by a woman with her child by her side (poetic justice, anyone!!).

Christian Bale is truly emerging as the perfectionist among the current generation of actors. The extent to which he achieves the required physical appearance of his character is remarkable, and equally astounding is his performance that easily ranks among his best. 

The Machinist is a taut, relentless story of crime and salvation which induces a sense of fear and foreboding in the viewer not by means of unnecessary gore and cheap thrills but through a dark and cheerless setting backed up by some intelligent camerawork. From this perspective, The Machinist is very much Hitchcock-ian in terms of treatment and thematic content. Though it certainly does not make for an easy movie-watching experience, The Machinist is one of the most captivating psychological thrillers in recent times. 

Movie Review: Psycho (1960)

Psycho (1960)
Director: Alfred Hitchcock
Cast: Anthony Perkins, Janet Leigh, Vera Miles

When it comes to portraying the dark corners of the human psyche, no film maker is more skilful than the master himself - Alfred Hitchcock. Nearly all of his films have characters who are either running away from a murky past or possess an inclination towards committing crime. Psycho too is an ingeniously crafted suspense drama which deals with one, or rather two such characters. 

The first one is Marion Crane(Janet Leigh), an average young lady who, in a moment of misjudgement, steals money from the bank where she works and sets off. She escapes from the city, intermittently suffering pangs of guilt, and finally reaches the Bates Motel. Enter the second shady character of the story, Norman Bates. His motel business is more or less dormant due to the construction of a new highway. He lives a lonely life with his mother, who comes across as quite ill-tempered and does not seem to be on good terms with her son. However, Norman still loves her and is repulsed by Marion's suggestion of Norman starting a new life for himself after leaving his mother in 'some place'. In a disturbing turn of events, Marion is killed moments later in the famous 'shower scene' by Norman's mother. Norman, in a bid to protect his mother, cleans up the crime scene and disposes off Marion's body. But he gets into trouble when a detective lands up at his motel to investigate the mysterious disappearance of Marion Crane. As the mystery deepens, it becomes increasingly evident that the key to solving the mystery lies with Norman's mother who lives in the cottage next to the motel. But it is not as simple as it seems. As the investigations reach fever-pitch, another murder takes place leading to a shocking revelation in the climax.

Anthony Perkins delivers a legendary performance, possibly one of the best-ever in American cinema, as Norman Bates, a person caught between his desires as a normal young man and his responsibilities towards his mother. It is a very complicated, multi-dimensional role, but Perkins excels in the most extraordinary manner. When his character is introduced, he seems like any other average guy, but as we get to know him better through his conversation with Crane, we begin to see traits we hadn't before. In fact, this whole sequence in which he talks to Crane at length about his life is a treat to watch in terms of the histrionics at display. The slight alterations in his tone of voice as he talks about stuffing birds, his disconcerted expression when asked about friends and the sudden change in demeanour when the conversation veers towards his mother elevate the apparently normal scene to gargantuan levels. Janet Leigh also does well in her role of the damsel-in-distress. She is particularly good in the scenes where she shares screen space with Perkins.

The scene in which Perkins is interrogated by the detective is also noteworthy for its execution and of course, acting. The detective is initially unsuspecting, but as he tries to dig deeper, Bates' failure to hide his nervousness makes him smell something sinister. Another scene which stands out is the final scene - the monologue by Bates - elaborating any further on which would mean spoiling the final plot twist.

Hitchcock is in complete control throughout the running time. Not only is the plot filled with thrilling twists and turns, Hitchcock plants an inherent twist in narrative structure itself. As the movie begins, the viewer gets the impression that it mgiht be a story a theft gone dangerously wrong, however, the plot changes tracks fast with the murder of Crane and ultimately ends up as a character study in human psychology. This fact becomes much more discernible on viewing the film multiple times.

The black and white visuals greatly contribute to the sense of foreboding and morbidity. The Bates cottage could not have looked more ominous and certainly works to create an element of mystery and horror. In fact, most of the horror is coveyed visually - the recurring scenes showing the stairway to the eerie-looking Bates cottage, the image of the mother with a dagger and the severely isolated location of the motel. Such is the genius of the film that it succeeds in scaring the audiences even today despite the absence of any supernautal occurences and without a single drop of blood being shown on screen. 

Grim, dark and unsettling, Psycho is Hitchcock at his macabre best.

