Blood and Snow

Decent acting and nice cinematography of snow covered town where a geologist gets infected by a virus like the thing. Lower your expectations and it's not a bad watch. Clearly director didn't have money to do creature effects so there are no creatures just people pretending to be infected. For thing fans it's still worth a watch but don't expect the quality of even John Carpenter's original. Saw this on Tubi so hard to complain when it's free. Give this a chance for a low budget body snatchers movie as there's worse movies out there. TBH there's not much horror but still not a bad who goes there drama.

I went in hoping for something good. I LOVED "The Thing" and it's remake. I was let down. The acting was nauseating; I didn't believe any emotion any of the actors tried to portray. This is a college level movie, at best. The characters are one dimensional and have no growth. The story line is completely predictable. I blame the writer. This was hashed out in a drunken weekend. Movies are meant to transport us out of our own lives. To immerse ourselves in something we will never experience. All I felt in watching this movie was "when is the good part coming.". I have nothing bad to say about any of the actors; but, I don't have anything good to say either. I'd pass on watching this.

"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.

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.