The core story is just... So dumb. And the dialogue between genuinely any two characters that doesn't involve the titular Pikachu made me **real** uncomfortable.
But I adore the world that holds it up. Watching _Detective Pikachu_ was like drinking hot chocolate by the campfire in winter. Even my roommate who had to be dragged to the thing kicking and screaming ended up having a wholesome good time.
_Final rating:★★★ - I liked it. Would personally recommend you give it a go._

If you enjoy reading my Spoiler-Free reviews, please follow my blog :)
I’m going to write it straight away: I didn’t enjoy Pokémon Detective Pikachu as much as I wanted to. In some ways, it disappointed me. Now, you’re probably thinking “oh, he’s one of those people who never saw or played Pokémon in his life, and now he’s going to destroy the film because he never understood it”. Not even close. There are always three groups of people when it comes to these famous franchises that have massive fandoms: the hardcore fans who follow the respective saga since it was created and never once stopped supporting it; the fans who like or even love it, but either skipped or gave up at a certain point in time; the non-fans who never really got into it and don’t relate to any of what the previous two groups do.
I belong to the second group. I’m a fan of Pokémon, but since the end of the last decade that I stopped playing its video games and watching any series or movies about it. Nevertheless, I’m always as fair and impartial as possible to films and to the people who gave their all to deliver a great story. For hardcore fans, this movie might have everything you’ve ever wished for. Even I was able to understand that some scenes are filled (and I mean literally the whole screen) with references and Easter Eggs that the most dedicated fans will absolutely love. These moments alone can make you enjoy this film way more than fans like me.
However, we all know that while these sequences look fantastic and offer a lot of excitement, they are not enough to hold a narrative together or make it captivating. The Pokémons are gorgeous, and I found myself constantly in awe! Live-action will always have that crowd of haters that think the animated versions should stay animated, no matter what. There will always be people hating on these type of movies solely by the fact that they’re live-action. Honestly, I try very hard, but I can’t understand how people find an incredibly realistic Pikachu ugly or disgusting when it looks absolutely adorable and visually impressive. This will be such a long and exhausting debate throughout the 2020s, every time a live-action remake or adaptation is released, but I have faith people will come to accept it or even love it eventually.
Detective Pikachu main issues are the screenplay and most of the characters, no doubt about it. I understand that the production team had to shift the primary focus to the VFX regarding the actual Pokémons since a lot of the viewers will buy the ticket only to watch a beautiful real world filled with them, but the two pillars of any film should never be kept aside for too long: story and characters. Justice Smith portrays the only human character that has a compelling backstory and a likable personality. Yes, Kathryn Newton (Lucy Stevens) delivers a good performance, and she also might interpret a character that a lot of people can relate to, but from the moment Lucy has more to do in the movie, it’s like her development stagnated. However, Smith is brilliant as Tim and he showed a great range of emotions, making me not only laugh but also feel a bit emotional.
Sadly, these two are the only human characters that aren’t either a cliche villain who wants to rule the world or a paper-thin police or scientist who only serve as exposition devices. Honestly, this might be one of the most exposition-driven films of 2019. The amount of cheap and lazy information dumps spread across the runtime is too much to handle, especially when the same info is repeated several times. It unbalances the pacing and even the tone of the movie, making it dull during some periods. I’m rarely the guy who “wants more action”, but Detective Pikachu really needed more thrilling moments, preferably involving Pokémon. Of the few action sequences, most are just our protagonists running from something and jumping from cliffs. Very rarely we see actual Pokémons doing anything until the last act.
Rob Letterman shows that he has a lot of great qualities that a director should have, but he needs to work on his flaws and leave the screenwriting role to more experienced people. For such a mystery-driven story, the “mystery” part is pretty evident from the get-go, with a notable exception at the very end that I didn’t saw coming and ended the film on a high note. Pikachu is beautifully voiced by Ryan Reynolds and if you were worried that his voice wouldn’t blend with the yellow fellow, don’t be. Pikachu is extremely funny and charming, carrying the whole show on its shoulders with a little help of Psyduck. Cubone and Ditto also have some great moments, but Mewtwo is a beauty to behold, as expected. Even though I’m not a hardcore fan, I felt the “immersiveness” of the incredible Pokémon world that Warner Bros. built and that’s the best compliment I can give: I felt like I was in a real Pokémon universe.
All in all, Pokémon Detective Pikachu is fine. For hardcore fans, it might be everything you’ve ever wished for, but for fans of the 2000s Pokémon, who stopped following the franchise after the beginning of the new decade, the numerous Easter Eggs and references might not be enough to overcome the undeniable narrative issues. Justice Smith delivers an outstanding performance, and Ryan Reynolds nails Pikachu‘s voice, being extremely funny and unbelievably adorable. The CGI is ground-breaking, making the Pokémons astonishingly realistic and their world remarkably immersive. However, even if the movie ends with a terrific touch, the shallow characters, the heavy exposition dumps, and the not-that-mysterious mystery bring the pacing down and turn this live-action adaptation into just an okay one.
PS: regarding the curse of the video games cinematic adaptations, I already believe that Tomb Raider broke it with a good margin, but both Warcraft and Pokémon Detective Pikachu managed to just scratch the positive side of my reviews. You’re on the right track, but step up Hollywood!
Rating: B-

