I don't hate this movie. In fact, I quite recommend it. Invite some friends over, make some popcorn, point and giggle. MST3K would have had a field day with this one.
What's wrong with the movie? That might take longer than the actual movie to tell. Start out with the styrofoam and sugar Antarctica set, complete with a size-changing ice cave, a skeletal body (frozen for the last 10,000 years), the amazing archaeological feat, which no one has even got around to mentioning, of dating cave paintings all over the world to the same day, the ability to take scrapings of paint and find out where the magnetic poles were at the time the cave was painted... and of course, no one can survive absolute zero, except the people who painted all these cave paintings. And that's just the first twenty minutes.
And of course, science is never wrong. But your science is wrong and mine isn't.
A definition to start with for the filmmakers: Absolute Zero is the temperature at which all molecular motion stops. It is not a cold and snowy temperature.
Apparently no one can survive Absolute Zero, but people behind lab doors. With skylight windows. And Absolute Zero has the power to cause time lapse photography.
Absolute Zero can be predicted by a pair of ditsy grad students down to the last second. From analysis of paint scrapings. The filmmakers also seem to think that polar shift can occur either in a few hours, or in two hundred years. They need to be gently guided to the concept of geological time. And let's not forget that when telling someone to get into the lab when the compass needle points to a certain direction, it's helpful to say, "When you're facing the lab door" or something like that, because -- uh -- compass needles move when you do?
I was fascinated to find that low temperature is actually what sucks people out of airplanes. I always thought it was low pressure. Hmmm, better be careful next time I go outdoors in winter.
Continuity errors: the prop in Antarctica which blows down three times; the door which comes off its hinges but reattaches itself by the next scene.
And of course, there are the acting jobs. The main character seems to think acting means wiggling his brows. I actually will cut the little girl a break -- and despite her awful stereotypical character, the girl grad student, who might conceivably have a future in acting. Of course, despite all the snow and ice, no one actually shows any sign of being cold anywhere in the movie.
I still want to know why getting the government to fund scientific research is a Bad Thing. Is it just because it involves filthy lucre?
Others have pretty much covered many of the other points I could make -- the difference between polar shift and axial tilt, the "poles" moving to the equator, where are the thousand years of darkness, etc., but I have one last question -- does the newswoman from the TV station have a direct tap on the US government's computers?
What's wrong with the movie? That might take longer than the actual movie to tell. Start out with the styrofoam and sugar Antarctica set, complete with a size-changing ice cave, a skeletal body (frozen for the last 10,000 years), the amazing archaeological feat, which no one has even got around to mentioning, of dating cave paintings all over the world to the same day, the ability to take scrapings of paint and find out where the magnetic poles were at the time the cave was painted... and of course, no one can survive absolute zero, except the people who painted all these cave paintings. And that's just the first twenty minutes.
And of course, science is never wrong. But your science is wrong and mine isn't.
A definition to start with for the filmmakers: Absolute Zero is the temperature at which all molecular motion stops. It is not a cold and snowy temperature.
Apparently no one can survive Absolute Zero, but people behind lab doors. With skylight windows. And Absolute Zero has the power to cause time lapse photography.
Absolute Zero can be predicted by a pair of ditsy grad students down to the last second. From analysis of paint scrapings. The filmmakers also seem to think that polar shift can occur either in a few hours, or in two hundred years. They need to be gently guided to the concept of geological time. And let's not forget that when telling someone to get into the lab when the compass needle points to a certain direction, it's helpful to say, "When you're facing the lab door" or something like that, because -- uh -- compass needles move when you do?
I was fascinated to find that low temperature is actually what sucks people out of airplanes. I always thought it was low pressure. Hmmm, better be careful next time I go outdoors in winter.
Continuity errors: the prop in Antarctica which blows down three times; the door which comes off its hinges but reattaches itself by the next scene.
And of course, there are the acting jobs. The main character seems to think acting means wiggling his brows. I actually will cut the little girl a break -- and despite her awful stereotypical character, the girl grad student, who might conceivably have a future in acting. Of course, despite all the snow and ice, no one actually shows any sign of being cold anywhere in the movie.
I still want to know why getting the government to fund scientific research is a Bad Thing. Is it just because it involves filthy lucre?
Others have pretty much covered many of the other points I could make -- the difference between polar shift and axial tilt, the "poles" moving to the equator, where are the thousand years of darkness, etc., but I have one last question -- does the newswoman from the TV station have a direct tap on the US government's computers?