A chronicle of the life and art of the comic, provocateur, and social critic, George Carlin.
Busy character actor Michael Rooker (The Walking Dead) provides the main impetus to see Hypothermia, an old-fashioned creature feature about a monster lurking in the depths of a frozen lake. Rooker acquits himself well in his everyman role as a husband and father who takes his family on an ice-fishing vacation; once there, his plans are upset by the arrival of an obnoxious father-son duo, as well as the more disconcerting discovery of an aquatic monster with gastronomic designs on Rooker and company. Produced by Larry (The Last Winter) Fessenden's Glass Eye Pix, which oversaw such inspired independent horror films as The Innkeepers, House of the Devil, and Stake Land, Hypothermia aims for the lean, no-nonsense feel of a '50s-era monster movie, with director James Felix McKenney (Satan Hates You) executing the story in just 72 minutes. That approach hones the focus down to the struggle between Rooker and the monster, though it also leaves little room for fully developed characters that are more than just victims in waiting. One can also appreciate McKenney's decision to use a full-body suit for his monster instead of CGI, but the result is awkward and unconvincing, which neutralizes much of the tension used to set up its appearance. Still, Rooker does much of the heavy lifting, with able assist from vet Blanche Baker, and the chance to see him in a heroic lead role after decades of heelish character parts may be the picture's chief selling point. --Paul Gaita
Top customer reviews
There was a problem filtering reviews right now. Please try again later.
Compared with the same company's "The Innkeepers", and "Stake Land", I consider this the best; "The Innkeepers" being dethroned due to me overrating it or because it doesn't stand up to repeat viewings (although due to problems on my Innkeepers disk really it bears mentioning, thank the Lord the disk worked at all!)
Now, this movie - it was good, but there's more worth mentioning with the negatives. The good being, it was quite generic, yet solid with interesting characters. Even the obnoxious jerk behaves like he's unaware people are viewing him as one. What might interest people is the families band together to catch the monster before finding out that it's lethal instead of for survival. A saying I'm unsure of the original source, was something about leaving the audience wanting more, and I would've enjoyed seeing these characters more.
The negatives - besides being anticlimactic there's something that keeps happening in the movies this company produces, which is quite atypical of normal horror, but I kinda know it's going to happen. I had some suspicions of who would die, which were technically inaccurate in the details but in general fell within the expected parameters.
There's alternate artwork on the inside of the cover, which seems more appropriate for a film like this and should've been the front cover.
One other issue: some people had issues with the monster effects. The monster was onscreen for maybe three minutes total. Frankly I can't consider that a significant issue, and don't understand why anyone would, especially since, well...
I've left the immature/borderline trolling "Jaws" review I'd written from 2006 untouched to highlight that I've matured over the years.
I consider it a good film though. BUT reportedly, Spielberg feared that the effects would his career. If special effects which feature little meant that much, "Jaws" would terrible... right?
Please utilise THE COMMENTS BOX if you think I'm missing something with that logic.