New York attorney James B. Donovan (Tom Hanks) is drafted in to provide what can only be described as a cursory defence for alleged Soviet spy Rudolf Abel (Mark Rylance) whom the establishment want to offer an ostensibly open and fair, but actually only a rather rudimentary, trial. This doesn't sit well with Donovan, and he manages to get the judge to commute the death sentence to one of thirty years. That proves to be visionary because shortly afterwards, US pilot Francis Gary Powers (Austin Stowell) is off doing a little spying of his own when he is shot down over East Germany. Donovan is now drafted in by his government to travel to Berlin, without formal status, and see if he can't negotiate a prisoner swap. What now ensues is a true story that wouldn't look out of place in a John le Carré novel. Lots of dogma-driven mistrust, manipulation and a fair smattering of who needs to win the PR battle - especially complicated when the East Germans take a student hostage and he must now try to get both out - a two for one deal! Hanks is on good form delivering a measured and considered effort as the ingenious lawyer with a conscience, and Rylance also performs well, if really too sparingly, as the prisoner who is also a man of principle - though slightly less sure of the nature of his welcome at home should Donovan succeed. The film looks good, is nicely scored by Thomas Newman and we get a genuine sense of just how battered Berlin was as the wall started to go up. Perhaps a little on the lengthy side - but still a solid piece of biopic cinema well worth a watch.

**Bridge of Spies dazzles with its Oscar-winning performances and impressive true story. It’s a little slow for me personally, but still, a movie I recommend.**
While Bridge of Spies might not be my usual taste, its performances are undeniable, and its directing is masterful. Spielberg always creates incredible work, and Bridge of Spies is no different. This true story is filled with espionage, tense world powers, and political maneuvering, all colliding with one man and his strong integrity and convictions. Tom Hanks reunites with Spielberg bringing heart and authenticity to the role, but the real stand out of this film is Mark Rylance. His performance as the embattled Rudolf Abel, a questionable spy but seemingly good man, is stunning and worthy of the Oscar he won for the role. While Bridge of Spies isn’t a personal favorite because of its slower story-driven plot, I highly respect it and confidently recommend it.

Superb film!
I love 'Bridge of Spies'. Every angle of it, at least from my point of view, is expertly crafted. The score by Thomas Newman is outstanding, the onscreen talent bring their a-game while the story is extremely riveting. It lasts for 141 minutes, it felt like 90 minutes tops; it absolutely flies through its run time, at no moment did I feel anything close to bored.
Tom Hanks is brilliant in the lead role as Donovan, yet another great performance to add to his résumé. He rightly takes all the plaudits, but some must be left for Mark Rylance who is also brilliant as Abel. The support cast also more than pull their weight, too.
Undeniably worth your time. Not sure how much of it is historically accurate (sounds like most is?), I honestly don't really care as it's a great film - which is what we are all here for after all.

