web
counter
 

Paul Walker in “Husky Love”

Eight Below / Dustin Rowles

Film Reviews | May 12, 2006 | Comments (26)


Enduring Disney’s insufferable and feebleminded Eight Below, I was reminded of an old joke I’ve never heard: What do you get when you cross Paul Walker, the Antarctic, and eight sled dogs? I don’t know either, but it’s frozen, it sticks to the bottom of your shoe, and it smells a lot like shit.

Disney’s tagline, “The Most Amazing Story of Survival, Friendship, and Adventure Ever Told,” is accurate on only one count: It’s amazing, all right. Amazing that it got made, amazing that any one of the jackasses in the cast signed on, and amazing that the studio has enough confidence in Paul Walker and a bunch of mongrel furballs to open it on 3,000 screens. Oh, and it’s amazingly bad, too, pushing just enough overwrought earnestness down your throat to tickle your gag reflex but not quite enough pull the trigger and relieve you from the decayed fragments of your life, which will sit and fester while you wonder what in God’s name possessed you to travel a career path that has led you to a place where Big Momma taunts you, where video-game harlots haunt you, and where you find yourself hoping that the dude from The Fast and the Furious would just hurry the fuck up and find those dogs so that man and beast can finally be reunited in a weird, face-licking, smooch-filled, inappropriate bliss.

In other words, it was another typical Saturday night at the local multiplex for me.

Seriously, through the first two months of 2006, Eight Below is unrivaled in its shittiness; it possesses all the talent and intellect of a Perez Hilton post (without all of Hilton’s queeny, camera-mugging meretriciousness — I mean, c’mon, not even Paul Walker would stoop to that level of sycophantic scumbaggery.) The film does have the faint ability to tug at your heartstrings, but only if you’re an emotional cripple who has just lost a dog in the Antarctic, and even then it’s a stretch. Indeed, Eight Below is the kind of movie that makes you want to disband PETA, just so you’ll have the freedom to engage in shotgun euthanasia, prematurely putting those poor huskies out of their misery.

Inspired by a true story about a 1958 Japanese scientific expedition, Eight Below is actually a remake of the film Nankyoku monogatari; Disney, however, chose to find the pastiest actors it could find to relay the story, lest anyone get the impression that heroism could occur outside of the Anglo-Saxon race. Paul Walker plays Gerry Shepherd, a guide with an unhealthy obsession with sled dogs, who shepherds (so many levels, people) scientists to various locations in Antarctica.

Late one season, Shepherd and his dogs leads Bruce Greenwood’s unnamed scientist character (let’s call him “Perez” “Dumbass”) out into the mountains in search of a meteorite. Once they arrive at their destination, they learn that a huge snowstorm is on its way (apparently, this comes as a surprise to inhabitants of Antarctica), but Dumbass wants to stick around and find his damn meteorite. Once it is finally secured, they head back, get caught in the storm, and Dumbass falls in a frozen lake. Thankfully, the dogs save him before he drowns and/or freezes to death, and everyone eventually makes it back to base with frostbite (thanks, Dumbass!) Unfortunately, Frostbite + Snow Storm = Sorry Mutts, we’re leaving you chained up in Antarctica to fend for yourselves, but we’re going to think about you … a lot.

For the next hour, talent-deprived director Frank Marshall (Congo) features mostly footage from March of the Penguins, only the penguins have been Photoshopped out and replaced with huskies, and Morgan Freeman, presumably, has been stowed away with the Japanese. We watch as the dogs extricate themselves from their chains; the dogs wander through the snow aimlessly; the dogs eat birds; the dogs wander through the snow some more; the dogs find a tiger seal; the dogs wander in the snow; and the dogs sleep, with cartoon bubbles of a shirtless Paul Walker frolicking in the air. Egads!

Eventually, Eight Below mercifully succumbs to the inevitable: Shepherd and his crew ultimately secure financing to return to Antarctica 180 days later, where they search frantically through the snow to no avail. Unfortunately, all they find after three days of shoveling are eight frozen-dog corpses and a badly scrawled letter written in the snow: “Thanks for nothing, asshole.”*

My sentiments exactly.

Dustin Rowles is the publisher of Pajiba and managing partner of its parent company, which prefers to remain anonymous for reasons pertaining to public relations. He lives in Ithaca, New York.









