Avalanche

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.

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.

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.

It really is about as bad a movie as I have ever seen. It is hard to find a single redeeming thing to say about it. The acting was awful; the romance totally unbelievable. I guess I'd never seen Juneau before in a movie. I would recommend that you watch it only if trapped in a mountain cabin room with a TV but no other furniture, books, people, radios or light and if you aren't tired already because this one will certainly put you to sleep. I like disaster movies and can watch the worst of them, and have, but this one has made me rethink ever watching one ever again. It gave a whole new meaning to the catchphrase disaster movie, it is a disaster to watch, not just about a disaster.

first off this is not a horrible movie as most of you in these discussion boards have pointed out,, do I care that polar bears don't go as far south as Juneau,, no I really don't care.. most people won't ever even know the difference till some people decide to nit-pick a movie to death. Thomas Ian Griffith did a great job with the movie,, to bad the female lead was awful,, liked R. Lee Ermey's character. John Ashton was good to. I loved all of the wonderful Alaskan scenery as depicted in the movie. and yes the polar bears south of Juneau too, the storyline was great.. about the Pipeline, being built by a company knowing that it sits right on an area where avalanches are prone to happen, great action in this one. plot pretty good,, I just wish people wouldn't be so harsh on a movie like this.