Avalanche

The official, and indeed most accurate title of this film is "Avalanche", but approximately two dozen of other movies have the same title. It's also available as "Escape from Alaska", but that's a rather incorrect title because people are not trying to escape out of the state, just out of a little Alaskan town named Juneau. My point? Everything starts with a good, strong and accurate title.

I honestly don't want to sound too harsh. I really love disaster movies, the bigger the better, and "Escape from Alaska" is a fairly amiable - albeit lacking - attempt. Throughout of the 90s, there were several large-budgeted productions revolving around natural disasters, including pandemics ("Outbreak"), volcanic eruptions ("Dante's Peak", "Volcano"), meteorites ("Deep Impact", "Armageddon") and heavy storms ("Twister"), but yours truly always preferred the true magic of the 70s. I detected a bit of that seventies' spirit in "Escape from Alaska", but unfortunately not enough.

For starters, nobody was ever able to raise humongous budgets like producer Irwin Allen could. I wasn't expecting blockbuster standards, but the special effects in "Escape from Alaska" were truly poor. The miniature sets, the washing power (or whatever it was they used as snow) and the unfitting stock footage of avalanches makes the film look really pathetic. The cast isn't exactly impressive, neither. Fallen-stardom actor Thomas Howell and R. Lee Ermey are the only noteworthy names.

What the film does quite well, however, is splitting the characters into two camps with completely opposite ideals and/or initiatives. The environmental activist and her guilt-ridden helicopter pilot boyfriend form one camp, against reckless oil-industry tycoons (you can practically see the $-signs in their eyes) and middle-class Alaskan workers for whom no refinery means no income. This results in the heroic duo having to embark on clandestine pipeline inspections, rude press-conference and board-meeting interruptions and (pitiable) barfights.

Last but worst, the disasters in "Escape from Alaska" aren't disastrous enough, and there are far, far too many sentimental moments. Another unwritten rule of disaster movies is that the misery and the bad breaks keep on coming non-stop, and that when situations appears to be at their worst, it can and will still get even worse! In this film, this is only partially true. There are plane crashes, malfunctioning helicopters, and supposedly even polar bear attacks, but none of it is thrilling enough.

I would have to say based on Hollow Point, Black Point, TimeCop 3 and Ulterior Motives, OF COURSE Griffith would do a movie like this. It's practically perfect for him. I'm not saying he's a bad actor or that the movie was particularly good. I think maybe his performance made the movie worth watching.

The story line is a bit too simple but it does have a plot and that is after all what it takes to keep most movie fans in the zone. The budget was clearly too small because there was way to much green screen. But the stunts were rather good, the lines were pretty realistic and most important of all, the acting was good. It's wasn't great but no where near bad.

I read the reviews just after watching the first 15 minutes, and didn't think they were good reviews at the time, because the film had a very good start.

Then the rest of the movie sunk in.

While I don't agree with this being the worst, or even one of the worst, ever, it was very disappointing after a start that looked like it had potential.

We begin with three chief characters, a young couple who are protecting wildlife in Alaska, and their handsome pilot friend. They aren't Grizzly people. They're tagging and watching the cute little animals.

It all begins rather well. They are likable, and their friends seem fairly real. After an avalanche changes the status quo, two years pass, and the pilot has lost a lot of his confidence, which made this look like it was going into a fresh direction.

Well, then it looks like they brought in a new writer named Joe Cliché. It got very trite after that. You would have to watch it to know how trite it became. Unbelievable, after what looked like a decent beginning.

This made the movie more disappointing than everything. I still liked the two leads, because they were worth liking, and that salvaged the movie for at least "treadmill or elliptical" viewing, but it was very corny.

And while I liked to see them survive their brushes with death, I would prefer those escapes to be at least partially credible. We cross over all lines of credibility. And that's disappointing.

I'm too flabbergasted by the clichés to even begin to mention them. If you scratch the first 15 minutes, it might even look like a comic farce.

It's one of those movies in which the people involved probably think they either made something much better, or much worse, than they actually did. When you're involved in a project like this, you don't see the glass as half empty. It's either full or empty. Truth be told, it's less than half full, but still passes for mild entertainment.

The movie isn't as bad as many of the voters up till now are saying. The movie is nice to watch, although it isn't a high budget Hollywood movie as STAR WARS 3. So, you may expect that the special effects and avalanches shown are not as real as you could get them , but still they are acceptable. The story makes up for it. Don't watch this movie for it's special effects, but just to see a nice watchable movie which is in general of medium+ quality, taking all things together.

The is certain a tension building up while watching the movie, which is also a little predictable, but, again, still acceptable.

Generally speaking, the votes on IMDb are low, for many many movies. Why ? I don't know. It's isn't me, I think, having watched 1000+ DVD's. Indeed there are bad made movies, but this one isn't all that bad at all.

If you wanted to see a movie , just for fun, with no complicated but reasonable enjoyable plot, this is surely one for rent.

I'll give it 7 point, just making a statement it's not a super movie but worth watching.

Want one Reason to buy or watch Avalanche 1999? Want it or not it's Hilary Shepard as Annie. Let the non-existent polar bear eat the others, but give me more of that killer babe in those tight spray-on pants. Like the best wines she just keeps getting better with age. Great casting, even better wardrobe, and who cares what she says or doesn't! She looks great doing it !!!!! Stock footage? Who cares???? Hilary forgives a multitude of sins! If she were on the other side of the confessional, I wouldn't miss going! Avalanche is a better view than the nightly news, a credit I'd take, and cash is cash - no pro on the pic has anything to be embarrassed about. Not every pic needs to have or can have a 'billion' dollar budget. It's a watch able film & I'd for one visit Alaska because of it. It's probably more accurate, true to life, etc. than Election 2004. A good film to have on in the background or work to.