Movie Review: 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968)

2001: A Space Odyssey (1968)
Director: Stanley Kubrick
Cast: Keir Dullea

Stanley Kubrick’s piece de resistance 2001: A Space Odyssey is a movie that has the ability to mesmerize any person who views cinema as a painting in motion. In this sense, it is quite similar to Kubrick’s later venture Barry Lyndon. But what sets 2001 apart is the fact that it was perhaps the first-of-its-kind sci-fi movie with state-of-the-art special effects and accurate detailing.

The film begins with what arguably is the best opening scene in movie history ever backed by the musical piece Also Spach Zarathustra by Richard Strauss. The potent combination of fascinating visuals, which evoke both a sense of awe and a feeling of isolation, and classical music sets the stage for the epic-ness that is to follow in the next two hours. The narrative is divided into four chapters, first of which is Dawn of Man. This chapter deals with trials and tribulations of primitive man and how desperate need necessitates an important discovery - the first stone tool. One significant point to observe is the fact that the discovery of the tool immediately follows the sighting of a strange, black monolith. The story now moves forward to the outer space in the 21st century, where again, astronauts encounter an identical monolith buried beneath the surface of the moon, which seems to indicate that some unknown force is driving the process of human evolution. Now comes the most enthralling episode of the movie involving some crew members on a mission to Jupiter in a fully automated spacecraft. The supercomputer in control of the spacecraft is HAL9000, a machine which is different from man only because it is incapable of feeling any emotion, or is it? Following a technical snag, HAL begins to ‘feel’ that the crew members do not trust its abilities and could try to deactivate it. And it reacts in the only manner it could - by eliminating the crew members one by one. However, Dave Bowman (Keir Dullea) somehow manages to deactivate HAL, thereby ensuring his safety. But with a return trip to Earth being impossible, he decides to go further ahead(to infinity and beyond?). It is here that the movie takes a surrealistic turn and Bowman finally reaches the pinnacle of human evolution - immortality.

Very few filmmakers have attempted to delve into so many diverse themes in a single feature, let alone be successful at it. This speaks volumes about the level of film making by Kubrick. In fact, Kubrick has possibly used the medium of cinema to put forth some of his opinions on religion and philosophy. The monolith, which seems to be the guiding force behind evolution, could be Kubrick’s interpretation of God or a mysterious divine power. The movie also questions the power and control of man over the machines he has developed himself, also hinting at the fact that a time could come when machines dominate the humans. The ending sequence, which shows Bowman attaining immortality, could actually be more symbolic than realistic.

Technically, the movie is top-notch. The jump-cut scene at the end of Dawn of Man, by means of which the narrative moves forward by over a million years, has rightfully achieved iconic status. The special effects created more than forty years ago so effectively convey the isolation and barrenness of outer space. The background score, essentially a collection of classical music, contributes significantly in carrying the plot forward since there is not much of dialogue.  Also, it adds to the overall grandeur of the movie.

2001 is the kind of movie you can watch many a time, and each time it would provide you with enough food for thought and discussion on topics as wide-ranging as religion, existence of God, evolution, the relationship between man and machine and immortality. For this reason alone, I hold this work of art in very high regard. Must watch for all lovers of meaningful cinema!

Movie Review: The Dark Knight (2008)

The Dark Knight (2008)
Director: Christopher Nolan
Cast: Christian Bale, Gary Oldman, Heath Ledger, Aaron Eckhart, Maggie Gyllenhaal

The Dark Knight is the follow-up to the well-received Batman Begins(2005), a movie which reinvigorated the floundering Batman franchisee by introducing a generous dose of realism into the story revolving around the origin of the masked vigilante. The sequel manages to achieve a rare feat of not just living upto the expectations created by the success of Begins, but also outshines its predecessor by a good margin.

