Blood and Snow

Going into this I had high hopes. It gave off The Thing vibes and I'm obsessed with that and was hoping for more out of this. This had potential at the start but strays way off when they get to base and its a wanna be Thing plot. They could've done so much with the story! That would be a long rant on that so I'll go on. The acting was hit and miss. The plot got all messy. When they do find out key things they do nothing when they could've turned it into a cool story. The cut off at the end was a slap in the face, like why even bother? In the end it's a cluster "duck" of confusion and stupidity. It lacked pulling the plot together and explaining the situation and people along with both of the "victims" of the start. Writer gives up I'd say or they probably had people walk on them it got so messy.

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.

"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.

In the Arctic, two scientists come across a meteor that has a devastating effect on them: it kills one researcher and infects the other. The base where they work takes in the survivor, but when the team members die one after the other, a woman named Marie is suspected of also being infected with a dangerous virus. In a race against time, it remains unclear who will survive the next 24 hours...

Horror in the eternal ice...

I wasn't sure if I should really subject myself to this. A kind of rip-off of Carpenter's The Thing but without gore... (?) Doesn't sound particularly tempting. And at just under 2 hours, it's not a short "pleasure" either. On the other hand, I love snow/ice scenarios and the title promised me at least some red splashes on the white background.

Unfortunately, a good setting does not make a good film. Of course, a dark, claustrophobic research station comes across as atmospheric. The fact that we are stuck there with danger and cannot escape because everything that could save us is several days away actually works well. The necessary ingredients for a tasteful contribution are basically there. Unfortunately, Blood and Snow never grabs us by the balls, or anywhere else, to give us a good shake. Instead, sadness and boredom slowly set in. We sense the danger, experience the paranoia, but unfortunately it is only gripping in the rarest of cases.

Dialogue-heavy low-budget thriller that nevertheless comes across as (frighteningly) meaningless for long stretches.

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.