MOVIE TRAILERS

Watch: First Full Trailer for Universal's 'The Thing' Prequel Emerges

by
July 14, 2011
Source: MSN

The Thing Trailer

"I'm going to take a tissue sample…" It's time. It's time to meet The Thing. Universal has debuted the first official trailer on MSN (via The Playlist), finally after months, for their highly anticipated prequel to John Carpenter's The Thing, oddly also titled The Thing. This just looks awesome and creepy and badass, I'm in, I can't wait, it really does look great. Starring in the film is Mary Elizabeth Winstead, Eric Christian Olsen, Joel Edgerton, Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje and Ulrich Thomsen. I just love the thrills and intensity of this trailer. It's best to watch it fresh, not expecting anything, so dive right in before it's too late!

Watch the first official trailer for Matthijs van Heijningen Jr.'s The Thing, originally via MSN:

The Thing is directed by Dutch filmmaker Matthijs van Heijningen Jr. It's set at another Antarctica research site that's invaded by an "alien life form" (the same one from John Carpenter's 1978 film, as this is a direct prequel). The discovery of an alien craft brings in graduate student Kate Lloyd (Winstead) who partners with Sam Carter (Edgerton), a helicopter pilot, to hunt down this alien. "[They've made a film] that takes place in the same reality as Carpenter's: a place where the people on screen are real and the way they react to an alien entity is the same way you'd react if you were there in their situation." In theaters Oct. 14.

Find more posts in Hype, Opinions, To Watch, Trailer

Discover more around the web:

Loading...
  • Armeetapus16
    that classic 80's pulse note is what finally sold me. just one of the things I loved about the 80's "Thing"
    • NICK S.
      in all honesty, dude-THIS doesn't look anything like the 1978 film... "pulse" is the very THING it seems to lack. it could easily be mistaken for just about every other "whatever" horror flick to come out within the last 4 or so years.
      • Anonymous
        I think he was talking about the soundtrack, which does contain the 1980's pulse note.. I can't describe it better than he does. Whilst it does seem to rely more on shock tactics, there is a lot of similarities to the original. Sadly these shock tactics are used when movies have nothing else going for them - I really hope in this instance, that's not the case.
        • Anonymous
          yeah, that Morricone soundtrack to the Carpenter version, the first, long Antarctic mountains shot and the chopper... superb. unfortunately, like armeetapus16, it just made me think about all of the great scenes in that film - and then how they appear to have been duplicated here. sure, it's supposed to be a prequel, so the setting should be familiar, but there's much in this *trailer* that looks a whole lot like Carpenter's film, dialogue, scenes, the works. fingers crossed the trailer's using familiarity to draw people in to a *different* story. so, 'Why don't we just wait here a little while? See what happens...'
          • Anonymous
            'Why don't we just wait here a little while? See what happens...' Well said, man...well said.  Kind of hard to do on the  'Net, but....I'm with you on that.
        • Hmmmm
          Agree.  This one is going to be a real stinker....
      • Nick's voice of reason
        Nick, check your facts. Also, you're an idiot.
    • Cruzer
      Same here. This looks like it could be good, but who knows.
  • NICK S.
    ****. this looks terrible. goddamn it. the original was a CLASSIC and look what y'all did...
    • Djloki
      You know the Carpenter version is not the original right? His movie is based off of 'The Thing from Another World' released in 1951.
  • Eternwizard
    The ONLY way I will really like this is if the only two survivors at the end wind up chasing a dog and only speak Norwegian. Then they get shot by some Americans.
    • Tester
      That would be awesome if they tied it that closely to the original.  But that would probably mean that the lead chick would die at some point since she was not in the chopper nor found in the frozen Norwegian outpost.
      • good comment + the chicks are nowhere to be found in the body of the thing they examenid  I mean no titties and no great asses just teeth, arms and a few dogs
    • blackasenna
      I have heard that this end with a direct tie in, that should make the 2 film splice into one. Fingers crossed. Oh and if you pause the trailer around about 2:10 during the fast montage section you do indeed see a Norwegian guy looking very much like he is heading out for the begining of the Carpenter film. 
  • Anonymous
    That looks like a scene-for-scene remake of the Carpenter version. If they were given the rights to do a prequel why not give it a period setting or something? Disappointed.
    • Anonymous
      Doesnt the Carpenter version pick up immediatly after they lost contact with this team?
  • Dr. Zick
    JC's The Thing is in my top 3 horror films, alongside AAWIL and DOTD. That said... I am personally loving it... practical fx, hints of Ennio's score, I'm just not too sure of the female leading character. Anyways, I'm there opening day.
  • Bltzie
    so they DO speak english huh? 
    • a lot of people from Nordic countries speak English perfectly well. 
    • yep and suddenly they forget how to speak english, when they discover the american scientific team lol
      • Jericho
        panic of destroying an alien capable of wiping an entire species WILL do that to you.....
    • Tester
      I really hope they do not ignore this very basic point of the original.
      • Tester
        Or they could do what they did in Valkyrie and make the switch for the audiences sake.. Although that would not explain the American names
  • Jon
    I agree with Pendy. It looks like the same story. Even some scenes look the same as the original.
  • NeoSlyfer
     I want to watch this
  • Anonymous
    Really man, How can you call this BAD ASS when its a remake almost shot for shot with a woman and larger budget? Why not do something a bit different qwith the material? Does this not look super predictable? I mean, why watch something you already seen a million times again with diff actors? They even got the scruff down and the famous table monster scene... I mean, if you want bad ass watch the original...
    • Tester
      I think he meant within the context of the trailer.  We all knew what to expect given the timeline and location of the first movie, theres not much room for change.. Its not like they can have the ship crash Jamaica and take over the island
    • Chazzy
      Yeah, definitely a shot-for-shot remake.  Cuz you totally saw this PREQUEL already.  Right? GTFO.
  • MovieNerd69
    It'll be hard to live up to the original. Carpenter had a gift for making films that were really unsettling, "The Thing" being among the best. I hope they're not trying to make a blockbuster action flick out of this one...
    • Anonymous