The Gotham created by Nolan in this movie is not as dark and gloomy as it was in Begins. Probably, the efforts of Batman have started to show positive results, but peace and order are never permanent in the world of Batman. Enter Joker, an anarchist to the core, with scant respect for human life, law and order. The movie starts off with a bank robbery which establishes Joker as a repulsive sociopath, one who is always playing games with the lives of others. His true intentions however, are not made clear. Meanwhile, Harvey Dent takes over as the new DA, and immediately sets about the task of ridding Gotham streets of crime. On the other hand, Bruce Wayne is conflicted between his responsibilities as the guardian of Gotham and his yearning for a normal life with Rachel. He ponders about the possibility of hanging up his boots as he begins to see in Harvey Dent someone who can take over the reins from him. With the mob having their backs to the wall, they turn to Joker to put an end to the threat posed by Batman. What the mob fails to see is the fact that Joker is neither driven by money nor power. His sole purpose is to spread chaos all around. What follows is a series of events which ultimately leads to the death of a significant character, and the emergence of a new villain - Two Face. From then on, Batman wages a lone battle against the forces of evil and chaos, all the while fighting his inner demons as well. But with Joker never being short on deadly tricks, merely overpowering his enemies would not be enough; in order to carry on the hope created by the efforts of Harvey, Gordon and himself, Batman will have to do much more.

Performance-wise, the film comes across as spotless. Much has already been said about the show-stealing act by Heath Ledger, and truly, it is an amazing performance. He lives the character of Joker in the movie with flawless expressions and mannerisms, even perfecting the slightest of nuances. Never before has the experience of watching a 'superhero movie' been so terrifying, and Joker gets all the credit for spreading this menace. Those in doubt should  check out the 'magic-trick' scene. Aaron Eckhart sinks his teeth deep into his character which is extremely well-written, and manages to evoke sympathy as  well as hatred from the viewer. Christian Bale, in the role of the conflicted hero, delivers what is probably the most under-rated performance of his career. The intense, brooding persona of Bruce/Batman may not be as captivating as the Joker, but Bale does whatever the script demands from him and more. Among the supporting actors, Michael Caine and Gary Oldman do a commendable job.

Another aspect which deserves special mention is the editing, particularly in the scenes where multiple events run in parallel, intercutting at crucial junctures. This technique, I have observed, has gradually become the hallmark of Nolan's movies(read The Prestige and Inception). The background score by Hans Zimmer serves well to emphasize the theme of escalation as well as to keep the atmosphere tense in the scenes involving Joker.

The Dark Knight is one of those rare movies which works well on so many different levels. While the billion dollar box office earning of the movie suggests that it was viewed purely as an action entertainer by the majority of the audience, one cannot overlook the fact that the film has a meaningful, deeply layered script which touches upon the subjects of chaos, vigilanteism, corruptibility of human nature, love, loss and sacrifice. The ending, a poetic tragedy, is wonderfully crafted and gives to the movie the feel of an epic. 

It would not be wrong to say that The Dark Knight rises way above being just another comicbook adaptation. And much of the credit should go to Nolan for possessing the vision and creativity to pick up the settings and characters from a comic book and giving them his own realistic spin. The outcome is remarkable and puts the film among the ranks of the greatest crime dramas of Hollywood. Highly recommended!

Movie Review: Oldboy (2003)

Oldboy (Korean) (2003)
Director: Park Chan-wook
Cast: Choi Min-sik, Yu Ji-tae, Kang Hye-jeong

Asian films, particularly those coming from the eastern side more often than not revolve around revenge. It would not be wrong to say that revenge thrillers have become a prominent sub-genre here. Having seen too many of such movies(mostly starring Bruce Lee), I had reached a state where I was consciously avoiding films with protagonists having a personal vendetta against politicians and druglords. I expected oldboy to be along these same lines, but when I heard Tarantino shower special praise upon this movie, I got curious. And yes, it WAS a revenge film, and I fell in love with the genre all over again!

A man called Oh Dae-su disappears under mysterious circumstances, and we find him in a small room, connected to the world through a television. He has no idea about the reasons for his captivity nor does he know of any person who could do this to him. Later, his wife is murdered and he becomes the prime suspect. He begins to have hallucinations, partly because of his helplessness and isolation, and partly due to the gassing done by his captor. To pass his time, he learns shadowboxing by watching it on the television. He remains a prisoner for fifteen long years, after which he is suddenly set free, on the condition that he has to find the identity of his captor within five days. The rest of the movie follows the efforts of Dae-Su, who in collaboration with a sushi chef Mi-do, tries to find the person who held him captive as well as his motives. But all is not what it seems to Dae-su, and he has to take each step with extreme caution in this labyrinth of trickery and deceit.

