Editorials
From “Instant Junk” to “Instant Classic” – Critical Reception of ‘The Thing’
On June 25th, 1982, The Thing was unleashed into theaters across the US. John Carpenter’s updated vision of the Howard Hawks’ classic and re-adaptation of the short, Who Goes There?, faced some stiff competition at the box office. As the story goes, E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial was “phoning home” all the cash that summer (forgive me) with its Spielberg-ian, family friendly brand of sci-fi. Audiences just didn’t seem to be in the mood for Carpenter’s bleak, gory alien tale. While that might be true, it’s likely more to do with the fact that E.T. had only been released two weeks prior and was still hogging the ticket-buying spotlight. Afterall, it was quite the phenomenon upon release. In addition to that, audience members seeking more high-minded sci-fi had Blade Runner (also released on the 25th) to catch their attention. All of this to say, on a budget of 15 million to total box office draw of around 20 million, The Thing was far from a smash hit.
Huge turnouts weren’t the only thing missing upon the film’s release; from those who did see it, there was a lack of positive word of mouth too. The most vocal opinion was one of disdain from the audience reactions, critical reception, and even genre magazines of the time. However, these many years later it’s hard to imagine The Thing being considered anything less than a genre masterpiece. Nonetheless, Carpenter’s career was even put on ice for months after the film failed to light Hollywood on fire. The distributor, Universal, had signed a multi-picture deal with the rising director/producer. His follow up was to be the Stephen King adaptation, Firestarter. Mortified by the outcome of their first collaboration with Carpenter, Uni paid off the director’s contract and sent him on his way.
Carpenter spotted the writing on the wall early on:
“I had this sixteen year old ask me what happened at the end – which one of them was the Thing? I told her she had to use her imagination. She told me she hated that. So I realized I was in deep trouble with that film. And I was right. The industry turned against me because they thought I had gone too far with the gore. I think it probably changed my career.”
Carpenter has even relayed another incident from an early screening where a man rushed from the auditorium to unpack his lunch…so to speak. The effects were too much for the man to handle. Of course, the gory bits and creature designs from legendary Rob Bottin are now considered the absolute pinnacle of practical effects work, but in the eyes of critics the summer of 82′ – they went too far. Roger Ebert called The Thing a “barf-bag movie” and “a geek show, a gross-out movie in which teenagers can dare one another to watch the screen.”
As of right now, the film sits at a nice, ripe 81% on Rotten Tomatoes. Of course, that ‘Fresh” rating is mostly culled from reappraisals and retrospective reviews. If you narrow the blurbs down to “Top Critics” you’ll find 6 reviewers all labeling the film “Rotten”, except for one – James Berardinelli. Of those 6 reviews, Berardinelli’s review also seems to be the only modern take of the lot. So, yeah, critics weren’t keen on The Thing upon its initial release.
“John Carpenter’s The Thing is a foolish, depressing, overproduced movie that mixes horror with science fiction to make something that is fun as neither one thing or the other…
…It qualifies only as instant junk.”
Ouch. For the sake of comparison, how did Canby feel about E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial? Of the Spielberg classic, he wrote, “[E.T.] may become a children’s classic of the space age.” I’m sure you may be thinking that these are mainstream critics. Of course they didn’t understand the film at the time. Unfortunately, it seems that genre outlets weren’t too high on it either.
Cinemafantastique ran a cover story on The Thing asking, “Is This the Most Hated Film of All Time?” Even Starlog, originally a Star Trek fan-zine that grew to cover all things sci-fi, was the source of one of the more scathing takes on the material. Beyond throwing jabs at some of Carpenter’s previous work (seen in the clipping above), the reviewer (Alan Spencer) goes on to say this:
“I’ve seen John Carpenter’s The Thing twice. Once with a paying audience, and the second time in a private screening at a producer’s home. Both times the reactions were the same. Then again, when anyone passes by a city dump . . . who on earth likes the smell?
John Carpenter’s The Thing smells, and smells pretty bad. It bears plenty of Carpenter’s trademarks as a director. It has no pace, sloppy continuity, zero humor, bland characters on top of being totally devoid of either warmth or humanity.”
Starlog manages to double-down on the The Thing mudslinging by including a smaller panel within the review from Kenneth Tobey, actor from 51’s The Thing from Another World. Tobey was invited to a cast and crew screening and asked by Starlog to share his thoughts. While he claims to believe Carpenter is a fine director, he also points out the many mistakes he felt were made during the remake’s production: the callbacks to the original, the effects that “were too horrifying’, the title, he thought, should have been “Who Goes There?” since Carpenter’s film bared little resemblance to the original, and in regards to the ending:
“I also thought it was wrong for the ending to be so inconclusive, instead of showing
good winning out over evil. I don’t think it was fair to do that to the audience…”
They even had the gall to slap this smug SOB on the cover that month –
I’d always heard The Thing wasn’t well received back in 82′, but I didn’t fully understand how rough it was until doing my research for this article. It’s hard to wrap my mind around one of the greatest examples of paranoid-horror, or horror in general, being trampled on as harshly as this film was back in the day. Thankfully, after 35 years of VHS, DVD, and now Blu-ray (and upcoming 4k restoration!), John Carpenter must feel vindicated. The Thing amassed quite the impressive following, and even that 81% on Rotten Tomatoes looks a little low.
The problem with filming sequels back-to-back is that, unless you can afford expensive reshoots, there’s no easy way to adjust course in between movies if fans react badly to where the story is headed. That’s why it’s important to have a complete narrative thought out well in advance lest you accidentally kill a budding franchise.
