StunnaKrypto Self-important, over-dramatic, uninspired.

AutCuddly Great movie! If you want to be entertained and have a few good laughs, see this movie. The music is also very good,

DipitySkillful an ambitious but ultimately ineffective debut endeavor.

Fleur Actress is magnificent and exudes a hypnotic screen presence in this affecting drama.

suite92 The Three Acts:The initial tableaux: In 1982, a Russian manned probe re-enters Earth's atmosphere, something besides the cosmonaut is on board. The probe ditches in the sea, to the north, near Alaska.In current times, graduate student Sadie, professor and project leader Stephen, and lab tech Ronelle have a grant to study the effect of global warming on Beluga whales in the Arctic. Sadie's grandfather, Captain Graff, agrees to take the academics on his crab boat Harbinger to do the study. Graff and his crew (Dock, Svet, Big G, Atka, Bowman) will catch crab at night. The academics have the daytime to study the whales. Early in this process, they ping the lost probe, then bring it aboard. They discover the extra on board was an engineered organism.Delineation of conflicts: The organism is glad to be awake and have a lot to eat. Stephen wants full credit for the discovery, even though Sadie discovered it. The Russians, as it turned out, have a representative aboard to implement their strategy. The crew of the Harbinger want to survive the elimination derby.Resolution: Will the Russians get their way? Will anyone of the original crew survive?

gumboplosion Loved it, the feel of 80s and 90s sci-fi horror done with REAL EFFECTS not a green screen in sight. The FX team put there skills that where over looked by the director when making the thing remake/prequel that opted for almost total CGI effects (the norm in Hollywood, sadly). Well there loss is our gain, this feels like its what that remake could of offered, some "critics/reviewers" bandy around the word "ripoff" i prefer the term "affectionate nod" as this film has a few nice little touches that some proper fans will see n smile fondly at. Ill leave saying this if you where a fan of 80s/90s horror be of big budget or "B-movie" and you appreciate the real effects that films of that era was built on and the talents behind the bog franchises then this is a fond, welcome long overdue return to those days.

M-Sean-McManus Did you see Alien or Aliens? Did you see John Carpenter's The Thing? Did you see Jaws? Have you watched Deadliest Catch? If yes, then you've seen this film, almost everything about it is derivative-- dialogue, plot, characters etc. That being said, this film is surprisingly much better than it's one star rating on Netflix would suggest. I've recently made it my mission to see as many one stars as possibly and I can assure you this film is pretty well put together. If anything, it could use a more consistent and "big budget" looking color correction and I think the standard viewer's impression might raise their impression of this film up a notch.

clarkmick33 I understand what the director was trying to accomplish but this movie just did not come together - there was no sum of its parts.The movie premises was good if not a little similar to The Thing. However the acting was terrible......the actors filled one dimensional boxes of characters they portrayed and I found that the lead actress was this stone faced block. Others looked like they were being told what to do behind the camera. It just did not seem natural.The monster...........instead of being aggressive and sneaky it just likes to hide in dark spaces and that's what it does for the most part of the film - the design of he monster was well did not really make sense. Part human, part fish part plant....it was like some bad 80's B movie.Lastly this movie has no suspense - the main ingredient needed for good horror movies. Its obvious what the monster is, where the monster is. Ultimately at the end I really felt I had watched a bad 80's horror B movie.