Choi Min-sik is perfect in the role of a man who has been transformed from being a simple family guy to a detached, beast-like murderer. In fact, his character transformation forms a running theme in the movie. It is the role of a lifetime and Min-sik gives it his best. His confused expressions in the final scene conveyed all his pain, anguish, relief and love, and made it a memorably ambiguous ending. Yu Ji-tae seemed to be a little too young for his role, but nonetheless, he pitches in a sincere performance. However, his act is completely overshadowed by the performance of Min-sik. Hye-jeong looks sufficiently tender and innocent to evoke sympathy when the final act is played out. Hers was the character I felt for the most as she got needlessly caught between two people hellbent on destroying each other. Revealing anything more about her would mean spoiling the the shock-value of the last half an hour.

Oldboy is definitely not your usual revenge story, although it could very well have been so. The plot is centered on an act of vengeance, but the treatment and execution of the subject matter is unprecedented, and that’s what makes Oldoy rise above its contemporaries. Chan-wook creates an atmosphere of fear and violence which does not let up even once during the running time. Violence, though extremely glorified and stylized, is used as a means to convey the beastliness of Dae-su’s character, and is very integral to the plot. The camerawork is exceptional. The corridor fight sequence is a tremendous cinematographic achievement(it was taken in a single shot!!). Another scene which caught my attention was the ‘quick zoom in’ shot(reverse dolly??) on Dae-su during his meeting with his captor.

Initially, I had my doubts regarding its pretentiousness(stylized movies often tend to be low on substance), but scene after scene continued to amaze me and then the ending, which serves justice in its most poetic form, put all such doubts to rest. The genius of Chan-wook is visible all through and is instrumental in making Oldboy very deeply philosophical in meaning and lyrical in style.  If you are not averse to extreme forms of detached violence on celluloid and are open to exploring bold and unconventional themes, Oldboy should definitely feature somewhere high in your list of 'Must Watch' movies.

Movie Review: The Thing (1982)

The Thing (1982)
Director: John Carpenter
Cast: Kurt Russell

What are the ingredients that go into making a good horror film? As a viewer, I would say it is not that sudden burst of loud background music accompanied with blood and gore which scares me(it does put me off though); rather, it is the fear of something evil that may befall in seemingly normal conditions or the anticipation of violence from unexpected quarters which causes goosebumps. Films such as The Exorcist, The Shining and Psycho achieved this to near-perfection, and John Carpenter’s The Thing is another film that deserves to be in the company of these illustrious works.

A dog is chased down by a helicopter apparently without reason, and is saved by a group of scientists. However, the dog turns out be some strange life form and attacks the crew members. The threat is fended off for the time being by torching the dog, but further investigation leads to the startling revelation that the life form is actually from outer space and is capable of imitating the person whom it kills. This causes the crew members to become paranoid as they do not know which one of them has already been taken over by ‘the thing’. In the desolate terrain of Antarctica, with no one to trust, each person has to fend for himself. As the tension escalates, the struggle for survival becomes more and more intense.

The ensemble cast does well to convey its fear, helplessness and isolation. Kurt Russell here has a complex, two dimensional role to play, as someone who, in the bid for survival, has to take decisions which are morally ambiguous. However, he could have done a better job in conveying his emotions more convincingly. The background score by the maestro Ennio Morricone is minimal and effective. The pulsating beats in the opening scene really set the viewer up for the ghastly events that are to follow. Thankfully, the movie refrains from using music blatantly to create shock-value. Instead, it is subdued and works to create an atmosphere of tremendous apprehension.

More than actors, The Thing is a director’s movie. John Carpenter does a splendid job of narrating a shocking tale of paranoia and distrust. The element of mystery, introduced in the opening reels, continues to haunt us right till the very end. The most terrifying moment comes in the ‘blood test’ scene and bears testimony to the adept filmmaking by Carpenter. The scene, much like the entire movie, builds up at its own pace and catches you unaware at the right moment.

The Thing is not the kind of horror flick that would make you jump out of your seat. Instead, the film, with its isolated setting and the ubiquitous sense of impending doom, plays with your psyche and very gradually sucks you into the proceedings. This is a major reason why the movie works so well since the atmosphere of extreme distrust and the loneliness of all the protagonists makes you wander into those dark corners of the mind which you would certainly want to avoid.

Tense, atmospheric, and most importantly, scary, The Thing is recommended for all those horror film-buffs who want something more than just needless gore in their movies.