Options
Horror film ..what scene is this from ?
![[Deleted User]](https://wb.vanillicon.com/v2/b6cff5553dffb146cb675235004006e4.svg)
[Deleted User]
Posts: 53,142 Forum Member
✭
Might be a pointless thread but this scene bugged me all night as i couldn't think what it's from
This guy is being resuscitated and having that machine pressed onto his chest..They do it say 3 times, them on the 4th or 5th time the machine goes straight into his chest..What is it from..i was thinking Alien, Species or The Thing with Kurt Russell
..its a film i watch quite regularly too
This guy is being resuscitated and having that machine pressed onto his chest..They do it say 3 times, them on the 4th or 5th time the machine goes straight into his chest..What is it from..i was thinking Alien, Species or The Thing with Kurt Russell
..its a film i watch quite regularly too 0
Comments
aww thanks..i knew it was one i mentioned..it is a predictable scene and know whats gonna come
A question was asked and the correct answer was given.
I can assure you if you had seen this in 1982 when it first came out, the last thing you would have described that scene as is predictable.
That scene was almost as big a shock as the chestburster scene in Alien, the hand coming out of the ground in Carrie, or any number of scary scenes in The Exorcist.
And it was the fact that it was done with old-style effects back in '82 that was the shock, and it set the scene for the fact that the gloves were off, anything could happen, and that set you on edge when watching the rest of the movie.
It was also the sheer lunacy and inventiveness of the effects set pieces, they were just simply wild and completely off-the-wall for the time. In that particular scene the equally bizarre notion of the head separating and then sprouting legs and crawling along the floor was equally messed-up.
We often forget that CGI enables filmmakers to imagine and realise pretty much anything they want these days, but back then their imagination was limited by the practical effects available at that time.
And effects guy Rob Bottin came up with some incredible designs and ideas for that movie.
he knew the scene, the film and the star......pointless.
Well worth watching in it's entirety.
I love the head and bloodtest scenes best
Its one of my all time great films, from both a personal taste and critical point of view. The attention to detail is truly amazing, the photography, the music, everything is working and it really shows.
I would also say those effects and props are better than most CGI. Far too often CGI has poor lighting or no tone so it looks out of place and sterile. But in the thing, what you see is really happening, that monster thing is really there, the way the light plays off it, the steam, the geometry of the set, its all real. Watch Phantom Menace and you can see its all shot in a warehouse, the outdoor scenes have no space to them. The Thing was also the last of the greats to use no computer generated effects, all crafted by experts in the field.
Not to mention Carpenter has a pretty impressive line up of movies from that era of his work. The Thing is his classic, The Fog is a well done ghost tale that stands up today, They Live is an oddball horror action enriched with that 80s anti establishment and anti consumerism tone.
But yeah, The Thing is a solid classic, a true great. Halloween is just a slasher movie in comparison (was never a fan of that type of film anyway)
Predictable?? You jest!
I am thinking of the correct scene yeah? Where the doc's arms get bitten off by the patients chest which has turned into a massive set of teeth? Then after being set on fire his head falls off, sprouts legs and runs off like a giant spider??
If that's predictable, you must be difficult to surprise!
While it's true that Halloween is just a slasher movie, I think it's generally accepted as the best, and most influential (along with Psycho), of them and it's the one that ignited the explosion in the genre in the late seventies and eighties. For me it's head and shoulders above any of it's copycats.
Carpenter was in masterful mode in that era. Another film of his that I really liked was Prince of Darkness. It never received the same acclaim as Halloween or The Thing, but it had that same unnerving element which enabled Carpenter to put fear into his horror movies.
I like the scene where the head sprouts spider legs under the table ....hilarious !
No, I swear it was Dr Quinn, Medicine Woman!
erm, if you read my OP post properly you will get why i said predictable..It was just that exact scene was predictable like i described..you knew that was going to happen..Also it was driving my mad which film it was from..like the films i suggested it could have been one of them, and it was
I agree with other poster, it's not predictable even within the context of the movie.
That whole scene of course is really meant to be a piece of visual humour. The 'You've got to be kiddin' line a reflection on how cinema might be self reflective. It might also be worth reflecting that the cast is entirely male, leaving the animals and possibly The ThIng as the only female characters within the movie.
It's a great movie, with a soundtrack by Morricone that simply apes a Carpenter soundtrack. The movie is a remake of the Hawks/Nyby version from 1951 and the Carpenter version brings out the paranoia of the piece very well.