      Hmmm...you mean the original 1951 version, right? No offense meant, but while I do like--hell love--Carpenter's film, it's only considered a classic NOW, years after its original release.  It was mauled by critics back in 1982 and was considered a box-office flop. Thankfully, time has been a lot kinder to JC's THE THING, and I'm still willing to see this prequel.  That's the only way I'm going to judge it--to see the whole thing rather than pull the standard "It sucks (add-body part)-and-will-bomb-even-though-I-won't-see-it!!" bullpucky.
      • Betty
        The only reason the 1981 version of The Thing was given a hard time back then was because of the language and the gore.  Not the acting or the premise of the movie.  Now we look for bad language and gore consequently the tight asses that panned the movie in 81 love it now.  I personally loved it then and still do.  I do not think this prequel is going to "fly".  Heard it is going to have subtitles a lot.  Pretty hard to watch a fast paced action flick and read the words scrolling at the bottom at the same time.  
        • Pmd_44
          The Thing wasn't much of a fast-paced action movie. It was more of a slow-paced horror movie.
  • Tester
    ScopeDog.. where are U !!!
    • Anonymous
      Right here, Tester... Liked the trailer, especially the Morricone riff at the end.  Look, this might work--judging from the interviews with the cast and crew, they are really trying to make this match up to Carpenter's 1982 classic (which, as most know, was a critical and commercial failure....but it has gained the respect it truly deserved over the years).  It could suck--but you know what?  It ain't as if Carpenter's film will go poof! and vanish.  The 1951 version didn't fade away after Carpenter's film, no?
  • Gplongwood
    Way to ruin another classic.  Call it a prequel, but use almost the same story and add a woman.  
    • Oh my fucking god!!!, watch the first movie!! and this goes to everyone who says its a scene for scene of the original, what do you expect different??? you want Rambo to come in guns blazin or them to first start out in a jungle and then mysteriously appear in the arctic? of course its the same story, other than the women and the Norwegians, they have to keep it as close to the original... that saying, all im asking is that they dont add some stupid twist to the movie, and that they explain most of the stuff we saw at the Norwegian base in the first one 
    • A Villa88
      Way to talk out of your ass like everyone else here seeing how this is a prequel to the 1982 film which was a remake to The Thing From another world (1951)
      • yeah not to mention, the 1951 version had a woman too
        • Anonymous
          I know, right?  I mean, by God and Sonny Jesus.... You know, a 1978 script for a remake to THE THING (See? Remakes have been around for years!!) actually had 3--count 'em--women in it, but it came across as a blend of IT CAME FROM OUTER SPACE and INVASION OF THE BODY SNATCHERS.  Not a bad screenplay, but...Carpenter's film was the better one.
      • Tester
        The 82 version is not a remake/reboot/sequel/prequel or whatever you want to call of the 51 version.  It is simply another take ( and more accurate ) of a short story !!
        • Anonymous
          True, Tester (although I'm often calling it a remake myself...so is it better to call it a "re-telling"?). Funny thing is, this movie covers the discovery of the ship and the alien and how it is revived....and that's how the original short story starts! While JC's version is more faithful to "Who Goes There?", it didn't have that.
  • Loser
    No go away I will rewatch the original masterpiece instead
    • Anonymous
      You mean the 1951 version, right? Believe me, what you said...a lot of critics said that back when Carpenter's film was released in 1982.  But I like 'em both...Carpenter's more.
      • Scopedog, can i just say youre like the only person here with sense!
        • Betty
          Correction Scopedog is the only one here so full of himself and thinks he knows it all.  Everyone has an opinion and yours isn't the only correct one.  Get over yourself!!!
  • mikem
    Nothing to add that hasn't been said above... Horrible attempt at cashing in on a horror classic masterpiece.
  • Anonymous
    If it's really bad we just KILL IT WITH FIRE!
  • How about originating on the storyline instead of replicating it with new people. Seven hells. How about...wait for it...a story from the alien's perspective.
    • Anonymous
      Uh.... Nah, all I'm going to say is, go hunt down Dark Horse Comics' "sequel" series to THE THING.  There were three mini-series (but they had to call it "THE THING FROM ANOTHER WORLD".  Or play the videogame. Problem is....they kind of do what you're griping about.  But check them out....
  • Xerxexx
    I wouldn't call this a remake, it genuinely seems and feels like a prequel. I'll see it with an open mind and willingness to like it. 
    • Cody W.
      As long as there's a walking spider head I'm in.
      • Cody W.
        Or walking head spider, or maybe Spiderhead would be better hmmm
      • Anonymous
        man - in the original classc, when that spiderhead sprouted legs and walked.....that FREAKED me out! classic horror.
    • Anonymous
      Best thing to do, Xerxexx.  That's what I'm going to do, anyway. And besides...if it's awful, well...it ain't as if Carpenter's film (or the 1951 original) will vanish.  Heck, maybe the critics will actually go back and watch the JC film and enjoy it, since a lot of them trashed it back in '82...
  • Anonymous
    Its a horror movie what do you expect? It ain't Shakespeare.
  • Being Norwegian, this is a must see.
  • jah p