Two great actors deliver with a simple but superlative script. Of course we know how great an actor Tom Hanks has been, with many Academy Award wins and nominations in his body of work. I think sometimes he makes it look so easy that he doesn't receive adequate credit for those roles. Sir Mark Rylance is more of a character actor, even though he has had lead roles also. He disappears into his characters. He was wonderful playing Thomas Cromwell in the British tv series Wolf Hall. Boy, am I looking forward to the next series of that standout program. Oh, and by the way, he won the Academy Award for his work in this very film I am reviewing here. And of course it was directed by Steven Spielberg, a bit of a legend himself.
The plot to Bridge of Spies is not as layered and complex as many spy thrillers, but if anything, not having twists and turns dropping onto our head from above allows the suspense to build out in plain sight. Interestingly, one of the key scenes was filmed on location where the event actually took place. I am leaving out the details in case are you haven't watched it yet

Mark Rylance is brilliant in this film. Tom Hanks does his usual excellent performance. I don't know much about Mark Rylance. Maybe he is one of those rare brilliant actors who just hasn't had the accolades he deserves. I am sure that if you asked him if he was worried about his lack of recognition, that he would simply say "would it help?"

> Totally unexpected PG-13 rated negotiation-drama based on the Cold War.
The movie that should have been made 50 years ago, but due to the international political tension it did not take off. So now it's here, the same director made it. It's a rocking combo, once again Spielberg and Hanks come together, tell me who's going to miss that. Simply spellbinding, one of the best movie of the year.
I think this flick is for adults. There's no sex, no nudity, not even a single kiss or the bad language and zero violence, its fine for teens and kids can understand, but the story is what I meant that suits only for the grown ups. Like the usual, this Spielberg movie is easy to follow, there's no tricky twists and turns, but aimed for only the event that's based on the real.
Over a 2 hour long negotiation drama with surrounded by suspense and thrills. It's completely a one man show and the end has been just like everybody wanted. I'm not surprised that it is nominated for the Oscars in the 6 categories including the best motion picture. I would be very happy if it puts at least a couple of trophies to its basket. I feel it is a must see if you're interested in WWII related subjects, other than the war.
8½/10

Steven Spielberg really knows how to craft movies and this is a very good example. A simple and good story, well scripted, with a well chosen cast and with Tom Hanks, who keep giving us great performances.
Amy Ryan does a great job, which is even better in the case of Mark Rylance.

"Nathan Algren" (Tom Cruise) is a disenchanted, alcoholic Captain who, post American Civil War, is offered the chance of a fresh, lucrative, start in Japan training some raw recruits to form the basis a standing Imperial Army. He arrives and is presented to the young, forward-looking but somewhat intimidated Meiji Emperor and it subsequently becomes clear that his purpose is primarily to assist Ômura, the Prime Minister, to create a military force capable of defeating the traditionalist, but loyal, Samurai clan of "Kausumoto" (Ken Watanabe). The first skirmish doesn't quite go to plan, and "Algren" is captured. Over the harsh winter, he befriends his warlord captor and the film begins to introduce us to the honourable and upright values of the man and of his beliefs and fundamental, if at times, ruthless decency. It mixes truth with fiction in a clever, unsentimental manner - Watanabe's performance is considered and engaging as the man on the cusp of a new era which neither he, nor his people, want or understand. Cruise is clearly the man behind the concept and is to be commended for bringing this gloriously good looking story to the screen; he is not, however, especially good in the lead - the part calls for a sophistication that he, as an actor, simply doesn't possess. There is also a curious role for Scots comedian/actor Billy Connolly who originally enlists "Algren" to the cause - with an accent that is all over the place. Masato Harada delivers well as the devious Minister who, in his own way, wants his society to adapt and flourish and Shichinosuke Nakamura gives the person of the Meiji emperor a caring, aspirational vulnerability that helps give the whole film a sense of truth and authenticity. The technical standards - especially during the frequently brutal battle scene are consistently high.