Each Time You Like, Share, Tweet or Stumble a Pajiba Post, An Angel Does the Paul Rudd Dance



Coach Carter | Be Cool









Comments

Ridiculous review. Perhaps if you weren't such a cynic, you may be able to find some joy in this movie. For god's sakes, it's a disney movie...what the heck did you expect???

I understand that you probably write these types of reviews to revel in your writing style, but how about the next time you try taking your ego out of the review, and write something that will actually be useful to others.

And btw... you don't have to lose a dog in antartica to like the movie. You just have to be a human being with basic emotions.

Posted by: Nina at June 9, 2006 1:18 AM

A movie not for the cold hearted like you..dumb ass.

Posted by: raul at June 10, 2006 1:54 AM

the movie is awesome, not one of those movies which have graphics and animals talk, this is the real deal as to how animals communicate with each other and humans

Posted by: sam at June 11, 2006 7:06 AM

Cynic is right. I mean, it's a kids movie. It's made by Disney. It's not about the PLOT persay... more about the theme and moral....

I would think someone with your dumbass perspective would get that. My five year old has more common sense than you do.

Sure it's not a GREAT movie! But your review is rediculous mislead and callous. Not that it REALLY matters. The move made more money than you will in the next 5 years. So, guess the jokes on us viewers.

Posted by: Willa at June 22, 2006 3:55 PM

Did this guy even watch the movie or did he or it, I can't even presume it is a real person for being so heartless, just create some idiotic plot in your his own mind and write a review? The only thing horrible thing about this movie was this guy's review of it.

