Any new movie titled “The Thing” comes with baggage. The story of a creature that takes over the bodies of its victims—it literally is what it eats—has been filmed several times, first in 1951, then, most famously by John Carpenter, and now as a prequel, inventively titled “The Thing.” What to expect? Well, more and less of the same.

The new version is an origin story and, like the others, is set in Antarctica. We learn more about the alien, how it came to Earth for instance but it feels like we actually learn too much. The mystery of Carpenter’s version is gone, replaced by straightforward horror chills and thrills. Carpenter’s film was a …, this is a creature feature.

Don’t get me wrong, the CGI is fantastic—a real step above from the ’82 version—and there are some gruesomely scary moments, but the tension and paranoid feeling that made Carpenter’s film a classic, is gone.

Tags: 3 Stars, Sci-Fi & Fantasy

"In Time," a new sci fi film starring Justin Timberlake and Amanda Seyfried, is as timely a movie as will be released this year. It's an allegory for the haves and the have nots. In this case 1% of the population controls 99% of the world's most precious commodity--time. Instead of occupying parks, however, our hero JT sets out get time back on his side.

This movie has a lot of time of its hands, or should I say forearms. "In Time" takes place in a world where people are genetically engineered to stop aging at twenty-five. Sounds like Eden, but this is a dystopian world where once the calendar clicks on your twenty-fifth birthday the clock starts ticking. Literally. A digital readout appears on your forearm and you have one year until time runs out. But, because time is money--again, literally--your wages top up your clock, buying more time. When a time millionaire willingly gives Will Salas (Timberlake) a century of his time, Salas finds himself on the run from the Time Keeper police and one step closer to discovering the secret link between immortality and poverty.

Insert the word "money" for "time" at any point during "In Time" and the story reveals how run-of-the-mill it is. Stripped of its sci fi premise it should have been an interesting comment on the divide between rich and poor but, is instead, content to be a tepid action film. Not smart enough to be an interesting metaphor and not wild enough to be a thriller it falls between the cracks.

JT hands in a performance that makes you wish he would bring the sexy back. The more leads he does in movies, the more i can't help but think his triumph in "The Social Network" was some kind of fluke.

But, as bad as the movie is Amanda Seyfried somehow remains compelling. She is so unusual looking, like an alien cupie doll, and that otherworldliness gives some flavor to her disconnected rich girl character.

Neither is helped by a script which provides as many unintentional laughs as genuine ones and whose idea of witty banter is: "You forget I almost killed you a few times." "I'm willing to overlook that."

“In Time” has an interesting-ish premise, but unfortunately there is not enough quality time in the movie to earn a recommend.

Tags: 2 Stars, Sci-Fi & Fantasy

Robotropolis: is a low-budget robots go nuts movie. With no stars, a familiar story and a few gruesome moments it will likely only appeal to robofans.

Tags: 2 Stars, Sci-Fi & Fantasy

Cole (Bruce Willis) is sent back in time to save the human race from a deadly virus that has forced mankind into dank underground communities in the future. Along his travels, he encounters a psychiatrist (Madeleine Stowe) and a mental patient, brilliantly portrayed by Brad Pitt, who may hold the key to the mysterious rogue group, the Army of the 12 Monkeys, thought to be responsible for unleashing the killer disease. Believing he can obtain a pure virus sample in order to find a cure in the future, he is met with one riddle after another that puts him in a race with time. This sci-fi masterpiece from the genius mind of Terry Gilliam is a modern-day classic.

Tags: Sci-Fi & Fantasy