Recommended.
'The Last Samurai' features some very cool and entertaining battle sequences, which are shot excellently. The premise itself is attracting, it's acted out astutely by the noteworthy cast list. It probably lasts too long, but I never truly got a feeling of it dragging out though.
Tom Cruise is fantastic as Capt. Nathan Algren. It's no secret or surprise as we all know that guy can act, he adds a great deal to his character here; especially on the emotional side of things. As for what happens with Algren, it's all good even if the love interest parts are undercooked.
Ken Watanabe is splendid in the role of Katsumoto, while Masato Harada (Omura) and Timothy Spall (Graham) give positive performances. It's also nice to see Billy Connolly (Gant) and Scott Wilson (Swanbeck) appear. Hans Zimmer's score is, as presumed, grand. That would be one of a number of reasons why I'd say you should watch this.

Edward Zwick's "The Last Samurai" is about two warriors whose cultures make them aliens, but whose values make them comrades. The battle scenes are stirring and elegantly mounted, but they are less about who wins than about what can be proven by dying. Beautifully designed, intelligently written, acted with conviction, it's an uncommonly thoughtful epic. Its power is compromised only by an ending that sheepishly backs away from what the film is really about.
Tom Cruise and Ken Watanabe co-star, as a shabby Civil War veteran and a proud samurai warrior. Cruise plays Nathan Algren, a war hero who now drifts and drinks too much, with no purpose in life. He's hired by Americans who are supplying mercenaries to train an army for the Japanese emperor, who wants to move his country into the modern world and is faced with a samurai rebellion.
The role of the samurai leader Katsumoto (Watanabe) is complex; he is fighting against the emperor's men, but out of loyalty to the tradition the emperor represents, he would sacrifice his life in an instant, he says, if the emperor requested it. But Japan has been seized with a fever to shake off its medieval ways and copy the West, and the West sees money to be made in the transition: Representatives from the Remington arms company are filling big contracts for weapons, and the U.S. Embassy is a clearinghouse for lucrative trade arrangements.
Into this cauldron Algren descends as a cynic. He is told the samurai are "savages with bows and arrows," but sees that the American advisers have done a poor job of training the modernized Japanese army to fight them. Leading his untried troops into battle, he is captured and faces death -- but is spared by a word from Katsumoto, who returns him as a prisoner to the village of his son.

Even as little as five years ago, _Nerve_ couldn't possibly have been made. Which makes me wonder, in four years from when _Nerve_ was made (where the film is set), will it still be at all applicable? Already the social media it makes use of has changed from the time of filming to the date of release... Food for thought...
With that out of the way, the movie itself: Just okay.
The soundtrack is, at best, intrusive. The premise is old hat (although the exact way it's done is new). The message is a little blunt-force (though certainly not to Tomorrowland levels). The plot isn't quite solid. The acting is usually on par, though does occasionally slip. Many character interactions are overtly clichéd, and the filming style, while moderately original, is distracting.
Bt it's still fun, and a little warming. I don't regret paying to watch it in cinemas, but keep in mind that's only because I did so at the "Movie of the Week" discounted price.
_Final rating:★★½ - Had a lot that appealed to me, didn’t quite work as a whole._

