CALIFICACIÓN DE IMDb
3.6/10
1.4 k
TU CALIFICACIÓN
Investigadores de vida silvestre y un guardia forestal investigan extrañas desapariciones de animales, solo para enfrentar a una aterradora criatura inhumana que los acecha.Investigadores de vida silvestre y un guardia forestal investigan extrañas desapariciones de animales, solo para enfrentar a una aterradora criatura inhumana que los acecha.Investigadores de vida silvestre y un guardia forestal investigan extrañas desapariciones de animales, solo para enfrentar a una aterradora criatura inhumana que los acecha.
Danielle C. Ryan
- Emmy Harwood
- (as Danielle Chuchran)
Kari Hawker-Diaz
- Marci
- (as Kari Hawker)
- Dirección
- Guionista
- Todo el elenco y el equipo
- Producción, taquilla y más en IMDbPro
Opiniones destacadas
"Snowbeast" is a 2011 TV remake of the 1977 TV film of the same name. This one stars John Schneider.
The titular monster is a yeti, basically a bigfoot that lives high in the snowy mountains. In the original film the snowbeast was hanging around Crested Butte ski resort, Colorado, which is where the film was shot; this remake largely takes place around a posh cabin in the Canadian Rockies. A ski resort is nearby but you'll barely see it. The original movie ripped-off the plot of "Jaws" verbatim and just relocated it to a ski resort while this remake throws out most of the "Jaws" similarities.
The yeti in the original looked quite good for a TV film from 1977, nice and malevolent. I suppose it helped that you hardly got to see the creature. Less is more, as they say.
Which brings us to the main problem with this remake: The yeti is fully seen early on and continues to appear throughout the rest of the film. This wouldn't be a problem if the monster costume was convincing, but that's not the case. The head and face look good, especially the eyes and mouth - very monstrous - but the rest of the costume looks really fake. The body of fur just doesn't look real or lived-in. In fact, it looks like the beast just came from the dry cleaners. Couldn't the producers have spent another grand on the title creature's appearance?
But the cast is good and likable. John Schneider plays a scientist studying lynx in Canada. He brings two colleagues and his daughter from Florida. Meanwhile, the local police department investigates a couple cases of missing persons that, of course, lead to the beast.
For some reason, Schneider is perfect for these types of roles. He's just an all-around quality protagonist. Jason London is also on hand as one of the policeman.
Another big plus are the two women: Danielle Chuchran, who plays Schneider's teen daughter Emmy, and Kari Hawker, who plays Schneider's young brunette colleague, Marci, with whom he seems to have a (mutual) interest. Each is totally gorgeous in different ways.
The snowy Rocky Mountain locations are another plus; very scenic.
CONCLUSION: Both films are about the same quality, although the original version loses points for being a wholesale rip-off of "Jaws." Each were made as traditional monster movies and are therefore pleasantly derivative. In other words, don't look for originality or cutting edge cinema, just enjoy them for what they are. The only major flaw of this remake is the fake-looking fur suit of the creature, which engenders laughs more than frights (although, again, the head & face look good). The plot is much thinner than the original, but the story is somehow less boring, which indicates solid storytelling or maybe they hooked me in with the likable cast. Probably both.
GRADE: C+ or B-
The titular monster is a yeti, basically a bigfoot that lives high in the snowy mountains. In the original film the snowbeast was hanging around Crested Butte ski resort, Colorado, which is where the film was shot; this remake largely takes place around a posh cabin in the Canadian Rockies. A ski resort is nearby but you'll barely see it. The original movie ripped-off the plot of "Jaws" verbatim and just relocated it to a ski resort while this remake throws out most of the "Jaws" similarities.
The yeti in the original looked quite good for a TV film from 1977, nice and malevolent. I suppose it helped that you hardly got to see the creature. Less is more, as they say.
Which brings us to the main problem with this remake: The yeti is fully seen early on and continues to appear throughout the rest of the film. This wouldn't be a problem if the monster costume was convincing, but that's not the case. The head and face look good, especially the eyes and mouth - very monstrous - but the rest of the costume looks really fake. The body of fur just doesn't look real or lived-in. In fact, it looks like the beast just came from the dry cleaners. Couldn't the producers have spent another grand on the title creature's appearance?
But the cast is good and likable. John Schneider plays a scientist studying lynx in Canada. He brings two colleagues and his daughter from Florida. Meanwhile, the local police department investigates a couple cases of missing persons that, of course, lead to the beast.
For some reason, Schneider is perfect for these types of roles. He's just an all-around quality protagonist. Jason London is also on hand as one of the policeman.
Another big plus are the two women: Danielle Chuchran, who plays Schneider's teen daughter Emmy, and Kari Hawker, who plays Schneider's young brunette colleague, Marci, with whom he seems to have a (mutual) interest. Each is totally gorgeous in different ways.
The snowy Rocky Mountain locations are another plus; very scenic.
CONCLUSION: Both films are about the same quality, although the original version loses points for being a wholesale rip-off of "Jaws." Each were made as traditional monster movies and are therefore pleasantly derivative. In other words, don't look for originality or cutting edge cinema, just enjoy them for what they are. The only major flaw of this remake is the fake-looking fur suit of the creature, which engenders laughs more than frights (although, again, the head & face look good). The plot is much thinner than the original, but the story is somehow less boring, which indicates solid storytelling or maybe they hooked me in with the likable cast. Probably both.
