NOTE IMDb
4,6/10
1,7 k
MA NOTE
Les conclusions Thom Archer, suggèrent que la société qui effectue des forages sur le glacier du Groenland, provoque sa fonte. Il se rend donc en Arctique pour trouver des preuves. Il réalis... Tout lireLes conclusions Thom Archer, suggèrent que la société qui effectue des forages sur le glacier du Groenland, provoque sa fonte. Il se rend donc en Arctique pour trouver des preuves. Il réalise alors que l'humanité est menacée.Les conclusions Thom Archer, suggèrent que la société qui effectue des forages sur le glacier du Groenland, provoque sa fonte. Il se rend donc en Arctique pour trouver des preuves. Il réalise alors que l'humanité est menacée.
Parcourir les épisodes
Avis à la une
I love disaster movies, and weather catastrophe disaster movies :) This one is just fine. It's intelligent, well-enough paced, good special effects, and enough drama and excitement to keep it moving along.
I think maybe people who were expecting something fast-paced with thrills and spills and all that jazz were probably disappointed. In fact, it's a fairly intelligent tv drama. There are kids in it, but they aren't at all annoying, the way most kids in disaster movies seem to be. There's a grandpa, and Ben Cross brings a likeable real-life-person quality to him, rather than being the folksy, taking it on the chin for the women-folk kinda thing.
The Brits are good at this kind of movie, and they do it again here. I like the combined UK-NZ collaboration. There are a lot of NZ actors that we don't see enough of (I first saw Taika Waititi on Brokenwood Mysteries, for example!).
I liked it. As opposed to other weather disaster movies, this one seems fairly realistic, and I didn't for one moment feel that this was something I could survive. Good enough for that reason alone ;>
For a start it's way too long. Couple this with some ham acting and a dodgy plot and it's easy to start to lose focus and let your mind wander. That said the production isn't bad, some of the SFX are a iffy but for a TV movie they've not done a half bad job to be fair. Overall though it's all very implausible so that causes it to lose credibility. It's a poor mans 2012 I guess.
If you're at a loose end for 3+ hours, knock yourself out. If you like dodgy tv moves, knock yourself out. If you have the attention span on a goldfish or detest cliches and cliched storylines then you're gonna struggle.
If you're at a loose end for 3+ hours, knock yourself out. If you like dodgy tv moves, knock yourself out. If you have the attention span on a goldfish or detest cliches and cliched storylines then you're gonna struggle.
Well, with this being a TV movie in mind, then "Ice" wasn't actually all that bad. But it was no "The Day After Tomorrow" either, although it essentially is the same.
Storywise, then "Ice" did prove to be entertaining enough, although the movie was somewhat suffering from being predictable and stereotypical. But take it for what it is, and the movie is fun and enjoyable in itself.
Effect-wise, well then "Ice" doesn't impress. The CGI were adequate enough, but what made the movie suffer was the horribly fake movie snow that was used in almost all scenes that involved snow, and the equally fake ice walls shown in the crevasse. It was so fake that even a blind person would point a finger and laugh. Seriously, despite being from 2011, the effects were better than such even back then.
As for the people on the cast list, well they did good enough jobs with their given roles. People brought a good amount of enthusiasm and energy to the movie and their characters, which made the movie turn out to be more enjoyable.
A lot of the scenes towards the end of the movie was starting to become too much, especially the amounts of snow that apparently had fallen in record time, and the degrees that they said were outside, yet the main characters were able to withstand that cold in thin clothing, and not a single hint of ice on their bodies. It was like time was running out and they had to wrap up the movie fast and efficiently. And that just made it seemed rushed and not believable in any way.
"Ice" does manage to raise something interesting to think about, such as man's constant quest for fossil fuel, man's disregard for the ecology of the world in which we live, and the heartless nature of the corporate giants. If you are one of those environmental concerned people, then this movie does manage to plant a seed for thought. So "Ice" does entertain and leave you with something once the end credits start to roll.
Storywise, then "Ice" did prove to be entertaining enough, although the movie was somewhat suffering from being predictable and stereotypical. But take it for what it is, and the movie is fun and enjoyable in itself.
Effect-wise, well then "Ice" doesn't impress. The CGI were adequate enough, but what made the movie suffer was the horribly fake movie snow that was used in almost all scenes that involved snow, and the equally fake ice walls shown in the crevasse. It was so fake that even a blind person would point a finger and laugh. Seriously, despite being from 2011, the effects were better than such even back then.
As for the people on the cast list, well they did good enough jobs with their given roles. People brought a good amount of enthusiasm and energy to the movie and their characters, which made the movie turn out to be more enjoyable.
A lot of the scenes towards the end of the movie was starting to become too much, especially the amounts of snow that apparently had fallen in record time, and the degrees that they said were outside, yet the main characters were able to withstand that cold in thin clothing, and not a single hint of ice on their bodies. It was like time was running out and they had to wrap up the movie fast and efficiently. And that just made it seemed rushed and not believable in any way.
"Ice" does manage to raise something interesting to think about, such as man's constant quest for fossil fuel, man's disregard for the ecology of the world in which we live, and the heartless nature of the corporate giants. If you are one of those environmental concerned people, then this movie does manage to plant a seed for thought. So "Ice" does entertain and leave you with something once the end credits start to roll.
I can't lie I did skip through some of it, because at times it was agonising to watch. It felt a little bit like Flood, which had been done some years before, a disaster TV series.
It does have a very, very impressive cast list, Stephen Moyer, Richard Roxburgh, Simon Callow etc, they fight against the somewhat dubious script.
It is far fetched beyond belief, but it does have some nice special effects.
They get points for forecasting that 2020 was the year of catastrophe, they got that spot on.
It's watchable enough, 5/10.
It does have a very, very impressive cast list, Stephen Moyer, Richard Roxburgh, Simon Callow etc, they fight against the somewhat dubious script.
It is far fetched beyond belief, but it does have some nice special effects.
They get points for forecasting that 2020 was the year of catastrophe, they got that spot on.
It's watchable enough, 5/10.
Le saviez-vous
- AnecdotesTheres a cool homage to The Thing with the National Science Station sign looking exactly like the one from The Thing.
- GaffesThere is no explanation of what happens to the lone cabinet minister who stays behind.
Meilleurs choix
Connectez-vous pour évaluer et suivre la liste de favoris afin de recevoir des recommandations personnalisées
- How many seasons does Ice have?Alimenté par Alexa
Détails
- Durée
- 1h 32min(92 min)
- Couleur
- Mixage
- Rapport de forme
- 1.78 : 1
Contribuer à cette page
Suggérer une modification ou ajouter du contenu manquant