Shawn Levy didn't waste any time cobbling together this sequel and though it's not terrible, it's all a bit silly. "Daley" (Ben Stiller) has made his fortune and "McPhee" (Ricky Gervais) is facing the worrying digitisation of his soon to be "interactive" museum. This is going to result in the relocation of some of the exhibits to the Smithsonian where the megalomanic Pharaoh "Kahmunrah" is poised to ally with Ivan the Terrible, Al Capone and Napoleon to form his own little axis of evil. Quickly, it falls to "Daley" and his assembled troop of recently transported, brave, exhibits to thwart this dastardly plan. To be fair, this film does move along well and has retained most of the cast from the first film - Robin Williams as the sagely Teddy Roosevelt and quite a dashing Rami Malek ("Ahkmenrah") as well as adding an enthusiastic performance from Amy Adams as the trail-blazing Amelia Earhart. It's all just a bit overly-theatrical for me, though - especially the really hammy Hank Azaria who just seems to be trying to do his best Robert Downey Jr impersonation of the menacing Pharaoh. It's really just anther vehicle for Ben Stiller to do what he does best, and if that's what you like then there is nothing to disappoint here - he does all that he needs to. For me, it's all just a little lazy with a denouement that offers little by way of jeopardy. It looks good, though, and again reminds us to go visit a museum some time.

Hellboy is not a movie for everyone, no matter how much humour is in the screenplay. Nevertheless, Guillermo del Toro's usual knack for outstanding visuals, cool looking action, and focus on character development makes Hellboy unique and entertaining af.
Also, Ron Perlman is an amazing leading man. His charisma makes him one of the most underrated actors of our time.

I love the Mike Mignola _Hellboy_ comics, and this movie is a pretty massive deviation from that source material. Oddly though, I'm kind of not bothered by that. In fact in some cases, like that of the character of Karl Ruprecht Kroenen, the film version is actually an improvement. A regular re-watch of _Hellboy_ is a pretty frequent occurrence in my household.
_Final rating:★★★★ - Very strong appeal. A personal favourite._

My wife loves the franchise... I'm 3 deep and really not seeing the appeal. But, I do like the accent, it's a rarity that you see a film with a southern accent on the lead, and that is refreshing. Especially out in Japan, or anywhere that has an American abroad.
The High school thing wasn't so much my speed. Neither was the reason why he ended up in Japan, where the problems he would have with driving and racing were resolved with... a phone call.
And then I spent the majority of the time watching this and wondering how much money people in Japan spend on front end alignments and that was about as challenging as the movie got for me. Otherwise it was pretty paint by numbers from start to finish.
But hey, the colors popped.

Love the sequel as well. Honestly the whole series is pretty funny. This also kept me laughing almost throughout.

'The Witch', Robert Eggers' feature directorial debut, is very good! I enjoyed all of these 90 minutes, I could've watched it go on for a little longer in truth. I really liked the atmosphere throughout, as well as the look of the film. The dialogue is particularly excellent, too.
Everyone on the cast gives a terrific performance, shown perfectly by that final scene with them all together onscreen. Harvey Scrimshaw is super convincing in the aforementioned, I was almost questioning if they had got an adult actor and morphed him into Caleb, such was his high performance.
Ellie Grainger and Lucas Dawson are class in that scene too, one of the most unsettling moments in this is as their characters convulse on the floor - that sorta thing with kids always creeps me out. I've gone too far into my review to not note Anya Taylor-Joy, who is quality from beginning to end. Ralph Ineson and Kate Dickie merit props as well.
I mentioned in my recent review of (the good) 'Nosferatu' that I was unsure how this one was going to fare in my personal ranking of this director's work, given the stark contrast with my thoughts on 'The Lighthouse' (4/10) and 'The Northman' (9/10). In actuality, this falls a notch below the latter; not far off the same rating, fwiw.
It'll be fascinating to see what Eggers conjures up next, as long as it is not another piece in the ilk of that from 2019 then I'll excited to check it out.

