Lugosi2002 Reviews

It! The Terror from Beyond Space (1958)

One of the best B Sci-Fi thrillers

[8/10 · 27 March 2004]

Of course it's outdated. Show me one B Sci-Fi movie that isn't. But the movie has a very creepy atmosphere that you don't find a lot in movies anymore. Yea the monster is in a rubber suit. Yea you can see the zipper on the back. Yea there are many flaws about the spaceship. But remember this is 1958. People did not know much about space travel. This is all new to them. The monster (Ray Corrigan) is still played well enough by the actor to be convincingly frightening even at the expense of the rubber suit. Those big feet and hands and pushed in face (where the mouth doesn't even work) still gave me nightmares as a child. Even my son who obviously is a product of the new age said it creeps him out. The "Black and White" adds to the mood as the ship is not very well lit.

You can nitpick all day and never find all the flaws. In fact if you watch closely the ship has six levels (this is from what I can gather) and sometimes when they traverse from one level to the next they are inconsistent. Example: In one scene Thom Carney who plays Joe Keinholz (the first victim) goes down from the top level the command center to the galley then to the quarters level down to the level the monster is on. However in another scene the level above the monster is the galley and so forth. They made no attempt at keeping this straight instead they just used what levels they felt fitted the scenes they were shooting.

The acting isn't really that bad as I have seen worse for a "B" movie. Dabbs Greer who is (Eric Royce) is a veteran character actor and is good as always in his role. He has a way of acting that comes off very down to earth no matter what the role is. Marshall Thompson does fine with the Lt. Ed Carruthers part as the star of the movie and his love interest "B" movie actress Shirley Patterson also sometimes known as Shawn Smith as she is in this movie is better as Ann Anderson than she is in other low budget movies. Paul Langton as Lt. James Calder is also good and as a kid he was my favorite in the movie. None of them would be academy nominations but the point is the acting is decent enough to carry a well written story even with the gazillion flaws.

If your a nostalgia nut and aren't picky about the degree of laughable material then this is a pretty good old movie. If you let your self drift back to when you were young and naive you can certainly enjoy it. While I wouldn't rank it next to the original "THE THING" which proceeded it by some 7 or more years it is still one of the better "B" Sci-Fi thrillers and is worth watching. Hey if you don't like it you can always count how many flaws there are if that's your thing.

Saving Private Ryan (1998)

Hands down the best war movie ever

[28 February 2004]

Not only the best war movie but probably the most realistic movie where man confronts death. I have seen every movie on the subject of violence, gore, war etc. and though this is not a gore fest just for the sake of showing blood, the blood and gut aspect rates up with any for realism. Such as it is war is bloody and this shows it.

Let me make one thing clear. This does not mean the movie isn't top notch every where else. In fact that's the reason the bloody fighting is so real because the acting and directing brings it to life. Spielberg has to be totally commended as I can't think of one director aside of maybe Ron Howard who could have brought the realism to film that this winner does.

Tom Hanks is absolutely outstanding. It is in his 3 top best and may be his finest. That's up for others to decide. Never the less he is superb. But he is not the only one. Tom Sizemore who I think never gets enough credit is fantastic as well as is Ed Burns. In fact I have to rate this as the best supporting cast in any movie I have ever seen. They are that good. They just feed off each other and it shows in every scene.

Speaking of scenes there are literally dozens of outstanding ones in this but the one that really got me was when Jeremy Davies who plays CPL Upham (He played his character so good I wanted to strangle him for his cowardice) can't muster the courage to go up the stairs and help Adam Goldberg who played Pvt. Mellish (another outstanding acting job) in his fight with the German Soldier. I actually was holding my breath when the German was slowly plunging the knife into Mellish's chest and whispering to him to "shh shh shh" thus killing him.

Without doubt a movie for all time. As far as realism and just plain great acting, direction production sets etc, etc, etc, this is as good as any there has ever been made. I rate it 5 out of 5...no make that 6 out of 5. Awesome is the only way I can describe it. I have watched it at least 5 times and never get bored.

The Thing from Another World (1951)

Awesome movie that holds up today!

[10/10 · 14 January 2004]

While I love the remake very much I was finally able to see the original all the way thru without the colorization on TV. It is a truly awesome movie.

Comparing the two is not really fare or easy as Carpenter's version has the benefits of modern movie magic. But that is in my opinion the only place it excels. It seems in the remake all the characters are derelicts and for the most part not very likeable. In the original you had a sense of these people liking each other and sticking together.

Kenneth Tobey is a very good and believable leader of his men. He also shows a very human side in that he realizes he is not the smartest of men. He is what he is. A captain of a small band of Air Force Soldiiers simply doing their job.

Robert Cornblaithe is excellent as Dr. Carrington. He comes of snootish yet still likeable enough because you can see that deep down he really admires Captain Hendry (Tobey) though he can't see eye to eye with him on their situation or dealing of his "Thing From Another world."

Every character in the movie is well played. They all look like they belong in their roles. Their look and attire fit their characters and when one guy is called Professor so and so or whomever, you believe it unlike many movies in those days where they picked anyone to play the supporting actors. There is one thing though, Margaret Sheridan's pants pulled up almost to her neck line (exaggeration...but close) I could have done without. I realize it was a style of the times but I think they could have given her something a little better to show off her figure when you first meet her. Especially since she was the only female love interest and was tagged as "a pinup girl" in earlier scenes. She looks better when her hair is down and she is in different clothes. I know that is being picky but I just had to say it.

The creature is better presented in the original as far as being frightening. You hardly ever see him. When you do it's only for brief periods at a time and usually in the dark. That frightening sound of "The Thing" is very original in that it's not just a growl but sounds like a cat meowing at times. Very eerie!

The story is well known and both are similiar although I must admit the remake is closer to the actual Campbell JR.'s short tale. But the original still gives it a good account and in many ways surpasses the short story because it is easier to identify with the creature since he's humanoid.

It boils down to suspense, drama and mood versus gore, F/X, and fast paced action. Both movies are top notch. I am proud to own both and would not try and say one is overtly better than the other. The remake has the benefits of the then modern movie technology. The original had the benefit of black and white to add to the suspense and utter danger they are in. The choice is yours. I myself enjoy the original a little more as it holds up today probably better than any other Sci-Fi movie from that era.