Clever, believable, and super fun to watch. It totally has replay value.

Good films always raise compelling questions, whether the format is fiction or documentary fact.

It's the kind of movie you'll want to see a second time with someone who hasn't seen it yet, to remember what it was like to watch it for the first time.

It is neither dumb nor smart enough to be fun, and spends way too much time with its boring human characters.

Ice (2000) * (out of 4) Really bad, made for TV disaster flick about the sun burning out and another ice age setting in. There's really nothing good in this film outside the interesting story idea but the screenplay does nothing with it. The direction is bad throughout and the performances are all pretty bland. Udo Kier co-stars as the brilliant yet mad scientist.I'm really not sure who these films are meant for and I'm rather shocked that producer's keep making them. I guess they're making money from someone but the quality should be cleaned up some.

I was actually impressed by this. It's nothing spectacular, of course, but it's better than a lot of stuff in the apocalyptic genre that makes it to the big screen. Well-paced, well-acted (although the characters are slightly annoying), and good FX; you can't ask for much more than that. Plus I found the idea of people in LA faced with an ice age amusing.My main complaint is that the details of the weather change are abrasively inaccurate. I doubt any Hollywood person actually knows what cold weather is like. I had the same problems with the recent "Alien vs. Predator," where the characters apparently don't need anything more than a light jacket to stay warm and toasty in Antarctica. Here, we have people walking around in negative 60 degree weather without hats or gloves on, and they are perfectly fine (seriously, they'd be dead in five minutes). The thing that irritated me most was when two people came indoors after being outside in the frigid cold, obviously about to die, and yet they are still able to dexterously move their fingers. Give me a break. At that point they wouldn't even HAVE fingers.Well, personal complaints aside, it's not a bad film, and I suppose it is a notable addition to the mediocre natural disaster genre.6/10 stars.

I saw Ice on June 12, 2004. Shortly after that I started seeing ads for DAT. I thought maybe DAT was a remake. Was I ever wrong! 'Ice' is much more like a rough draft, and DAT the finished product. I had the pleasure of seeing DAT August 4, 2004. 'Ice' reminds me of the good old days of disaster films, like Poseidon Adventure. Very hokey and extremely low budget! Was PA actually low budget? Who knows? Who cares? It also seemed like 'Ice' had a mixed language cast, so some people were dubbed and some people spoke English. There seems to be some made for SciFi channel/ German connection. Maybe their actors don't charge as much?Enjoyable to watch if you have really NOTHING better to do! 'Ice' should absolutely be included in any list of disaster movies if you are a disaster fan.

The big surprise? This is the very first "made-for-cable" movie I have ever watched start-to-finish. Granted, there wasn't much else on the other 130 channels this particular evening, but these SciFi Channel productions are generally so tedious that I'm gone before the first commercial break. This turkey DID have a few redeeming features: an attractive (physically) cast; acceptable computer effects; and spritely pacing (for a Cable feature). Yes, I know the plot holes were far too frequent and there were far too many uncalled-for characters, but I'm a sucker for "end of the world" genre and this one was only marginally worse than Armageddon. 2 1/2 stars out of 5 (5 out of 5 stars for a SciFi Potboiler).