Talk about old school!
“The Witch” is a painstaking recreation of Puritan life in New England. The lifestyle is mimicked. The clothes are period-accurate. The dialogue is actually based off of documents and speeches from that time. It’s as if Mel Gibson decided to update “The Passion of the Christ” by 1600 years.
As mentioned, the movie is set in Puritan New England as a family is banished from the larger community and has to make their own way out in the wilderness. As they build their home, strange things begin to happen, starting with the abduction of the infant Samuel. Things continue to get worse and worse, until… okay, no spoilers. See the movie.
This is a dark and effective movie. I can’t remember the last time I actually had a start from the all too often used jump scares, but the movie is absorbing enough that it did manage to “get” me a couple times. Robert Eggers seems to have kicked off a new wave in old-school, deep supernatural and existential horror. I won’t lie that I drew some comparisons between this and Ari Aster’s “Hereditary,” if nothing else than by simply the way the movie felt and left me feeling at the end.
That being said, the film isn’t perfect. In fact, oddly enough, it’s perfection is what gives it imperfection. The period is so painstakingly recreated, in particular the dialogue, that sometimes hearing it can be jarring, making me stop for just a second to think about what was just said, which unfortunately interrupts the flow and managed to pull me out of the film. It’s kind of a strange complaint that something could be so accurate that it fails to suspend disbelief, but here we are.
“The Witch” is quite an achievement and I’m glad that this film, which would otherwise be relegated to underground status, has managed to achieve a following, enough so that Robert Eggers got to do a follow-up with the Lovecraftian-looking “The Lighthouse.” Definitely worth checking out.

This was a really good horror film. The direction was very interesting and Robert Egger plays with darkness and shadows in a really horrifying way. The tension is unbearable at times.
The dialogue is a bit hard to follow as it is very "oldé English" to add to the historical accuracy of the piece. The actors are all good at reciting this strange dialect and demonstrating the paranoia spreading through the family thanks to religion and superstition.The film is based on accounts and texts found from the era and so everything seen on screen has been taken from sources and barely been touched. Every part of the film seems authentic.
It is refreshing to see a film that doesn't really on jump-scares and annoying "cattle-prod" techniques to make audiences scared. 'The Witch' is genuinely disturbing without resorting to these techniques. It is very strange and gory when it needs to be. I also found these strange scenes quite fascinating and educational as the film almost seems like a historical document.
★★★★

> While an evil force slowly possessing them, the family bond is put on a test.
The film was based on the collection of a series of the real events that takes place in the 17th century New England. The story of a farmer family who came across the ocean, but now lives on the edge of the forest after denied permission to build a house in a village. When the newborn baby disappears in a thin air, the family begins to experience the mysterious events. Without a clue about the happenings, the evil force begins to possess them while the unity of the family is tested.
Wow, finally a wonderful horror-psychological-thriller. Usually horror films are the worst kind compared with other genres, because most of them overly rely on the sudden sound/noise and gore. But there are many awesome horror films I had liked which were better story than the graphical presentation, like this one. So I love good narration than those try to scare me with make-ups, stunts and sound mixings.
It was a limited cast film, sets in a beautiful remote place and the language was awesome that perfectly suits for the horror theme like this. Everyone's performance was brilliant. It is just a one million dollar film and the entire film was shot within a month. The records are not matter when the writing and the direction were top notch. Especially for a first timer it was a remarkable achievement.
A simple plot, developed greatly and the suspense was the highlight. Yet viewers expect more explanation, but I'm happy for what it is and it should not go deeper than that which might spoil its unique flavour. Not just horror film fans, everyone should try it if they're capable to handle the slow narration. Finally, like usual, here I won't ask for a sequel, because it'll make an amazing one off film than the dozens of crappy follow ups.
8/10

