In this third installment of the Final Destination series, a student's premonition of a deadly rollercoaster ride saves her life and a lucky few, but not from death itself which seeks out those who escaped their fate.
Mary Elizabeth Winstead,
Paleontologist Kate Lloyd is invited by Dr. Sandor Halvorson to join his team who have found something extraordinary. Deep below the Arctic ice, they have found an alien spacecraft that has been there for perhaps 100,000 years. Not far from where the craft landed, they find the remains of the occupant. It's cut out of the ice and taken back to their camp but as the ice melts, the creature reanimates and not only begins to attack them but manages to infect them, with team members devolving into the alien creature. Written by
The scene where Sander and Finch recruit Kate to come to Antartica is the only scene in this film or in John Carpenter's film that doesn't take place in Antarctica. See more »
When Kate Loyd is inspecting the mouths of her colleagues for fillings she appears to be using an LED flashlight which did not exist in 1982. It was not an LED flashlight. It does look like the beam from the light is touched up with special effects to make it more apparent, but this is not a goof. See more »
Okay, I've got another one. A good one. A man and woman are making love one night when their young boy walks in.
See more »
SPOILER: There are a few short scenes during the first part of the end credits, which tie the ending of this film to the beginning of the 1982 film. See more »
Whoever made this movie didn't understand what was great about John Carpenter's 1982 version. The Thing was terrifying because there was TENSION. There is no tension in this "prequel." The creature does not attempt to "hide inside an imitation," it tries to kill everyone in it's proximity without ever being threatened or exposed. This movie contradicts or screws up everything we knew of this timeframe (what took place at the Norwegian camp) from the original movie. Yes, some bodies and objects end up in the same place we saw them in 1982, but other MAJOR events are completely altered. There is nothing worse than making a movie under the title or license of an established classic, and butchering it into a paint by number of Hollywood clichés.
125 of 222 people found this review helpful.
Was this review helpful to you?