Arctic Blast - Movie Reviews - Rotten Tomatoes

Arctic Blast Reviews

Page 1 of 3
February 17, 2017
This horseshit makes the execrable "The Day After Tomorrow" look like Shakespeare in comparison...
September 26, 2015
I found that Arctic Blast was good. I do agree that the Special fx wasn't all the best and that the only good acting was from Michael Shanks and Bruce Davison. The plot was pretty good, I definitely think that it worked. Michael Shanks did really well in my opinion, but their was definitely some faults in the casting.
December 29, 2014
As far as low budget, B-grade disaster flicks go this was about what you'd expect. I've seen way worse Sy Fy movies for sure. Decent enough premise (basically borrowed from The Day After Tomorrow) and an enjoyable lead in Michael Shanks who even gets a bit of a back story revolving around his teenage daughter and impending divorce. The story jumps around (a lot) between Philadelphia (actually Ottawa) and Hobart Australia (really Hobart) following a renowned physicist trying to figure out how to stop a sudden climate shift which has opened up a hole in the ozone and is starting a new ice age that could wipeout mankind.

Of course initially none of the higher ups believe the hero scientist when he tells them that bad things are a happening until, well, worse bad things happen. Taking the form of deadly ice fog (-90 deg) killing in seconds and presumably being able to chase cars. Airliners also crash, a research vessel runs aground full of soggy dead scientists, there are frozen surfers, general panic and running in the streets. You know all the stuff that makes for an "awesome" B movie. Some of the insta freeze scenes are unintentionally hilarious, the budget is low so the special effects are lame and of course none of the science works but I still had a good time with this. I am a fan of the good (bad) disaster flicks though. 12/27/14
September 9, 2014
The real start of this movie is Michael Shanks' ego. Bad science, hilarious special effects, and the ever-common "chaos will save our relationship" trope makes this an incredibly fun bad movie.
½ August 29, 2014
The special effects were alright, The rest was pretty much awful!
June 8, 2014
Good movie.Old theme presented in very convincing manner.Technically pretty sound.Some moments touch the heart and hence my 4 star.
½ February 7, 2014
1.5 stars for this movie is very generous. The scenario played out in this film is complete absurd. No suspension of disbelief here.
December 24, 2013
Makes a Chicago winter look warm.
November 24, 2013
One line summary: The ice fog that froze Tasmania spreads around the globe.


Front story: after an eclipse of the sun, there is a major singularity in the Earth's atmosphere, and the drop in temperature starts. All the rest of the film as about: figuring out causation, predicting effects, and constructing a way to stop, then reverse, the effects.

Back story: Jack and his wife Emma are getting a divorce because he spends too much time at work. Of course, Emma also spends too much time at work, but Jack gets blamed for it, since Emma got to her lawyers first.

We have some of the usual themes. A few people know disaster will strike, but the people they contact will not believe them. This happens to Jack as he tries to warn of additional problems after his company's research ship has all on board frozen to death. After a while we get the 'boy who cried wolf' problem; no one will believe Jack no matter what he says. Those in power are somewhat willing to believe the predictions after plenty of damage and death has already occurred. An extra threat comes into play: the child of one of the leads (in this case Emma, Jack's ex) is in jeopardy for a substantial part of the film.

The last usual theme is: the survivors put in a perhaps successful effort to stop the threat.

This fails at first because Jack is 'out of the loop,' and the solution proposed by Winslaw, who is in the loop, is destined only to make things worse.

After the massive fail, will anyone get behind Jack? If so, will they be in time?


Cinematography: 10/10 Fine.

Sound: 10/10 No problems.

Acting: 7/10 Not as bad as many of these formulaic disasters. I liked Michael Shanks. The lesser known actors were were not as bad as I expected.

Screenplay: 5/10 There is nothing new here. I've seen this film at least 30 times before. The themes mentioned above are used just about every time. The only variable is the current threat: meteors, sharks, piranhas, insects, whatever. Fortunately, the movie was easy on the eye, pleasant to the ear, and the SFX were not all deadly bad, as is often the case.
June 14, 2013
not good. the brief depiction of london made me laugh, and occasionally the awful special effects made me chuckle in disbelief. but really not worth it. - and the cinematography nearly made me cry.
June 14, 2013
Awful. It's only redeeming quality is the hilarity that comes from seeing the horrible special effects and the terrible acting.
February 28, 2013
The movie was good. Although too much alike other nature disaster movies. But I still give it a 4 :)
½ December 27, 2012
I realize this sort of movie is just for entertainment and I should just enjoy it, but to do that, for me the show's gotta have at least some little piece of actual science. This movie has none. Zip. Nothing.
½ December 17, 2012
Two and a half stars.
½ December 6, 2012
Definitely a proper C film!1 Star-
November 4, 2012
Another good ecological thriller worth watching in a big screen if it is available for instant streaming.
½ August 26, 2012
vaidybos nulis, o spec. efektai primine '80 metu pc zaidima
½ July 9, 2012
This deserves a 0.25/5 rating, sadly Flixster doesn't allow it. Why do they make films like this?
½ July 8, 2012
Nice play on the disaster genre, but not enough of an "outside" story line to keep interest throughout the movie. A must see for the disaster movie buff, that just has to have seen every available disaster flick out there. Otherwise you can pass it on by without worrying that you've missed something important.
July 1, 2012
Katastrofefilm a la tv norge. Hull i osonlaget, kulde fra atmosfæren trenger igjennom og dreper alt på sin vei. Trodde at minus 45 grader ville gi frostrøyk ut av nei.
Page 1 of 3