**_Scream delivered a breath of fresh air into the slasher franchise and holds up rather well nearly 30 years later._**
The plot of this film follows a cookie-cutter structure that models nearly all of the great slasher franchises of the late 1970s and early 1980s, but that is entirely the point. Scream is completely aware of the tropes of horror movies and utilizes them in a creative way by adding commentary and subtle comedy delivered by the characters throughout the film. It is not a full-fledged comedy by any means; there is no forced humor or jokes, but it is more of a dark comedy that pokes fun at itself in the background.
The performances from our main cast were great. Neve Campbell delivers an excellent badass performance and is the perfect lead for the franchise. She is capable of fighting back in a brutal way and rivals Laurie Stroud from Halloween as my favorite final girl of all time. Courtney Cox was quite good as well; she had limited screen time but was able to really make the most of it. David Arquette was okay; he did not blow me away by any means, and he is quite replaceable in my opinion. Matthew Lillard was my favorite of the film; his performance was over the top and quite mentally deranged, which worked really well. Skeet Ulrich was also quite good, but took a backseat to Lillard in my opinion.
The direction of this film was great. Wes Craven did an excellent job delivering unique shots and utilizing the camera angle and height quite well. I do think this movie needs a little more gore and violence for it being a slasher film. There was really only one kill that was quite memorable to me. For it being a homage and critique of the slasher genre, it was lacking quite a bit in the slash department. In addition, the runtime felt a bit bloated, and I think if this was cut down to maybe ten minutes, the viewing experience would have been better.
Overall, I do think this movie is slightly overrated, but it is still a great film and worthy of its praise (for the most part).
**Score:** _79%_ |
**Verdict:** _Great_

**Scream was the first of its kind that redefined horror with new rules, a meta plot, and rebellious unexpected twists.**
Scream followed all the rules and simultaneously broke them in a brilliant self-aware genre reinvention that leveraged every horror movie trope to set up and subvert every expectation. Scream is a love ballad to horror movie fans that intimately knows and zealously honors the legacy of terror-filled films that came before while creating something new, innovative, bold, and surprising. Scream’s dark humor and admiration of overused horror plot points resulted in one of the first meta films in history. Characters know they are living a real-life horror film and yet make dumb and predictable horror movie decisions tricking the viewers into a sort of safety before breaking all the rules and surprising with unexpected twists and turns. Scream was the first of its kind and welcomed a whole new horror sub-genre and a movie franchise that still has no end in sight over 25 years later.

Good parody movie; fun guessing which movie is being parodied during each bit.

This is my first review.
Scary Movie:
This particular Film is great, always a laugh everyday.
Good cast too!
~Bradley's

I've seen this movie so many times. I own it twice on DVD, I own it on 4K, Blu-Ray and I even have a copy on the now defunct HD-DVD format. I regret not seeing it in the theaters back in 1982. I don't know why I didn't go. I was certainly old enough to appreciate it. Instead, I saw "E.T.". I got swept up in happy little alien fever. I went with the crowd. All I had to do was wander over to a different screen and watch Carpenter's creation in all its paranoid glory. Sigh...
As with all good movies, music, or books, I experience something new every time I view it. I keep trying to piece together how the Thing spread throughout the camp. I keep looking for clues. Like when Blair performs an autopsy on the recently roasted Thing. While he's presenting his thoughts on what the Thing is, he absent-mindedly taps his pencil eraser on the steaming carcass, crosses his arms and brings the pencil eraser perilously close to his mouth. Then he makes a talking point by waving the pencil in the air and ever so briefly...it touches his lip! Did he infect himself? Is it too late?!?!? Has the Thing spread itself to Blair?!?! These kinds of moments fill the movie. It so suspenseful and so paranoid. And the isolation is torture. You know they all have nowhere to go. All those nameless men. Well, they aren't nameless, it's just that it's hard to remember them all. And the strange thing about it is, we still seem to care about them. I think that's because Carpenter has done such a masterful job of building the suspense through threat and isolation that we can't help but subconsciously put ourselves into their places.
There are so many great scenes. The opening helicopter-chases-dog scene. The horror of finding the Thing in the dog pen. The death and subsequent transformation of Norris. Wow! Is it gory! And in this particular case, I think the gore is absolutely necessary. That's kind of the knock on this film. The gore has been classified as extreme. And it is. But this is a story about such a faceless, out-of-this-world beast that it all seems so appropriate. And those effects. I don't think I need to say any more than others have already posited about the very special practical effects by Rob Bottin. They have to be the best I've ever seen.
Then there's the "blood test" scene. All of the men at the Antarctic station volunteer to give a blood sample and then have it tested, while tied to chairs, to see if it reveals which of them are actually the "Thing". One by one, a heated copper wire is placed into a petri dish of blood from each one of the men. Seeing the smoke rise from the wire when it's touched to the dish of blood brings some relief. Will the next dish be Thing-free? You'll have to watch it and see for yourself. The setup and execution of this scene is one of the most intense and frightening things I've ever watched.
I am very happy that this film has found its place thanks to Home Video. It's now considered a Horror/Sci-Fi classic. It is without a doubt my favorite Horror movie, perhaps my favorite monster flick and quite possibly my top Sci-Fi feature. It's that good.

