100 Graus Abaixo de Zero

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.

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

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.

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.,

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.