Posted by: C at June 25, 2006 10:56 PM

This movie pulled all my heart strings and left me absolutely drained. At the end, I couldn't help but focus on the thought that all that Dr. Davis McClaren (Bruce Greenwood) had to do was make up his mind to help when first asked, and Old Jack and Dewey would have been saved. And did the girlfriend even once try to buck the system to get the dogs in the beginning, even if futile?... No. Everyone except for Jerry Shepherd (Paul Walker) were about letting them go and moving on. Gee, if it were their loved ones, their children, would it have been so easy? I think most definitely not. And it was made clear that the love held by Jerry for these magnificent animals was as strong as this. And it was only through the heartbreaking persistence of Jerry -- and the luck of a child's eye-opening drawing of the hero dogs that saved his daddy's life (that of Dr. McClaren's) -- that Dr. McClaren and the rest finally, most hesitatingly, hopped on board -- a whopping six months later. Unbelievable. It felt as if they were finally giving in to a child's whim, so to shut him up already. When Jerry apologized to Dr. McClaren, saying that he shouldn't have put his problems on him, this simply astonished me. The dogs saved Dr. McClaren's life not once, but twice, and all through his own stubbornness of pushing forward despite Jerry's warnings of danger. I do believe that not only made it his problem, but put him in the position of a life-long indebtedness to the dogs and Jerry. To him, though, the dogs weren't worth the leftover money to reciprocate, and he did not feel he owed Jerry anything. Amazing. And let me reiterate, this was LEFTOVER money!!! He wouldn't have gotten his stupid rock or grand award, not to mention have had a life to get these things, if it hadn't been for them. In fact, I do believe their saving him twice would more than make that money theirs for some kind of reward, don't you think? But instead of a reward they got tragic betrayal instead. Makes my blood boil. Sure, he finally gave in way later, but even then it felt like he was inching his way to it, through guilt alone, begrudgingly doing Jerry and the dogs a FAVOR instead of finally understanding that HE OWED THEM ALL and was doing what he should have done from the start, saving them all -- as he should have Dewey and Old Jack -- as they had saved him time and again. God help the surviving dogs had it not been leftover money, but instead his being asked to put his own cash in. No doubt he would never have gone the extra mile then. Even now, it annoys me to no end that Jerry didn't pull the "they saved your life twice" and "You owe us all" cards when he was first asking Dr. McClaren for his help. If ever a time to bring it up, this was it! Put his problems on him? Ridiculous! He didn't even get started!!! The only true heart through it all was from the dogs and Jerry. No one else cared enough or tried enough, which made Jerry's declaration to his girlfriend, near the end, that he owed her for always understanding how important getting back to the dogs was, very confusing to me. There was a great lacking of support, all around, emotional or otherwise, to Jerry and the dogs, and this chickie was definitely no different. She always had some sort of sly smile on her face, even in the beginning when giving condolences over having to leave the dogs... this happy glow... Really disconcerting. Just felt like, "So sorry, so sad, but must move on now!" If the intention of her character was to be understanding throughout the movie, her part was sorely lacking. At best, she came off as patronizing and just barely patient through his worrying so much over something that she made very clear should be let go of, even though the dogs were at that very moment starving, lost, lonely, and dying. It wasn't a year later... or even six months yet... but this was her attitude at the beginning until they finally decided to go back. Did she not get that you don't get past something WHILE IT IS STILL HAPPENING???!!! Only after you understand that it is over, truly done with, do you even start to think about the journey of learning to live with it. But out of sight out of mind, right?!!! So, that scene, and the fact that no one ever actually apologized or made some motion that they were responsible with their lack of previous action, made me sick at heart. The fact is that even if this movie wasn't based on a true story it would irk me and make my heart ache... but the sad truth is that not only was there one dog (Old Jack) that died through starvation, alone and immobile in the snow... but in real life, there were actually SEVEN -- and SIX more unaccounted for!!! In real life there were 15 dogs and only two known to have survived. So, I don't even get the comfort of, "Well, at least this was just a movie". Needless to say, this is the movie that finally outdid the one other movie that ripped my heart to shreds as a little girl -- Old Yeller -- but at least that one was truly "just a movie". So, yes, this movie is a spectacular viewing, the dogs are beyond awesome, Paul Walker is fantastic, a true hero (An avid dog lover in real life, as well!), with a considerable joyous relief in the end for the dogs that did survive... but I just can't get past the absolutely avoidable TRAGIC deaths of those other loyal, loving, trusting dogs... betrayed... and the fact that the ones that did survive were no doubt scarred for life. So many are heralding this movie as a human bonding, growing thing. While I do say that it is a lesson of the true love and loyalty that dog holds for man, and that man should hold for dog... for the rest of it, it's a painful reminder of all the dogs left behind (ex:The heroic Vietnam War dogs; the K-9 Katrina victims; the no longer interested family leaving their pup in the woods), an acknowledgment of the ungratefulness and insufferable selfishness of so many out there, and the heartbreaking destruction that too often comes from it. **View this movie so to let the haunting images fill you, and then never allow such a horrific thing to happen again. NO ANIMAL LEFT BEHIND! These dogs story needs to be told, so that their deaths are never, ever in vain and such tragedy is never allowed to ever happen again.

Posted by: Shilohbloo at July 6, 2006 10:25 PM

BRAVO....I am SO glad I could care less about critics and their total lack of what makes a movie truly enjoyable. I came across this as I was tring to find more facts about the accual "true story" behind the movie. I did find one true fact here, this critic is clueless. Maybe this web page should get Shilohbloo to write "Front Row" and leave Rowles in the back row to snear and whine?

Posted by: Bartnik at July 7, 2006 5:21 AM

I finished reading this review and I thought it was definitely written by a liberal democrat and provides further proof that these people are actually heartless, not compassionate as they try to portray themselves.

More evidence was provided when Dustin, the reviewer, indicated he was from Ithaca, New York, which is a liberal enclave.

Posted by: DaveM at July 8, 2006 7:38 PM

First of all I would like to state that I am a liberal democrat, but from chicago, so maybe that makes the difference.

But I thought this was one of the best movies I had seen in a very long time. A movie for the whole family. I have three dogs of my own, I cried throught the whole thing.

I don't think the reviwer and I saw the same movie.

