Apocalypse de Glace

This is by far the worst excuse for a movie I have ever seen. Even the bad movies on the Sci-Fi channel that usually involve fill in the blank giant creatures eating people are better. I could make a better movie with my cell phone in my basement with my neighbors as the actors. Jeff Fahey was interesting in "Lost" but could have phoned this performance in and he was the only one in the movie with a modicum of acting ability. I can't believe I paid $6.99 to watch this mess on pay- per-view. Not one redeeming quality in the whole movie. My husband and I watched in disbelief as it just went from bad to worse. The special effects were not special at all. They were just ridiculous. The girl actor kept falling down and wasn't very good at it. She should not give up her day job of modeling. The other actors were amateurish. Overall, just terrible.

I don't usually post reviews - BUT WOW. This has got to be one of the worst things I've ever seen. I've watched through all kinds of garbage, sci-fi originals, terrible found footage horror movies and pretty much everything in between. I can't even begin to summarize the worst parts of this pile of crap. This is a truly terrible experience. The "acting", the script (I'm seriously wondering if there was one), The "special effects" pretty much every aspect of this thing is laughable.

In the end I was left with the following questions: How does something of this quality makes it out of the home studio? How long does it take to make something like this, a couple weeks? There are some decent (At least I thought they were before) actors in this, what was the incentive, a trip to Europe? In the end though, really why bother?

This disaster movie was about the onset of a mini-ice age in Europe, caused when the ash from numerous volcanoes blocked the sun, cooling the planet. The volcanoes were a accompanied by numerous earthquakes.

I don't watch a lot of low-budget movies, so I found myself fascinated by how cheaply they were able to tell their story. Other movies spend millions showing the effects of an earthquake. In this movie the camera shook and the actors fell down. There were a lot of earthquakes and a lot of falls. To show they effects of the falling ash from the volcanoes, they put the actors in a car, sprinkled what appeared to be clumps of laundry detergent on the window and then sprayed the windshield with a lot of water while the windshield wipers spread the detergent back and forth. As the climate suddenly cooled the actors began rubbing their arms with their hands and remarking how cold it was. And they filmed a car in a location with a minor snow storm.

Now I watched this movie on Netflix. It cost me practically nothing, probably not much more than the movie cost to produce. And it was worth every penny I spent and more.,

I wasn't expecting much from 100 Degrees Below Zero in the first place. And coming from somebody who's sat through a lot of The Asylum's movies and hated most of them with a few exceptions, I knew what to expect. Why do I keep watching The Asylum's movies if they are so bad?(a question I've come across countless times by those defending any of their movies) Because there is something compulsively watchable and (when they're not insulting your intelligence) entertaining about them. As said I knew what to expect from 100 Degrees Below Zero, but even that didn't stop me from thinking it was terrible. The scenery is quite nice, but because everything looks as though it was constructed in a haste and with no love I found that I couldn't enjoy it. The camera work indicates either inexperience or somebody who doesn't care at all about how the movie looks, while the special effects for the storm look like a very rushed last-minute job. Audibly, the movie is little better if at all, the sound mixing is murky, while the music is generic and sluggish in tempo, adding absolutely nothing to the atmosphere. Clunky is a good way of describing the dialogue though it's also too kind describing it too. It is also silly and awkward, structurally so thin you wonder sometimes whether there is even a script. There is nothing original in the story, I would forgive that if there was anything interesting in the telling of it but the complete lack of fun or thrills as well as the dull pacing indicate otherwise. The way the characters fall is also hilarious, unfortunately for 100 Degrees Below Zero I don't think that was intended. The characters are cardboard and you don't care for a single one of them. There are even some that are introduced but seem to be there for absolutely no reason. The acting is really poor too, Sara Makaul Lane is a slight bright spot but she is a long way from great and her character and dialogue shares much of the blame. Marc McKevitt Ewins is very wooden and bland in the lead role, and if you're going to use talented actors like Jeff Fahey and John Rhys-Davies at least give them something interesting to work with because they came across as wasted here. Overall, terrible, regardless of whether you're familiar with The Asylum or whether you know what to expect or not. 1/10 Bethany Cox

The description of this movie reminded me of the movie "The Day After Tomorrow," so I watched it on Netflix. I'm sorry that I did. This could possibly be one of the worst movies I've ever watched.

The acting was utterly terrible. I liked the theme of the movie but the plot was extremely disappointing. The only good thing was that it was suspenseful - whether or not the parents and kids will make it to the Eiffel Tower.

It would've been slightly more okay with a better group of actors, a director who knows what camera angles are good, and a better script. It had potential but fell flat on its face.