User Reviews

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.

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.

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".

I watched this movie because of Micheal Rooker. He's the kind of actor who always brings integrity to his roles, no matter how weak the material might be sometimes. He's a professional and I admire him.

Hypothermia had the makings of a great horror feature. I found the acting to be adequate by most of the cast, and some of the dialogue was interesting and I soon found myself carried along and kind of enjoying it. Also, the fleeting glimpses of the creature through the ice, ratcheted up the tension nicely.

Then this guy shows up in his truck. His character is the cardboard incarnate of every bad character that ever existed in ass-hole form, and after a few minutes his true obnoxious role in the movie became apparent... he was there simply to hold together a rapidly disintegrating plot.

When his son, Stevie Cote Jr, is pulled through the ice and mauled by the creature, he develops a kind of telepathic connection with it; or more accurately, it with him. But this is not fleshed out properly and all it serves is to confuse the viewer, especially since the understanding of the ending hinges on this connection.

And even though the actors tried, they could not save themselves or the movie from what was to emerge from beneath the ice... when it made it's appearance, I laughed so hard I thought I'd either dislodge a tooth or pass out; truth be told, at the time, I really wasn't sure which might come first, because I was too busy trying to stifle a nose bleed as one third of my blood volume tried to escape through the follicles in my head.

Just imagine for a moment, every single crappy creature you have ever seen. I know you've seen a few. Now, I want you to completely discount any misgivings you may have had about any or all of those creatures because, compared to this creature, they were masterpieces born of such creative genius as to be simply visually profound. The "Monster" in this movie is so bad, it would make the creature from the black lagoon look like the "Alien" in Ridley Scotts masterpiece. It will forever be, branded into the deep dark recesses of my Amygdala; and may very well haunt me, until the day I die.

First of all, I'd say ignore most of the other reviews and take this movie on its own merits. Here's the MAYBE minor spoiler, I go along with the others and say they should've stuck to CGI for when you see the monster. But to me, that's a minor thing. Because despite a slightly draggy first 10 mins (considering the whole thing's only 70 mins!) when this thing gets going, it's one of the scariest films I've seen in ages.

Why? The characters are excellently acted. They're not melodramatic movie characters, they're real, visceral, people you could imagine living next door to. So when the monster gets one of them, you really feel like a neighbour's just been murdered. The coloured effect used when the monster's seeing things (I don't think that's a spoiler) is lovely. There's great lighting effects used on the snowflakes. And that director knows how to build a terrifying atmosphere.

Are the effects the best? No, the film had no dough which wasn't its fault. But effects don't make a movie, atmosphere, caring for the characters and, in this type of film, FEELING for them when they die is what matters. Not just 'Oops - add that one to the body-count!' But caring like they were your friends getting murdered. I felt I'd lost people I'd loved to have been friends with by the time that movie was over and I applauded the mother's courage at the end.

That director took something that had not much money, no sets, just a terrific bunch of actors, and pulled it all together into a minor terror masterpiece, in my reckoning. I haven't felt so much sorrow for people dying in a monster movie for a very long time, if ever, and I've watched a ton of the things.

This is a very good film. If you're willing to go along with it for its ride, it will deliver. If you let yourself become the characters' friend you will grieve, like I did, when they die. I've given it almost full marks, less a star for the creature itself, but as a film I have only respect for it.

I joined up to say this, after reading the other reviews. It didn't deserve them.

Chris.

