100 Degrees Below Zero

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 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?

If the point of this production was to make one of the worst movies possible, then it was a success. I've seen better directed pornography, which incidentally, also had better acting. Nothing about this movie makes sense. If it weren't for the measurements of Sara, I probably wouldn't have been able to watch it until the end. Definitely not work the cost of electricity to turn on the DVD player. This piece of amazing should have gone straight to the garbage. It's not even good enough to go to television, as cable companies would have to pay advertisers to use their commercials during this movie. If this was made by a first year film student, it still wouldn't excuse the quality, or lack thereof, of this thing.

Yes, it's another typical Asylum film, but we saw plenty of films from the 60s, 70s, and 80s that were much worse. At least it proceeds with some sort of plot and story-line. It's silly, but coherent. You can hear all the dialogue, which is sort of unusual for recent films.

There ARE a few things you have to overlook. For one, the bargain basement FX. It's also sort of weird to have virtually no extras, even in the normally crowded streets of Paris. The best way to watch this is to play the drinking game: every time someone falls down, you take a shot. You'll also enjoy hearing every Brit speaking with some unusual accent.

Definitely not worth the scorn it receives. See it if only to hear the geese story.

Not a bad concept, and with the presence of Jeff Fahey and John Rhys Davies I had hoped for a little better. But, sadly "100 Degrees Below Zero" leaves one standing on a snow bank that isn't quite tall enough to cover you.

The majority of the plot & dialogue circles around the two adult/late teenage children running around the City of Lights (aka Paris), trying to get to a location where their father, played by Jeff Fahey, a former/retired US Air Force Officer & pilot, can 'rescue' them in time to board a NATO flight executing "Operation Down Under". The script could have been a bit better, but the acting from the two children was downright sad, poorly executed, and on the corny side. Given the number of times the son gets hit, falls over or is knocked down to the ground (at least five by my count) one would NOT expect him to be able to get up, let alone run. Some of the accidents & "encounters" with other minor characters seem forced and trite, but in a sense could BE reasonable given the overarching plot.

As one reviewer said, I've seen far worse films executed from the 1950's, 60's & 70's. Thankfully, this film is just under an hour and a half, and is bearable if you really want to waste the time doing something else while watching this. I don't normally like to pan films, however in the hands of a different screenwriter, director, and slightly better talent, this concept could turn out to be as good as or better than Armageddon or 2012.