GRADE: C+ or B-
I had never heard of this movie and was a bit hesitant about watching it, thinking that this would be just another movie loaded down with lame digital special effects. I decided I'd record it on my DVR while I was at work and watch it the next day. I've actually never been this glad to be wrong about a movie. I was happy to see a monster movie that used good, old fashioned real effects instead of relying only on digital effects. Of course, the effects don't really make up for the predictability of the film. It was just a little too easy to figure out which characters would survive until the end and which ones would end up dead. Overall, not a totally awful movie, but not one I'd pay money to see.
In all honesty I wasn't expecting much, and once again I didn't get much. Certainly I have seen much worse than Snow Beast, but overall I found it lame, with the only really good attributes being the scenery and John Schneider's performance. The effects are really not very good, the creature of the title is cheap looking, restricted in movement and not very menacing or terrifying at all. The script is cheesy and aimless, the story reeks of predictability, the pace is overly-languid and dull, not helped by the too-talky nature of some scenes, and the other actors look wooden, unsurprisingly unable to do anything to their uninteresting and stereotypical characters.
All in all, not the worst film I've seen, but lame with not much point to it. 3/10 Bethany Cox
All in all, not the worst film I've seen, but lame with not much point to it. 3/10 Bethany Cox
SNOW BEAST is the low-budget remake of a '70s creature flick I saw and enjoyed years ago. The difference being that the 1970s version was a proper film, whereas this is a shamelessly silly B-movie that lacks a proper script and the kind of money to make a film that even slightly resembles the earlier version.
Instead, we're bogged down in SyFy Channel territory, with only a handful of cast members and a film that takes place in a single location for the most part. While I enjoyed the icy Canadian backdrop of the story, for the most part this film focuses on a father/daughter relationship which includes one of the most irritatingly obnoxious characters ever...can't we ever have one normal, friendly teenage character in a film for a change?
Spliced into these shenanigans are some tame kills committed by some kind of yeti, although when you see the costume (which looks like something somebody would wear at Halloween) you'll be laughing rather than screaming. The PG-13 rating hurts this one a lot, and you'd hardly be tuning in just to see the cast, either. John Schneider has form battling monsters (having appeared in LAKE PLACID 2, which, while bad, was a lot better than this) but the appearance of Jason London (JASON AND THE ARGONAUTS) makes you wonder what happened to the guy's career for him to be forced to appear in this dreck.
Instead, we're bogged down in SyFy Channel territory, with only a handful of cast members and a film that takes place in a single location for the most part. While I enjoyed the icy Canadian backdrop of the story, for the most part this film focuses on a father/daughter relationship which includes one of the most irritatingly obnoxious characters ever...can't we ever have one normal, friendly teenage character in a film for a change?
Spliced into these shenanigans are some tame kills committed by some kind of yeti, although when you see the costume (which looks like something somebody would wear at Halloween) you'll be laughing rather than screaming. The PG-13 rating hurts this one a lot, and you'd hardly be tuning in just to see the cast, either. John Schneider has form battling monsters (having appeared in LAKE PLACID 2, which, while bad, was a lot better than this) but the appearance of Jason London (JASON AND THE ARGONAUTS) makes you wonder what happened to the guy's career for him to be forced to appear in this dreck.
Since the original film was released back in the 1970s major advances in special effects have bought some truly brilliant films.
Unfortunately the man in a furry coat does not advertise these said advances.
The slow motion sequences do add to the feel of the film - slow.
I am torn as to why this film fails to deliver - maybe it is the wooden acting, a script so predictably awful that is borders on the comic or the attempt to bring horror with monster slippers? Whatever the reason I just regret not using the hour and a half to do something more enjoyable - such as filling in my tax return.
Unfortunately the man in a furry coat does not advertise these said advances.
The slow motion sequences do add to the feel of the film - slow.
I am torn as to why this film fails to deliver - maybe it is the wooden acting, a script so predictably awful that is borders on the comic or the attempt to bring horror with monster slippers? Whatever the reason I just regret not using the hour and a half to do something more enjoyable - such as filling in my tax return.
¿Sabías que…?
- ErroresThe green patch on the snowboarder's trousers (in the forest at the beginning of the movie) switches from the left to the right leg and back again multiple times between shots.
- ConexionesRemake of Big Foot: el monstruo de las nieves (1977)
Selecciones populares
Inicia sesión para calificar y agrega a la lista de videos para obtener recomendaciones personalizadas
- How long is Snow Beast?Con tecnología de Alexa
Detalles
- Fecha de lanzamiento
- País de origen
- Sitios oficiales
- Idioma
- También se conoce como
- The Leopard Seal Apprentice
- Locaciones de filmación
- Québec, Canadá(location)
- Productora
- Ver más créditos de la compañía en IMDbPro
- Tiempo de ejecución1 hora 28 minutos
- Color
- Relación de aspecto
- 1.78 : 1
Contribuir a esta página
Sugiere una edición o agrega el contenido que falta
Principales brechas de datos
What is the English language plot outline for Snow Beast (2011)?
Responda