    THis looks awesome!Even though it seems just like Carpenter's version, it still looks good, I love the whole tone of the movie...
  • grimjob
    Agree with Xerxexx. If they truly wanted to cash in on the Carpenter classic, they'd have just made an actual remake. they seemed to be intrigued by the back story, and wanted to explore it further. I'm all for it. Hopefully they don't fuck it up. Open mind.
  • Roche
    Remember Carpenters Things is a remake as well. The original film is 'The Thing From Outer Space' so for all those saying you are ruining a classic think again your 'Classic' is just another hollywood remake.
  • Anonymous
    I think someone in the production dept didn't understand the difference between "remake" and "prequel". Still I guess there's not a whole lot of things you can do different in a remote Arctic research facility (shanty is more like it) so somethings will, by nature, be entirely similar (read: totally lifted). Sadly not very interested in this anymore:(
  • happy camper
    i feel so bad for this generation, no more creativity... 
    • Decompose
      why so serious?
  • JT
    For the last time you idiots, it's a prequel not a damn remake! It looks similar because it is supposed to be.
    • Tester
      And for the last time, the 82 version is NOT A REMAKE !!
      • Fuck You
        Thank you!
  • Decompose
    What is going to make or break this movie is the twist at the end which is going to a) give more insight into the nature of the thing and b) give opening for a sequel. Think those who have seen the original will know that at the end the creature tries to freeze itself. What I think the sequel will show that that isnt necissarily in one place ; ). ThinGk about it!
  • Lamar
    Before anyone says anything, I have seen the original The Thing numerous times and love it. That being said, this looks awesome.
  • Jon A.
    Jesus Alex, the original movie came out in 1982. Not 1978. Fix your mistake already.
    • Fuck You
      Thank you!
  • Jon A.
    Jesus Alex, the original movie came out in 1982. Not 1978. Fix your mistake already.
  • Cracky
    Excellent. The best parts for me from the original were the scenes when you don't know who the FUCK the Thing is impersonating. Extremely unsettling. Here's hoping this one delivers.
    • and then everyone turns on each other!.. thats what most films miss now, the suspense!!
    • Anonymous
      That always freaked me out too--who's really human, and who isn't?
  • The woman should be the monster the whole time. #winning 
  • can someone please explain to me why this "Looks" like a Fucking!! remake? cause to me it looks like a prequel...
    • Xerxexx
      That's what I'm saying!
    • Anonymous
      'Cause some people just want to b#&*h and moan... Oh, and they must be Pre-Cogs, since they KNOW it will fail... Christ...is having an open mind a goddamned crime now?  Sheesh....
      • Tester
        no s#!^ !!
  • Leeseymours1984
    It's already been confirmed on another site that when they went on a set visit  they saw the scene where 2 Swedish ( sorry Norwegians 😉 ) are taking off in a heliocopter and the dog running off. So it will tie into the original I just wished they'd called it THE THING FROM ANOTHER WORLD
    • Anonymous
      Hmmm....good point, but...remember the 1951 film is called that already--THE THING FROM ANOTHER WORLD.  Ironically, Dark Horse Comics used that title with their "sequel" miniseries (three of them) to Carpenter's film.  If you can find them, get them--they were pretty good.
  • Anonymous
    How come Mary Elizabeth Winstead isn't a big star yet? She looks great
  • JussHaten
    I thought this was a good trailer! But, it may have gave away to much of who is the THing. I think this will be a good movie that will keep you guessing if done right. I will prolly go to movie for this one. I'm tired of seeing PG-13 flicks! I hope they do the same thing to Aliens. I would like to see how the colonist were taken over by the Xenomorphs in detail. 
  • Meh.
  • They Sold me at Mary Elizabeth Winstead.
    • Have Hope
      They lost me at Mary Elizabeth Winstead
      • Fuck You
        LOL
  • Have Hope
    WHAT IS SAW IS A REMAKE!!!! Criminal and scandalous COPYING direct scenes from Carpenter's film. Forget this movie.
    • Anonymous
      Uh, no, it's not a remake. Repeat after me...it's not a remake, it's not a remake, it's not a remake.... Got it?  It's not a remake.
      • Have Hope
        Oh, it's not a remake? Why are they copying scenes from Carpenter's film if it's not somewhat of a remake? Tell me that. Go on
        • Anonymous
          Because it ain't a remake.  Period.  It's a bloody prequel.  And the reason WHY it looks "familiar" to you is because it has to match up with events in Carpenter's film. That's like you calling the STAR WARS prequels "remakes". Why not just read up about the film instead of being close-minded and wrong about it?
          • Anonymous
            Scopedog win, Have Hope lose.
        • Dude your name is Fucking Have Hope!!.... HAVE HOPE MOTHER FUCKER!!!! Listen to Scopedog!!
  • quazimotto
    I enjoyed the trailer. Liked seeing the "find" and watching them bore the ice for a sample, but, it seems like that was about as far into originality as they're going to go.  After that sequence ended, the trailer played like a blatant copy of the original, with updated effects and Scott Pilgrim's girlfriend as the lead...maybe she has an evil ex-alien he has to defeat...or maybe Hollywood should stop making reboots and do something original for once.
    • Anonymous