However, this isn’t always the case. Every once in a while, it seems like the cinema gods smile upon certain chaotic productions and gift moviegoers with complete franchises that feel like more than the sum of their hastily produced parts. Ted Nicolaou’s Bloodlust: Subspecies III is precisely one of these miraculous pictures, with the raw talents of the artists involved (as well as the continued support from Romania) turning the feature into an effective conclusion for a series that kind of made things up as the filmmakers went along.
That’s why I’d like to invite my fellow readers to join me on this third part of our journey through the Subspecies franchise as we look into Bloodlust and talk about how it remains a surprisingly satisfying finale to the original trilogy.
A Trilogy Planned on the Fly
Released only a year after Bloodstone found plenty of success in rental stores and mail-in VHS catalogues worldwide, 1994’s Bloodlust was produced at the same time as its predecessor in (mostly) the same locations and with the same team. This means that the movie benefited from all the same upgrades as Bloodstone, with the crew now being more experienced with the ins and outs of surviving a low-budget Romanian production and the cast really settling into their characters.
At this point, everything from location scouting to the makeup process had been streamlined, with Wayne Toth and Norman Cabrera, the main duo behind special effects, even switching out time-consuming prosthetics for latex gloves in order to speed up Anders Hove’s monstrous transformation. The titular “subspecies” demons were also once again relegated to a mere cameo appearance due to the laborious puppetry required to bring them to life.
The only real hiccup came from the fact that actress Denice Duff had replaced the first film’s Michelle (Laura Mae Tate) and was immediately expected to portray the character as both an innocent victim in part II and as a secondary villain in part III. According to behind-the-scenes interviews, the hectic production schedule that blended two different movies meant that Duff would often find herself having to alternate between two incredibly different versions of Michelle during the same shooting day – though it’s obvious that she’s having more fun with Bloodlust’s more traditionally vampiric version of her character.
In the finished film, we pick things up immediately where the previous entry left off as Rebecca (Melanie Shatner) is forced to leave her vampire sister Michelle (Duff) behind in the dungeons of Castle Vladislav due to the rising sun. This allows Mummy (Pamela Gordon) to use Michelle’s blood to revive the vicious Radu (Hove) so that he may continue his quest for the coveted Bloodstone – a magical artifact that perpetually drips the Blood of Saints.
Meanwhile, the dreamy US embassy agent Mel (Kevin Blair) agrees to help Rebecca plan a rescue mission, though they’re unaware that Radu has become infatuated with Michelle during his attempts to guide her growing bloodlust. This all culminates in a climactic confrontation meant to tie up all of the series’ loose ends in one of Full Moon Pictures’ most ambitious productions.
The Evolution of Radu
Like its predecessor, Bloodlust: Subspecies III was also warmly received by fans who argued that the series was an even bigger success than Full Moon’s other major horror franchise, Puppet Master. This praise wasn’t unanimous, however, as 1994 had seen the rise of a more modern breed of sexy vampire popularized by Anne Rice, with old-school Nosferatu like Radu being viewed as obsolete when compared to the likes of Lestat and Gary Oldman’s take on Dracula.
In a way, one might argue that Nicolaou’s film is something of a swan song for the classic vampire story, as Bloodlust combines all of the traditional elements we tend to associate with these tales into a single tragic yarn that ties a neat little bow on Radu’s story as well as the old-fashioned monster movies that he represents. The finale remains shocking despite the fact that this is the third time we see Radu get brutally killed onscreen, with the brief tease that he may one day return feeling more like a nod towards the nature of evil rather than sequel bait.
The film dabbles a bit in gothic romance and even explores the inherent power fantasy behind transforming into an immortal creature of the night, but the filmmakers never lose sight of Radu as a demonic force even when he’s willing to betray his beloved Mummy for Michelle’s sake. In fact, his twisted “love” for his fledgling makes him even creepier as we get the feeling that his passion comes from a dark and disturbing place.
Anders Hove is at his absolute best in this film, with the effects department boosting his moments of what the younger generation would call “aura farming” whenever Radu emerges from shadows like a 90s version of Count Orlok. There are even a couple of surprisingly effective jump-scares here, which is why I’d argue that Bloodlust cements Radu as one of the most memorable cinematic vampires of all time despite his humble origins.
Subspecies Saves Its Best For Last
Nicolaou and Vlad Panescu also saved the best for “last” (more on that in a bit) regarding the film’s visuals, with the cinematography and overall atmosphere of Bloodlust absolutely surpassing what we saw in the previous films. Everything feels appropriately climactic this time around (including the wonderful soundtrack that was co-composed alongside an authentic Romanian orchestra), and I appreciate how this is the fastest-paced entry in the trilogy since the film doesn’t need to waste time setting anything up.
Bloodlust still suffers from some of the same low-budget blemishes as its predecessors, but there’s so much creative passion here that no amount of wonky effects work or stilted dialogue can get in the way of appreciating the flick’s gothic grandeur. That’s why it’s not surprising that the movie’s definitive(-ish) ending would later be retconned as fans begged for more Radu.
Of course, the next entry in this series would be a different kind of vampiric endeavor altogether, with the filmmakers attempting to engage with the same trends that ultimately killed Radu and his antiquated kin. That, however, is a story for another time. For now, I’ll merely insist that Bloodlust: Subspecies III remains a highlight of Full Moon’s expansive catalogue and is definitely worth seeking out today.
You must be logged in to post a comment.