SYNOPSICS
Hypothermia (2010) is a English movie. James Felix McKenney has directed this movie. Michael Rooker,Blanche Baker,Benjamin Forster,Amy Chang are the starring of this movie. It was released in 2010. Hypothermia (2010) is considered one of the best Horror movie in India and around the world.
Ray Pelletier just wants to spend a pleasant and relaxing weekend ice fishing with his family. Alas, Ray's plans are ruined by the unwanted presence of the obnoxious big city father and son duo of Steve Cote and Stevie Jr. However, the two squabbling families are forced to set aside their differences and work together after a vicious monster awakens from the cold waters of the remote frozen lake area they are staying at.
Hypothermia (2010) Trailers
Same Actors
Hypothermia (2010) Reviews
You will most likely not catch a cold from this one...
"Hypothermia" was somewhat of an adequate movie. It turned out to be rather interesting and promising, as it had a great storyline and it was good at building up suspense. But, in my opinion, it all came tumbling down to the ground hard and fast when the creature was actually revealed. The story is "Hypothermia" is about the Pelletier family who lives in a cabin out by a big lake. They are out for a family outing of ice-fishing when they discover that there are no fish in the lake, and something big and fast is swimming underneath the ice. Storywise, then "Hypothermia" is actually interesting and quite good. I was thoroughly entertained by the story and the plot. And the movie was helped along a great way by some good acting. The people they had put in the movie for the various roles were doing good jobs with their given characters. Especially Michael Rooker and Amy Chang were doing great jobs in carrying the movie and bringing their characters to life on the screen. However, the movie really halted when the creature was brought out and shown to us. It looked like a cheesy 1970's rendering of an Innsmouth creature straight out of a Lovecraft homage. It was an eyesore and it appeared more like a joke and laughable than it did scary and menacing. Unfortunately that creature brought down the movie overall for me. If you enjoy creature flicks, then "Hypothermia" isn't perhaps the best of choices, unless you are a die-hard fan of anyone on the cast list. There are movies available with far better creature effects. But then again, if you are looking for a movie in which the creature will have you laughing, then perhaps this might just be the right choice. I know I would be scared if I was being chased by a guy in a horribly fake creature suit like that.
A good weekend movie if there's not much else to watch.
This movie wasn't that bad really. It had the potential to be a really good little film but even though it had some good bloody scenes the actual "beast" itself was not the best. In fact, for me it was what let the film down a bit. But in saying that it was not the worst creature film I've seen. Michael Rooker was not bad in this and he was the reason I wanted to see this movie. But I thought this film could have been much better if only they spent more time on the effects and the story as it was only 70 minutes long. Again, I liked this movie but it wasn't ground breaking, but it's the kind of film you would watch on a chilly weekend when there's not much else to see. So I give it a 7 out of 10.
Good movie, good acting, but that monster..... My, oh my!
My wife and I were really getting into this movie, until we saw the monster. We love Michael Rooker (been following him, since he was a serial killer in HENRY) and the rest of the cast was decent. This movie has a great title, an interesting winter locale for a backdrop and some decent writing. What kills it is the monster. Interestingly, the documentary shows the crew marveling at how it looks, but the body looks a lot like a wetsuit with arm flaps and claws on the finned feet. The head has constantly exposed teeth and big eyes. Aside from the teeth opening and closing, it is very static. It doesn't help that the performer moves like a man, when on the ice. In the water, he swims like Patrick Duffy did in the MAN FROM ATLANTIS television show. I know I'm going on about the monster, but it really was laughable. My suggestion would be to make it a flesh color, with darker patterns mixed in. Cover it with scales and add some open/close lips to that mouth. Have it move on all fours and some seaweed type of appendages hanging from it. Guy in the suit aside, the movie was well made and had some nice CG shots of something big swimming under the ice where the actors were standing. The monster POV shots and title sequence were nice. What really worked was the idea of a family trapped in the middle of a frozen lake. I commend Michael Rooker for working on a small production, while giving it his usual strong effort. This could have been a minor classic.
Something smells a little fishy...
So, what was that all about? Obviously, if you finished the movie, you enjoy B horror films, and this one was, well, kind of blah. The buildup was a little odd in that the father almost dies on the ice within the first five minutes, and doesn't even take the next day off to fully recover?! Also, do people really sit out on the ice all day fully exposed like that without a full hut? Anyway, the film had an OK story and actors, but it just didn't come together to the point where I really cared about any of the characters, and at points, I started rooting for the fish-monster-ish thing. The moment the one kids arm was slashed and his father started going a little OCD, I would have been back in the cabin roasting marshmallows. The Highs: The cast was actually good, minus the wealthy gadget-obsessed dad. His roll could have been half as intense, and it would have added twice as much. Also, the mechanics of the film were solid (good soundtrack, lighting, filming, etc.) It wasn't perfect, but it didn't hold this film back from the possibility of being a fun cult hit. The Lows: The monster... we saw way too much of it in a far too abrupt way. The director should have taken a page from Hitchcock on that front. Also, the young couple seemed more like distant friends vs. people about to tell his parents they are going to get married. Perhaps a PG romantic scene in the cabin would have added to the realism. Oh well... They all can't be awesome B horror films.
Yes, yes it was...
I'd read the other user reviews of this movie, noting the criticisms of the creature's appearance, i.e., how poor the costume was. I thought that it couldn't be as bad as the other reviewers said that it was, could it? Yes. Yes, it was. It was quite possibly one of the worst attempts at creature creation that I've ever seen. The creature was CGI'd as it swam about under the ice, why wouldn't the film makers just continue the practice when the monster appeared above the ice? The monster's costume looked like someone took a speed skater's uniform, dyed it black, sewed some webbing under the arms, and tossed in a rubber fish head mask. It really was that bad. Going with an actor in a live action costume over a computer generated creature added absolutely nothing to the movie; if anything, it detracted from the film. I've seen Michael Rooker in other movies, particularly "Slither" and "Tombstone", and he usually turns in solid performances. In this film, he was about as provocative as a slice of dry white toast. But his lackluster performance was far from the only thing wrong with this movie. Rooker's family, in the movie, hauls from their shoreline cabin, a small makeshift ice fishing encampment using only a small child's wooden sled. Later, this same distance is deemed as insurmountable by almost any means. What is even stupider is that later in the movie, as Rooker's character, along with his wife and his son's girlfriend, head for their cabin, Rooker's character surveys the ice with a pair of binoculars. His wife asks him if he can see any traps laid by the monster along the way. Rooker replies that he doesn't see any, that there's only a big hole in the ice near the shore, not too far from their cabin. Gee, there's no reason why a deadly predatory beast would emerge through a huge, convenient hole in the ice, is there? Even more bizarre and ridiculous is the empathic/telepathic communication between Blanche Baker's character and the monster at the end of the film. Yes, this movie is that stupid. It endeavors to be a sort of ice fishing version of "The Creature From the Black Lagoon" and it fails miserably. By the way, the costume for the Black Lagoon creatures is literally hundreds of times better than the costume for the monster in "Hypothermia".