      Quaz, remember...it's a trailer.  And it's not a reboot or a remake. And also...Carpenter's film is a remake.  Just to keep things (no pun intended) in perspective.
  • Anonymous
    i hope this "prequel" can approach  the same atmosphere, paranoia and intensity of the original movie. the trailer is pretty good - but, i'm not 100% sold..
  • Anonymous
    S'okay, beevis.  I'm keeping my fingers crossed, having an open mind...but I remember the director saying that he wanted this film to end in such a way that you could pop in JC's film and it would be a smooth continuation.  So, that's why they are busting @$$ to make sure it "matches  up" to Carpenter's film.
  • sonnychiba1
    Hmmm a prequel with the same characters, scenes, sets and story.  I think someone wanted to avoid the 'reimagining' bandwagon.
  • Razor
    I did like the trailer. Good atmosphere! I will watch this movie for sure!
  • Razor
    BTW: To say "That looks like a scene-for-scene remake" is bullshit at its best!  You see snow in antarctica, a sleddog and it is a "scene-for-scene remake"? Ridiculous! If you can watch a 2 minute trailer and can see this its really impressing, no.. wait ... it is miraculous!!!
    • Craig
      You're right, calling it a scene-for-scene remake is a stretch. But it does look more like a remake than a sequel.
      • Anonymous
        Actually, Craig, while it may _seem_ similar in places, it is a prequel--not a sequel or remake.  For "sequels" to the 1982 film, best thing is either check out the videogame (which was awesome) or read the Dark Horse Comics that were put out in the 1990s, but have been re-issued in trade paperbacks.
        • Isaac Truder
          Damn, you can repeat yourself as many times as you want. Call it a prequel if you want to. It's still a prequel THAT BRINGS ZERO NEW IDEAS TO THE TABLE, so it's baffling why they didn't just do it as a remake. Probably because they know everybody loves Carpenter's version so much that nobody would go to see this if they knew it was a straight remake.
          • Anonymous
            Well, I'm going to repeat myself again and ask you--how do you know that it brings "ZERO NEW IDEAS TO THE TABLE" (your caps!) if you haven't seen the film? And "everybody loves Carpenter's version" now, but they hated the living Jesus out of it back in 1982.  And there are still a lot of people who have not seen Carpenter's version, even though it's been nearly thirty friggin' years since it came out.
  • Have Hope
    The scene with the dog in the cage, the way they film them all in the room....i think it's the SAME room that they use.  Film is a load of crap. SKIP
    • Anonymous
      You haven't seen it yet--so how do you know it's crap? Unless you are 1) psychic, or 2) you went into the future and saw the movie.
  • Anonymous
    Um ya its a prequel.  In the original, the crew found it if I'm not mistaken and they found out that the crew before them were killed because of it.  So in this new film, yes it is going to be a similar story.  But here is the deal...If you got a problem with it, then don't go see it.
    • Anonymous
      "But here is the deal...If you got a problem with it, then don't go see it." Snake, you nailed it right on the head.  Great point.
  • David Banner
    Watch this, ca 01:18 the song in this trailer is preformed http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A9xLMWBZh_Q&feature=related lol! Hey Lolelå, lolelå lålelå lålelåa.....
  • David Banner
    Ah, lol! I just realized its called "The Thing" ??? WTF, why does it not have another title??
    • Fuck You
      ....
  • DAVIDPD
    They will all perish.
  • Jtg870
    I'm a grown man and the original still scares the crap out of me..... I'm curious of what may come of this remake. One question thou, who is playing the Kurt Russel badass part? Is it her?
    • Armeetapus16
      This is not a remake, it's a prequel
  • shit i love this already 
  • Excel
    I'm Sorry, this trailer gives me the Impression, that this film is just a re-telling of the first film, The Thing.
  • Anonymous
    OK, so we know that this is set in the Norwegian outpost (the flags and the accent of the camp leader), but the rest of it seems quite derivative of the 1982 film to me: the dog biting its way out of its cage; the autopsy scene after burning the initial Thing configuration; the tracking of the cell division; the chase in the ice tunnels; the discovery of the ship, etc. etc. Even some of the cast members look similar (e.g the guy with the ginger beard). The Carpenter original worked because of the combination of Rob Bottin's amazing effects and the constant ratcheting of tension, never knowing who was still human. I hope the new film keeps the sense of paranoia and desperation and doesn't resort to cheap scare tactics and CGI - this trailer doesn't look great in that regard. Having a young attractive American woman in the lead seems more like a cynical marketing ploy than anything actually required by the story. I hope I'm proved wrong, though.
  • Kurt Russell's Beard
    The biggest problem with this, ignoring the obvious point of it being a shot-for-shot remake of the 1982 version, with a woman and a higher budget with today's technology, is the fact that the Norwegian Camp was nothing more than a BACKSTORY. A backstory is not to be confused with the main narrative of a text; it simply serves to enhance and inform the main plot. This is why the film is going to fail on story alone. And why is it now, that Hollywood feels the need to explain everything? Can't we have some form of mystery or allow our minds to speculate, rather than have this ideology crammed down our throats? Mystery is the biggest compliment. Leave these films alone!
