Yea, it's kind of a cult classic. Pretty much anyone who's a fan of horror will have (or should have) watched it.

Not sure why you'd think the movie is crap because of the first viewing of the monster, but glad to hear you've gone back and watched it properly, and enjoyed it.

What you have to remember is that EVERYTHING in it is all done with practical effects. When you watch the 2011 prequel, you realise how jarringly poor CGI is in comparison.
The upsetting part is that the studio for the 2011 film wanted to use all practical effects, but the producers and higher-ups all pushed to use CGI, despite it being several times more expensive, and the quality of the movie dropped because of it.

Now, if you like The Thing, while the story isn't as good, may I suggest The Void... a film that was released a few yearsback.
It's a love-letter to all the cosmic and body horror movies of the 80s and 90s, and uses full practical effects for everything (except the final shot, but it was kind of required to green-screen that part lol).

The Void will likely be forgotten as years pass, but I definitely suggest at least one viewing of it :)

Well, I watched both movies all the way through in the time of uploading the journal and honestly, the 2011 one still remains better looking in my eyes even though it is CGI. I just think the monsters in the first one sorta look like they were made of plastic and moved rather slow. The story was just a repeat of the first one though almost with slight differences leading up to the 1982 sequel. I loved the entire acting for the first one, I thought it was spot on, and even though the monsters looked rough and slow, I thought the movie was phenomenally made.
With the second one, some of the monsters did look pretty bad though. Not really gruesome, just bad.


I dunno, I just like the movies. And I didn't mean the 1982 movie looked like crap, I meant the monsters. I never was a fan of the looks of them. I wanted to get into the movie, but every time I did, the monsters just sorta looked lame at the time. I was younger and didn't give movies chances as I wasn't big on movies. So I thought "This is going to be a waste of my time if the first monster looks like this." But half-way through the movie, it started getting very chilling and playing with your entire mentality on what is safe and what isn't. The one monster who takes over one of the characters and has him run outside, only to see people crowd around him, and then see his bloody claws as he turns his head and begins to scream in a blood curdling monsterly way was fucking chilling as all hell. And then as I got past the visual effects of the movie, I realized how precise the movie fucks with you. Using its staticy music to keep you feeling unnerved. You get thrown through loops to believe one thing only to have your head turned around to view the worst. And the fact it toys with claustrophobia and the sense of pure helplessness and trust is done so well that it makes the movie truly great. The characters are mostly intelligent and don't treat this as your average tripping slasher movie. No, these characters think. And there are some priceless moments that will forever be held.
One thing I can say, now that I've gotten that all out. I do believe the monsters in the 1982 are much better now that I've watched the movie. The slowness of the monsters fits more than 2011.. and after writing this all out.. I was wrong in believing that 2011's creatures look better. These creatures in 1982 were genuinely disturbing and were done purely to fuck with you.

Glad I could help? lol

I'm not saying that the 2011 prequel was bad... but it was too much like its predecessor. About the only thing new that it did was switching out the blood test for the "only replicates organic matter" thing. Other than that, and the CGI being poor in places, it wasn't a bad movie. I'll admit, the part that terrified me most about it wasn't so much the monster, but the scene where it fuses its head to one of the guys, and the scream they made really chilled me when I saw it in the theatre.

For the reasons you pointed out (and more)... that's why the film has become such a cult classic. No matter how long passes, the effects haven't become outdated. They're still realistic, and I honestly cannot ever see CGI replacing practical effects as being the most realistic.

Still, a film can have the greatest effects in all of existence... but if it had shitty writing, it would ruin it. That's why The Thing (1982) still stands tall in the genre.