**** This may contain spoilers **** (though its pretty spoiled already by the acting, plot and effects)

Not sure how this movie rated higher than a 1, but as a huge fan of "B" movies, I can honestly say this one ranks right up there as one of the worst I have ever seen (if not THE worst). When the creature finally appeared I wasn't sure if it was a joke or if it was serious. Unfortunately, it ended up being seriously presented as a monster. Its nothing more than a guy in a black swimsuit and a fish mask, with a big fake fin on the back. I saw better Halloween costumes this year on 6 year old kids. The acting was horrible, but I don't blame the actors so much as I do the script and the plot. The lines were often simply horrible. The whole "seeing a yellow aura" after being scratched made no sense. Were they trying to insinuate the person was being turned into something like the creature, or what? You never find out. And then somehow one of the people talk their way out of being killed to it? What? This movie dropped the ball in every possible way imaginable. The character reactions, the acting (except for Michael Rooker, who did the best he could with what crummy lines he had), the effects, all of it except the setting was HORRIBLE. Even for someone who loves cheesy "B" movies, this was just bad. So much potential behind the idea, but the execution was outright abominable. I can only surmise the positive reviews were all planted. I'd rather have a burning UTI than watch this movie again.

This movie is about a family on an ice fishing vacation. On a lake where something supernatural, prehistoric, or just plain stupid, is the top predator.

Yeah, this movie is bad. I don't really remember too many details because I lost interest the very first time I caught a glimpse of the tall, lanky retard in the sh**ty, cheap Halloween costume. The acting is bad. Hell, there were a few occurrences where the same person was called 3 different characters names. In one scene, the son is called David (I think that was the characters name), Stevie (a completely different character in the same scene), and Cody I think. Then 30 seconds later, they call the dad all the same things. Hell, the hot little Asian chick refers to Mr. Pelletier (Michael Rooker) as Mr. Cote on more than one occasion. Cote was the father and son they meet on the lake. The effects were miserable. The creature effects, the special effects, any effect in this p.o.s. was just embarrassing. Seriously, the monster in this looked like either a terrible costume or a cheap bondage (whatever it's called). This movie is bad. Avoid this at all costs. Seriously, if it comes down to it, sell your kid into slavery just to not have to watch this crap.

...the very cool, extremely fast moving and very large creature under the ice turned out to be, on my very first impression, BATMAN. Then, I thought, no, it's all black, and it's got the teeth of VENOM; it's someone wearing a Venom costume!

Yep, it killed people in the movie. But first it killed any chance of me believing anything after that, especially because the script has the fish walking out of water on two legs...

Two legs cannot move us that fast under water, and there's no way that that creature was the large thing we saw underwater. So much for the suspension of disbelief. WE DO TRY, you know, even with these TV movies, BUT YOU HAVE TO GIVE US SOMETHING TO BELIEVE IN!

Man this movie actually started out with a lot of promise. Then the creature actually shows up. A human in a wet suit with some added garbage in this day of CGI? What a load. Until the thing showed up this movie was alright. Decent acting and writing, nice scenery if you are in a warm place since the cast is surrounded by snow, ice, and winds. Then things went to what is becoming the usual for Chiller and Syfy movies, really poor endings. There is no closure in this movie unlike most horror movies, usually the bad thing dies. The monster just goes away after killing all the males, but only after the old mom basically begs for the lives of herself and her sons fiancée. This film could have been so much more than it was.

The acting from most of the cast on this was okay, the setting was suitably bleak and the basic premise of this film was good. The problem for me were the effects and especially the creature itself. The very basic quality of the effects took what could have been an okay horror to something that was, at times, laughable. I did actually laugh out loud when the "creature" ran across the ice looking strangely similar to an ungainly man trying to run in flippers. Considering at other points of the film, the creature's speed on the ice is an integral part of the plot, you would have thought somebody would have looked at the scenes of it running and said "that looks crap" but apparently nobody spoke up. It would have actually been better if the creature had never been shown at all. I realise that this film did not have a huge budget but there have been other small budget films where the horror factor has been huge with the use of suspense and without the use of fancy dress shop outfits. Overall, quite disappointing.

A cheap money grab that didn't even have the decency to end with all these characters dead. And that may sound harsh but if you watch this movie, and I do hope you don't even though it's now free, you'd see that not a single character deserves to make it out. Most, the male ones the movie clearly labels as deserving of death for the sins of either being greedy, vengeful, and unreasonable or being the son of the man with those traits, and the two women who deserve to live because they were too much nothing character and their only thing was that they were women who kept their mouths shut. I know we fans of horror have developed the ability to watch anything but I truly hope we didn't give this our money.

