MovieChat Forums > The Frozen Ground (2013) Discussion > This deserves a way higher rating than 6

This deserves a way higher rating than 6

posted 11 years ago by umetoo
28 replies | jump to latest

Thrilling and captivating story that was very well done. Cage did an awesome job this time. I felt like Cusack's character was just ok for the most part but got better towards the end when the intensity really started to escalade. Surprisingly superb acting from Vanessa Hudgens. I never took her seriously before but she definitely displayed way more talent and depth in her role in this movie that would put her above her peers from that silly mindless spring breakers movie. The movie had some real intense moments, and it captured the mood very well. Overall i really enjoyed the movie, it deserves a rating way higher than 6.2.

[–] RicciRules 11 years ago

I disagree.........and that's OK. Movies are all about our own personal perspective.
I found it pretty boring and much too slow paced. Cage and Cusack needed more freedom to give their characters some life. Playing Hansen should have given an actor a shot at an Oscar nod. Instead, I got no more emotion from him than from 100 other similar roles on Lifetime movies.

I will agree that Hudgens did a great job and was definitely the highlight of the movie.

[–] NelsonVanAlden 11 years ago

I agree. I gave it a 9. It should be at least around a 7.2. This movie has great atmosphere. You get to see how large Robert Hansens play field was. And Cage, the most subtle he has ever been, was brilliant. The scenes between him an Hudgens are great. The heart of the movie. Cusack also was wonderful. This was just a really good movie that if in bad hands would have been very formulaic

[–] tallard 11 years ago

I totally agree. I used to really like Cage in his earlier years, but he has done so many crappy movies in recent years that I'd entirely given up on him. This is the first time in a long time I see him in his true acting form. He's still got it. I had never seen Hodgins before, but I agree she did a pretty good job. It's so strange seeing Cusack as a bad guy, though his acting near the end was good, I'm not sure I like the casting on this. Also Cage's partner was the DEA agent from Breaking Bad, who was better in that. I hope to see him in better roles also.
The soundtrack was pretty ominous and dialogues were well written.
The only annoyance is with the cowardly DA who only wanted to take on sure-win cases and let this real life sicko almost get away with it. But that's the reality, the justice system rarely delivers justice in real life.

***So I've seen 4 movies/wk in theatre for a 1/4 century, call me crazy?**

[–] umetoo 11 years ago

Yeah overall, it probably would've been a better idea to cast someone lesser known than Cusack to play Hansen.

[–] horrorules 11 years ago

totally agree some stupid movie like transformers or fast and furious have 7,7 rating, a only pretty decent movie like conjurig, 7,8

This great thriller 6,2????

My rating is 8

ehy H2 haters, look this
http://i486.photobucket.com/albums/rr226/zombiezombie/suck.jpg

[–] bronzescag 11 years ago

The movie had potential, but was dragged down by inept directing and some of the worst shaky cam I've ever witnessed in my life. The camera never settles on an image for more than two seconds at a time (with a few exceptions). I wanted to like the film and the performances were strong, especially Cusack, but this crappy handheld technique that passes for filmmaking today is wrecking so many good films. Yes, you may be saving time and money by not setting up real camera moves and blocking, but you're bringing the film down in so many ways.

[–] all_greddy 11 years ago

Not a bad popcorn flick.
Perhaps slightly underrated, but not too far off.

[–] James_Bondy 11 years ago

Really enjoyed it and I find the 6 ridiculous. It's been a while since I've seen Cage put in such a good performance.

[–] Heisenberg991 11 years ago

This movie deserves a 7.0 or higher. When the guy had a gun to her head at the hotel I was freaking out that she was going to get shot. The suspense had me right to the end. Great movie.

[–] RicciRules 11 years ago

I'm confused.
Are you telling the 10's of thousands of people that their opinion/enjoyment level of a film is wrong??? Wow. That's pretty arrogant of you and some other posters.

So thousands of people collectively rate a film a 6. But YOU, one person, think it's a different number............so that means everybody else is wrong and you are right?

Or do you mean to say that you - via your own personal preference - found the film more enjoyable than the majority of people who watched it? And you are OK with that, as you aren't sooooo arrogant that you think YOUR opinion matters more or is more accurate than any other person who watched the movie? Is that what you meant?

[–] umetoo 10 years ago

Yes, my opinon alone is much more valuable than the collective opinions of a thousand others who are just as stupid, obtuse, ignorant, and impotent as yourself. Now, step off.

[–] RicciRules 10 years ago

Umetoo you sound like a really pleasant person. You must be a blast at parties.
Surely you can't be this smug, arrogant and angry all the time..........having a bad day?

[–] holysimon 10 years ago

Dude,

Ratings are overrated...

They make no sense whatsoever most of the time.

A 2.8, a 3.3?

Maybe: they are often a good indication of the overall quality, as I have experienced.

But, from 5 up, it's all for grabs.

This movie is at least as good as Thor (7.6).

You should be prudent when playing with "popularity".

After all, the most popular politician always ends up being a major let down.

[–] circa_1987 10 years ago

I rate films more or less conforming to the numbers I see on IMDB where:

10 = not used (average impossible)
9 = masterpiece/personal favorite
8 = great/highly recommended
7 = worthwhile/good watch
6 = watchable but not recommended
5 = waste of time
4 or lower = horse manure

I rate this film a solid 7 based on the above legend.

This one ain't over 'til the
Fat lady dies

[–] cold_sky 10 years ago

10 isn't "impossible" at all. It's an opinion. When you say "personal favorite", that right there might denote a 10.

Obviously you can do what you want, it's nice to see people who vote openly and honestly, but in your case, I would use 10s to weed out the best of the 9s, as it were.

[–] circa_1987 10 years ago

The second time Cindy Paulson character runs away, she shouldn't have died, as stupid as she is (face it, she was just a two bit prostitute). This film is true to actual events and she escaped in real life and she is alive and well today, so it is probably unreasonable to expect to see her die in the film.

This one ain't over 'til the
Fat lady dies

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] arete_1 10 years ago

Yea, it's at least a solid 7.

[–] SteveResin 10 years ago

Disagree, I rated it 5 and that was being generous. I agree about Hudgens though, she gave a very good performance, surprised me to say the least. Cage was nothing special and Cusack was just phoning it in.

--------------------
Duty Now For The Future