Blood and Snow

What in the organism was this? The movie stanked, it was a bore without an original thought. No blood, no special effects, no suspense, and the actors were so wooden. Especially the female E. T. lead. I watched because I am a fan of horror movies, but i was disappointed and felt like I was missing something. Vernon Wells should have turned down his role in this sorry Science fiction film. A waste of time was spent watching this mess, do y'all self a favor and skip this turkey. Watching paint dry would be more of a thrill. Hollywood needs to come out with more original and better films. Trust me, ugh.

I'm sure glad I'm just a "movie watcher" and not a "film buff", so I can enjoy watching a decent movie, without picking everything apart. In my humble opinion, the acting was good and the story all held together. I gave it a 7, which is probably high, but just trying to offset all of the unwarranted terrible ratings. Certainly derivative of "The Thing", without all the cool creature effects, but nothing wrong with that. Hey, no one complained about West Side Story being derivative of Romeo and Juliet, did they? Okay, have I typed enough characters yet? I guess not quite yet. How about now? I did it!

The abrupt ending of the film brings zero conclusions for the viewer. Worth poor acting and a crap story line, this film is nothing like "The Thing" Og or remake. I luteal feel like I lost 93 minutes of my life that I can never get back again. There was potential but I am left with the following questions: Was the budget suddenly cut? Did someone lose the rest of the film? The most entertaining thing about this film was the ice cream I ate while it was playing. If it hadn't been for my mobile phone and gaming apps, I would really be ticked off as the movie ends. If this is a set up for a sequel, I can assure you...I won't be watching it.

"Blood and Snow" attempts to revisit the classic plot of a polar research station besieged by a malevolent force. A very short attempt at copying "The Thing from Another World" (1951) and its successors, "The Thing" (1982) and the 2011 prequel. Sadly, this rendition falls short, offering little more than a pale imitation of its predecessors. The film struggles with poor craftsmanship evident in its direction, acting, and overall execution. Unlike its predecessors, which managed to evoke genuine terror and suspense, "Blood and Snow" fails to capitalize on its potentially gripping premise. The only distinguishing factor seems to be its updated title, which initially piqued curiosity but ultimately failed to deliver anything innovative or compelling. In comparison, the original 1951 film remains the standout, capturing a sense of palpable fear and delivering dramatic sequences that stand the test of time. Waste of time for a Sataurday after lunch.

No pun intended - now you may say: Carpenters The Thing was a "remake" itself ... and that is partly true of course. Though if you've seen the "original" you might remember or recognize that the older movie (Carpenters is from the 80s so yes I know that is old too) was quite different than the "newer" version that Carpenter did.

But this feels like quite the rip off from Carpenter that I have to admit another reviewers summary headline had me ... The Thing reject ... that person got it right for sure! I still came up with my own spin (which I hope you appreciate) ... the one thing that is a bit of an update (even the special effects seem way better in the movie from the 80s) ... is the addition of a female character ... and the ending is ... well "different" here too.

Still not for the faint hearted ... if you want to listen to almost all of us here: stick to the "original" (Carpenters The Thing) ... heck even watch the "prequel" that was done 30 years after that movie was released ... but if you have nothing else to do ... well you have been warned! Beware ... of the Thing.