>>215532762
I don't know what is this but
you can literally see two hints on that poster alone
>from the fx team
lolwut
>Lance Henriksen
he's kino but literally takes any shit role they offer him

>>215532762
It's a good movie to show how even the best practical effects need good directors to not look like shit.

>>215532762
it's not good, no. It's worth it if you like The Thing type movies, but going in with low expectations helps a lot. Not disappointed that I saw it, but I don't think I'll go out of my way to see it again.

>>215533062
>It's a good movie to show how even the best practical effects need good directors to not look like shit.
yeah I guess this was the first thing that this guy ever directed and it shows. I've seen better direction on the Hallmark Channel.

>>215532884
>lolwut
After it came out that The Thing prequel's practical effects were covered up with shoddy CGI at the last minute because of retarded executives, the fx studio who had their work thrown out decided to take advantage of the outrage and crowdfund a movie to show what they were capable of doing. unfortunately it sucked ass.

>>215533339
and the effects themselves don't even look good because of the awful cinematography and lighting.

>>215533339
>>215533383
honestly if The Thing effects looked that bad, they made the right call with cgi