  • Jack
    oh yes! shitting on classic movies,pace by pace by unknown and weak directors...yesterday "total recall",to day "the thing" and another day maybe casablanca...shame on companies they to that for goddamn money....
  • Jack
    oh yes! shitting on classic movies,pace by pace by unknown and weak directors...yesterday "total recall",today "the thing" and another day maybe casablanca...shame on companies they do that for goddamn money....
  • DDR2
    another B movie,never think about an original thing.every thing is CG and actors reactions are fake,because no real explosion and no real cold and no any real shit...every thing will done in fucking pc.
  • CC Catch
    original the thing was great,i hope for better one.
  • Richie
    That trailer was terrible. Don't get me wrong, I think the movie looks potentially good, but hollywood has to stop with the shitty trailers
  • Ron Torque
    Looks great, i loved the first movie..I know this one aint gonna rock like the old one but we'll have to see.
  • Tester
    So the latest count is:  The 51 original version, the 78 version that only Alex knows about, the 82 remake version, the 82 re-imagining version, the 2011 remake to the 82 version, the 2011 sequel to the 82 version, the 2011 scene per scene remake of the 82 version, the 2011 remake of the 82/51 version and finally the 2011 prequel to the 82 version..  Did I miss something ?
  • I really start to get irritated by the horror cliche of just suddenly pulling someone from the leg and drag them away while they scream.
  • JennyB
    Warning: ...kinda spoiler'ish'ish... This is how I imagine this movie will end: Kate isolates herself from the infected and stay locked inside for a long time. One day she ventures out and stumbles upon another camp - the one from the original movie. As usual the protagonist has to defeat the "Boss Monster" at the end. Remember how the original began and ended? Kurt Russel lost the chess game on his computer, right? Guess what, Kurt was infected in the end. He outsmarted everyone, incl. the audience...Checkmate Baby! So Kate is gonna fight against Kurt as a freakin' The Thing-Monster!! 😀
  • At the beginning of 82 version there is a sign that says UNITED STATES SCIENTIFIC.....and some other junk. But it was an American post setup so if the characters speak English so be it. This prequel does have differences that immediately jump out from the trailer. They take a sample of the life form, 82 version didn't(they dissected it after burning it in the dog cage). It shows them running around I suppose a lair, which in the 82 version was likely destroyed they only find a hole in the ground.
  • ok someone, anyone of you annoying assholes tell me how this looks soo much like the original and dont be a douche and tell me "it just does" or "it has a group of people in the arctic" cause either some of you are just being whinny little birches or you havent even seen the JC's version and are just going with the crowd because from what i remember there was a Norwegian base in the arctic, there was some Norwegians, there was a a big block of ice in the norwegian base. and there was snow!! i dont remember in the first one them finding blood and saying "either someone miraculously healed themselves or someone isnt who they say they are" i remember Windows witnessing the first person get infected and then from there they realize theres an alien pretending to be human, i dont remeber them saying "hey we just made a discovery and now were gonna be rich"... i know i may seem overreacting but JC's The Thing is my favorite movie (yes i have seen it, the walking head spider is cool and funny but the scene that got me was the blood test scene) and i hate that people cant just say "ill give it a chance"
  • corey allen
    The thing came out in 82'not 78'.
  • Pfdong
    Hi everyone, can i just say that when i heard that this film was being made, i nearly pissed my pants with joy. The trailer looks , in my opinion....Awsome, edgy , full of tone an all that bollocks, an if it is shit, i`ll just wait for the sequel lol, i`m sure that`ll be gud. Peace....Paddy
    • Anonymous
      Well, give it a chance....but if you want a sequel to the Thing....try and hunt down Dark Horse Comic's three miniseries from the 1990s that picked up after the film.  They were all pretty good, and I think you can still find the TPBs on Amazon or the individual issues if you look hard enough. And then there's the videogame....that was great.  And scary.
  • Pmd_44
    Hmmm. After reading the wikipedia article bragging about the use of animatronics and practical effects, I'm a bit disappointed at what looks like quite a bit of CGI in this trailer...
    • Pmd_44
      Or is it just the lighting, film stock, colour correction, or something else that's making real things look computer generated?!

FEATURED POSTS

POPULAR COMMENTS

OUR FAVORITES

Alex's Top 10 - 2016
1. La La Land
2. Paterson
3. Arrival
4. Captain Fantastic
5. 20th Cent. Women
6. Pete's Dragon
7. Jackie
8. Kubo & Two Strings
9. Everybody Wants
10. Wilderpeople
Click Here for Thoughts

Jeremy's Top 10 - 2016
1. Moonlight
2. The Handmaiden
3. High-Rise
4. Elle
5. Arrival
6. Kubo & Two Strings
7. 13th
8. Jackie
9. Toni Erdmann
10. The Witch
Click Here for Thoughts

FOLLOW US HERE

Subscribe to our feed or daily newsletter:
Follow Alex's main profile on twitter:
For the news posts only, follow this acct:
Add our feed to your Feedly: follow us in feedly

FACEBOOK + LINKS