There are a few reasons to see and actually really enjoy Hypothermia. There are also a few good solid reasons to not even bother with this and why it gets some rather harsh reviews. The good to this film is Michael Rooker (more on that later), the setting for the film in the form of a cold, snowy, isolated lake, the suspense and the story are all pretty good. I was actually pleasantly surprised at these positives. The bad though is pretty bad. The supporting cast are barely passable actors, very cheesy and B-Movie amateurs. The run time on the film is just over an hour which usually raises immediate concerns about the quality of the film. If you can't come up with enough story to make a full length film, you have a problem. And finally and the biggest problem...the monster. They literally put a guy in wet suit with some felt glued to him. It was not even amateur, its childish and it just about ruins the entire movie. There are some good performances and tension runs high and you get excited and then this ridiculous looking clown monster comes out and ruins everything they've built. This movie could have easily been an 8/10 if not for that terrible costume.

Michael Rooker single handedly carries this film and makes it worthwhile. Fans of his from Walking Dead will embrace this and you won't be disappointed in him. He buries his fellow cast mates and makes them look even more amateur. The difference in quality of performance from him to everyone else is night and day and then some. The film makers should thank their lucky stars he was involved. Imagine my shock that Blanche Baker, who plays Rooker's wife, is a skilled and experienced actress. She is terrible in this film. I had her pegged as one of the film makers mom's. She is obviously not interested in this film and cares very little about the character. Not surprisingly, the only performance worse than hers is Benjamin Forster as the son. He has very little to no experience in film and it shows in his monotoned delivery that sounds like a grade school play. Amy Chang is almost as bad playing his girlfriend. The two of them together are just extremely amateur and really drag the cast down. Don Wood gives a very good performance as the fast talking, obnoxious Steve Sr. He is actually really good and helps Rooker support this awful cast. Greg Finley is also decent as Wood's son although he doesn't get as big of a part as everyone else.

The problem with this film is half the cast..Rooker, Woods and Finley are great to good, and the rest of the cast are so incredibly awful that they drag this way down. Indie film maker James Felix McKenney has a decent idea, an okay script and managed to land some good actors and probably doesn't even know it. He lets everything fall apart before the film can even succeed. The potential for this to be a good horror/monster flick is actually significant but he handles the making of his own film entirely wrong. Instead of using Rooker, hands down his strongest actor, he ends the film with this god awful melodramatic monologue from one of the worst actresses I've ever seen. The entire last part of the film is two of these terrible actors together on screen. McKenney blew this because there is a lot of potential here. I am even recommending this to horror fans or monster fans because there is enough here to really entertain but be prepared to be disappointed when you see what could have been and how it turned out. I'd like to even give this a 7 but I can't do it because the bad seriously outweighs the good. 6.5/10

B acting, except for Rooker. Liked the movie, the action, the suspense, the scenery, the ice fishing story (been ice fishing many times), but seriously? The creature was completely laughable! Why on earth would they ruin a movie like this? CGI would've saved it.

Worth watching if you like old B-movie creature flicks. The storyline is marred by some off-the-wall decisions by the menfolk that really do border on the incredible. Several times we found ourselves arguing with them (not that it did much good). I think the writers could have focused more on developing the women characters and put them in more believable opposition to the crassness of the men. On the other hand, the acting was good across the cast (Ms Chang had particularly powerful screen presence), and the photography was exquisite.

Spoiler warning

There is a monster. It seemed like a refugee from the 1960s UK TV series 'Doctor Who' (not the 2000s reboot). It had all the screen credibility of James Arness' creature in 'The Thing'. As in the otherwise great 'Night of the Demon', it was probably a mistake to show the creature at all.