The Thing is a claustrophobic, paranoia-driven horror film that follows a crew of American scientists trying to fend off an extraterrestrial monster before it picks them all off, one by one.
The film is incredibly grounded, in a way that increases the horror and tension surrounding our main cast. In the beginning, the story takes its time, building on the threat and fear of the creature. But this slowly transitions into a paranoia-stricken thriller that has everyone painted as a potential threat. This worked really well, keeping the audience constantly on their toes not knowing who to trust. Throughout the course of the film, there is not an incredible amount of action. The movie thrives on the tension that slowly builds through the characters distrust, but this lends itself to making the more action-packed scenes that much more effective. The prosthetic and prop department did such an incredible job on the effects. There are some really twisted scenes combining body gore and genuine horror that was ahead of its time.
Technically, this film is superb. The acting is great all around, but Kurt Russell shines in this role, taking over every scene he is in. The score is subtle but adds a sense of ominousness to the film that I really appreciated. Cinematography is top notch, with some impressive set designs and creative shots that create a great amount of immersion.
Overall, this film is amazing. Although it does impact me as much as Halloween did, it is still an instant classic that should go down as John Carpenter's 1B to his Halloween masterpiece.
Score: 90% |
Verdict: Excellent

As remakes go, this is one of the better ones that I have seen - though I still prefer the degree of menace generated by the 1951 iteration. A man in an helicopter is shooting at a lonely mutt amidst the antarctic wilderness when it arrives at an American scientific base. An accident ensures the inhabitants cannot interrogate the pursuing Norwegians and a quick visit to their nearby camp shows that disaster has struck. A large block of hollowed out ice suggests, though, that they may well have made an unique discovery - especially when they find some smouldering skeletal remains. Back at their own camp - along with their new charcoaled find - things get back to normal until the mysterious dog is put into the cage with the others and all hell breaks loose. It is soon clear to "Mac" (Kurt Russell) that they are dealing with something extremely strong, adaptable and ruthless. Can they survive? The visual effects here go a long way to compensating for the rather lacklustre acting - Russell isn't really very good - and the claustrophobic antarctic settings and howling winds add a richness and sense of peril to this superior horror story. The fact that the creature has a sort of Azazel-like ability to transfer from any life-form to another, and to more than one simultaneously adds some decent jeopardy to the plot, too, as neither they nor us know who is to be trusted right until the ending. This is certainly one of John Carpenter's better efforts - and is well worth a watch on a cold winter's night!

**The Thing is a bloody disgusting groundbreaking masterpiece that reinvented cinema and reminded everyone that true fear lies in what can't be seen.**
The Thing might be the greatest horror creature film ever made. In an age where aliens were cute and friendly like E.T., John Carpenter's The Thing depicted a disturbing, grotesque creature of nightmare responsible for some of film's most terrifying body horror. The Thing was so far ahead of its time in horror and effects that it brought the terror into reality. Carpenter's brilliant decision to set the film in the frozen wilderness of Antarctica deepens the isolation and paranoia of every second. The practical effects are unbelievable and so impressive, allowing the actors to interact with the horror and make their performances that much more genuine and frightening. The Thing personifies paranoia as Kurt Russell's MacReady attempts to discover who is alien and who is not, with disgusting and disastrous consequences. Carpenter's The Thing is a gut-wrenching horror masterpiece that deserved so much more acclaim and recognition than it received upon its release.