text: Ironically, what makes John Carpenter's "The Thing" such an entertaining sci-fi film are its genre-defying elements of mystery, suspense, and tight plot structure. It puts to shame such films as "Aliens" or "Armageddon" that are content to inundate the viewer with special effects while their plots revolve around stunts that butcher the laws of physics, testosterone-laden one-liners, heroes equipped with enough artillery to conquer Iraq, and pathetic attempts to inject "meaning" into the barrage on screen with "emotional sequences" that only serve to further insult the intelligence of the audience. The supreme tragedy, of course, is that these kind of lobotomized movies are also the most popular. I think that there is a cause for this, although it isn't very comforting. There is an increasing trend in our culture to passively "surrender" to the media -- to immerse oneself in the images we see without dedicating a single brain cell to comprehending the statement the work is trying to make. This mindset is becoming increasingly dominant in all arenas; even the once-hallowed print medium is being diluted, thanks to the abominable "reader response" theory that pervades our schools and the "tabloid brigade" that lines our magazine racks whose mentality appears to be infiltrating the once-venerable mainstream press. Nowadays, we just flip the switch and put our minds on "pause." Is "The Thing" a "good" movie? For the rare individual who still values his faculty of reason, a more appropriate term would be "entertaining." Its plot keeps one guessing, its ending is uncompromising, and it has some redeeming statements to make about human paranoia. Upon subsequent viewings, one begins to note a conspicuous lack of depth in the acting, but the taut storyline remains compelling. Of course, "Citizen Kane" it's not, but then again sci-fi never was a thinking-man's genre...