the leading man is my tpye

This movie feels like it was made purely to piss off people who want good shows

This is one of the best movies I’ve seen in a very long time. You have to go and see this on the big screen.

Blistering performances.

for actors more than for story. because it is the film of their. with few clichés and construct of terror, stereotypes and interesting solutions for a trip who is defined by mysteries in decent humor. for the portrait of characters and for the memories about similar films, about the same theme and not real different solutions. a film who preserves the flavor of a genre from a special period. and, sure, maybe, nostalgia.

This is one of those films that starts out great and remains so for the entire duration. It's also The Thing: Train Version, so that helps. And it's got Peter Cushing, Christopher Lee and Telly Savalas in it. And Victor Isreal and I'm seeing him everywhere these days.Lee plays an English aristocrat out pilfering from other cultures in the name of science, and this time he's picked himself up a creepy looking frozen fossil that he intends on talking back to England via the Trans-Siberian express. Peter Cushing is a friendly scientific rival who ends up on the same train. Plus there's loads of non-English actors but who cares about them, eh? Thing is, this fossil is still alive, and smart, and likes to suck people's brains out through their eyes (not literally, but it's still a great effect when the victim's eyes bleed and turn white). The fossil himself looks pretty creepy too, and makes his way through a rather large amount of the cast (and then turns some of them into zombies!).Lee is at first disbelieving, and Cushing is brought in to do autopsies on various corpses, plus there's the problem that the fossil/monster thing can switch bodies - but who can tell who is the Thing and how will Kurt Ruseetlwhoisjdh.Lee and Cushing are always great so there's no worries there. Savalas turns up later and does his thing too. There's plenty of atmosphere here, and the bodies literally pile up towards the end. And for those that doubt - it's online free. Why argue with that? And I've just read they only had one train carriage to film in? Madness.

Good sides Location. The whole story happens on the train. It's peculiar. Remember "Blood" (the video game)? The most thrilling level (my opinion) was on the train that was running through the darkness. Music. It's impressive. Actors. They are grand and gorgeous. All the ladies and gentlemen are hoity-toity from top to toe. Cossacks. To witness this kind of cliché (in costumes and behaviour) is entertaining.Bad sides Cossacks. Yes, they are in a bad one too. They are not just funny but pathetic too. And they are speaking English which makes them unrealistic (couldn't they hire real Russian actors with minimum lines and maximum show-off?). Russian characters here DO look fake. Western audience will not notice it probably.Ugly sides Words. Too much explanation near the ending (by the beast itself). It spoils the enigma of the initial scary moments. Too many words in a horror flick should be avoided. And making speeches about the terror from the outer space is boring. Fake monk. Absolutely unrealistic and loony monk. Instead of battling the beast he kneels before him asking for power, but in the beginning of the movie he acts like a prophet. His way of behaviour and looks are very unorthodox for an orthodox priest (too much make up is used by the actor, by the way), so the director shouldn't have put him in the movie (or at least on the train) at all to keep this feature running in the right direction. In "Exorcist" the priest is credible and perhaps that is why that cinema became a worthy classic. And do you remember the priest in "Prince of Darkness"? He is depicted as a buffoon too. Can't put "a worthy classic" tag on it too.Verdict: being very well polished on the outside (costumes, music, scenery), the cinema is shallow in its impact upon the viewer, mostly due to unrealistic characters. And there is not a single tough screen guy or a memorable lady to rely on or to sympathize with - just cannon fodder.Sorry for this sketchy comment, much is left to be added still.The IMDb rating for this one is OK, - a 5 out of 10 from my side. Thanks for attention.

When I first searched for "Horror Express" on YouTube, the Cushing/Lee credits made me assume it was a Hammer film. But to my surprise, none of the usual Hammer names appeared in the production credits, and realized that this was actually something different. I decided to give the movie a chance, and was rewarded with a pretty good movie. "Horror Express" is interesting in that the scope and feel of the story and the ideas at play are somewhat more inventive than the typical monster film from the period. What starts out as a "Yeti rampage" turns into something quite different: the thawed out "fossil" that breaks out of its locked coffin is more of a gorgon/basilisk than a killer ape, and its origins turn out to be extra-terrestrial rather than supernatural. And things get even more complicated when the "creature" is revealed to be able to possess minds as well as "draining" them - so it doesn't just kill its victims, it subverts and corrupts their very identities.And if it escapes from the train, it might cause untold damage at loose in the world...which raises the stakes even higher than just "personal survival". Putting the whole story aboard an exotic train traversing the wilds of Siberia was a clever choice that reinforced the claustrophobia and isolation of the setting as well as interesting props and sets. Cushing and Lee are their usual excellent selves - how many actors from that era could discuss "extra galactic intelligence"s with a straight face and make you believe it? And the rest of the cast keeps up. There's not a flat tire in the cast (although I think Savalas' accent. was somewhat jarring and out of place in this setting). IMO, "Horror Express" is one of the finest movies in its genre, and it is well worth hunting down and seeing if you haven't already.