100 gradi sotto zero

This film is about a man trying to rescue his children from a terrible storm. The storm is used as a prop for the family drama and some parts of it seem randomly thrown in and is inconsistent in its application. Hopefully it had a really low budget.

Don't waste your time. This was an accidental online purchase for us. The movie has horrible acting. Sara Malakul Lane and Marc McKevitt Ewins are unbelievable... so bad that their falls are almost humorous. Bad directing probably contributed to the poverty of the film. There is a random girl in film who's reason for being there is flimsy at best. There is an accident near the end that is bizarre and adds nothing. Special effects are reminiscent of special effects from the 70s.

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.

Bad acting, bad effects, bad script, bad all the way around. But I loved it. I couldn't stop laughing. The father is flying across the Atlantic in a little twin-engine plane and Air Traffic Control asks him to descend from 30,000 feet. What? There's a huge snowstorm that has shut down the airport in London and the father and new wife manage to rent a car. The steering wheel is on the wrong side for the UK. They're driving in a huge snowstorm with the temp well below freezing and rainwater is hitting their windshield along with the fake snow. An 8.4 earthquake hits Paris but many of the buildings, including the Eiffel Tower and Arc de Triomphe are still standing.

Here's a drinking game for the movie: take a drink every time the brother or sister fall down. I think I counted 30+ times. This is my new favorite "Worst Movie Ever." Invite your friends over to watch this really campy movie.

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.