Jeanskynebu the audience applauded

UnowPriceless hyped garbage

SeeQuant Blending excellent reporting and strong storytelling, this is a disturbing film truly stranger than fiction

Guillelmina The film's masterful storytelling did its job. The message was clear. No need to overdo.

Sam Thompson An utter disaster that somehow found its way into British Netflix. A shameful attempt at continuing on where 'the day after tomorrow' left off.The acting is beyond atrocious, you needn't look further than the 'chocolate bar' scene to see this. In the scene, a character (the names are impossible to recall through the sheer rage this film induces) states she'd like some chocolate bars. Our main character then asks her when she last checked her blood sugar which, given that it is a totally spontaneous comment, tells us there will be issues later in the films regarding her having diabetes and not being able to leave the building due to the weather. This, shockingly, is revealed a mere 20 minutes later. Oh, if you got that far, I'm impressed already. The acting when it comes to 'freezing' is so cliché that it's embarrassing. Must be seen to be believed.The point that I turned the film off (after giving it multiple chances to redeem itself) comes after the emergency alert. All of Australia is being told that a deadly cold front that kills instantly is about to take the land into its icy tendrils... and nobody thinks to suspend aircraft from landing. As if that wasn't a poor enough blunder, when trying to tell a landing plane that they are experiencing 'dangerous weather' (which does it no justice at all), the pilot ignores the warning and lands anyway. Because pilots are well known for ignoring the instructions given by ground control right? Anyway, I turned this film off immediately following the shoddy explosion CGI. Not only is this a below freezing area which would presumably interact with flames in a very negative way, but the animating throughout is dated and poorly executed.Kudos to anyone who managed the entire film. That's time you'll never get back, but your persistence is admirable. Among the worst films I'be ever seen (and while my views tend to be controversial sometimes, watch it and you'll see the ratings are being kind).Do not subject yourself to this.Edits: Autocorrect...

Tom Murray Many films which purport to be Science Fiction are, in reality, Science Fantasy. I have studied Science for most of my long life and taught it for many years in High School. Science Fiction may extrapolate the current laws of Science into hypothetical situations but must not directly contradict the current laws of Science at the time of writing: It is impossible for an object to exceed the speed of light as in the warp speeds of the Star Trek series; If time travel were possible, then one could go back in time and kill an ancestor, from which it follows that one would never have been born, which is known to be false: Reductio ad absurdum; so much for the Back To The Future and the Terminator series etc.It has actually been postulated that global warming could cause another Ice Age, at least in the northern hemisphere, by raising the sea level and thereby interfering with the Gulf Stream, which brings warmth to the north.Many of the reviewers of Arctic Blast complained that the Science was bad. Many occurrences were very far-fetched but none of what I saw broke any actual rules of Science. I noticed several but accepted them as useful plot developments. It was a gripping Science Fantasy with a good warning message about Mankind's disruption of the environment. I was drawn to it because it starred Michael Shanks. The acting was good and the characters were believable. My wife and I both enjoyed it.

transient-2 My initial response to this film was unfairly snide, searching the lead actor's face in vain for simple change of expression. But although it took some time, I was finally able to find redeeming value in this tepid disaster film; this apparent new sub-genre of divorced dads winning back their families by saving them from natural disasters might have some worth if you take a drink every time you see someone on the phone. Of course having a character talk on the phone does not contribute any sense of urgency or suspense. In fact watching people talk on the phone in films is as annoying as watching them talk on the phone in real life - but this film is annoying enough to leave you falling down drunk. Three sips for speaker-phone, two sips for a headset, this film promises a good time.

rps-2 ...with neither a bang nor a whimper but another dreadful film. This is the standard apocalyptic plot, done so many times with minor variations. The world is threatened by a rogue asteroid/alien invasion/epidemic/biblical flood/change in orbit --- in this case a cold front (really!!!)--- maverick young scientist takes on the establishment --- solves the problem, saves the world --- and they all live happily ever after so humankind can make yet more dreadful movies about averting the end of the world so that humankind can make even more dreadful movies about the end of the world... It never ends. There also are a couple of standard clichéd sub plots --- a floundering marriage, a rebellious teen ager and a death defying mission to retrieve needed insulin. The movie is refreshing in one way. It was a reassuring change to watch Australian trash rather than the American variety. (Although the movie was done in Australia, it was partially funded by the Quebec film fund.Go figure! Yet among the many jumped up stock footage scenes of Rio, Philadelphia, San Francisco, London and Paris being engulfed by ice and cold, there was no Montreal scene. Hell, Montreal is regularly engulfed by ice and cold. You don't need special effects!