Posted by: Sarah at July 10, 2006 12:10 PM

Nope. In no way am I either liberal democrat nor conservative republican. I vote on each item as they come. And these days some would consider me more of a conservative, due to my strong belief in our troops and their need to protect us. Regardless, I have done more research on the actual events that "Eight Below" is based on ("Antarctica" / "Nankyoku monogatari" -- meaning "The South Pole Story") than probably most any of you here. I definitely saw the movie, quite carefully -- I saw them both. And they both broke my heart -- thoroughly. "Antarctica" hurt much more, of course, because it was considerably closer to the facts and way more tragic. I stand by my "clueless" review, due to the fact that this horrid thing could have (should have!) been prevented, in both realms (reality and fiction). In reality, the equipment was taken out of there before the dogs. All the equipment made it out. They chose the equipment over the heroic animals. It was a simple choice, and they made the wrong one. Period. You never leave a man -- or dog -- behind (especially when you brought them there and they saved your life -- which they did in reality as well as film). Only 2 (brothers) of the 15 dogs actually made it... and this was after ONE FULL YEAR... not six months. It is believed that they made it because they were the only one's actually born in Antarctica. You can bash me and my review all you like, but none of it changes anything for those poor animals... Nor does it sway me in my resolve. There are many different ways to look at things, and I choose to look at these movies as a way to help prevent tragedy for future animals. It's my life's work. I help those that can't help themselves. It is important and what is in my heart. But if you think me clueless in all of this... then clueless I gladly be. **In Beloved Memory of the Original Magnificent 15: Anko (3 years old), Jack (4 years old), Riki (Lead dog - 6 years old), Shiro (6 years old), Kuma (5 years old), Deri (6 years old), which were the six dogs that went missing; Goro (Wheel dog - 6 years old), Besu, Moku, Aka, Kuro, Bochi, Kuma, which were the seven dogs that died chained, immobile, and starving; and Taro and Jiro, which were the two survivors of whom statues and legends were made.

Posted by: Shilohbloo at July 13, 2006 10:10 PM

You've got way to much time on your hands you liberal cocksucker!!!

Posted by: MAC at July 15, 2006 5:46 PM

What's with all the cutthroat one-liners around here? I read down the line and there's barely anyone that doesn't just spit-n-run. Where's the well thought-out discussion? So, I guess the way it works here is that one person gives a heartfelt review, and then everyone else just rips on it? Okay, then. Since it is clear that if a person has an opinion other than yours, it will be cussed and spewed at, then I'll just skip over my thoughts of the movie itself and push right onto my rant, focusing on the two big reviews. I think the initial review from Dustin is just a bunch of yadda-yadda, giving me a headache. I know he's trying to make a point, and I may even agree with some of it or more, but it seems he's throwing the baby out with the bathwater. I tend to get lost in all the crabbiness, making his whole contribution a mixed-up mess. Just a bunch of empty nothingness not worth anymore of my breath to comment on. Ok, there's my spit-n-run for Dustin. Onto the next. I have to pause on this one. Did any of you actually read Shilohbloo's review? I don't think you read what I read. Either that or shallowness runs amuck in this arena. Shilohbloo sounds far from heartless (although many of your replies sound just that!). Me thinks it's quite possible you're all looking in the mirror while speaking your outlandish words? I happen to think this perspective is very interesting. I believe it to be valid, intriguing, and most compassionate, to boot. More compassionate than any of you who don't care for this point-of-view, which is more on the side of those daring dogs than any of you have made clear. (Did someone seriously accuse this person of being compassionless? YIKES!) As I read the comments, most of you seem to care more about the selfish enjoyment of the movie, instead of what really happened out there, which is what I believe this commenter was really trying to get at. Don't get me wrong, absolutely nothing wrong with enjoying the flick (It's why we go, afterall!), but why hate on a person grasping the deeper meaning of things? So, I say thanks to Shy for bringing this side of it to the forefront. I appreciate your insight. This movie broke my heart, too. Maybe now I get the full extent as to why. Just don't listen to these potty-mouthed gripers. This site is meant to insult and infuriate (as I am sure will be the case with responses to my comment here!), but it's not worth reacting to. If you check close enough, you'll notice that they are guilty of the very thing they accuse you of. Interesting, isn't it? Ha! Really loved that last post by MAC, by-the-way. Shows the vast intelligence of those who make a habit of gathering here; and pretty much puts the icing on the cake that I won't be wasting my time in a comeback, since like attracts like, and I need much more maturity when sticking with a discussion site. P.S.- Very cool the facts you bring to the table of the history behind the movie. If you're clueless, then the definition must have recently been revised in the dictionary! Double HA!!

Posted by: IAMMIKE at July 15, 2006 11:12 PM

The movie sucks. Maybe disney should change there theme, like my neighbors getting blown up to pieces in Iraq or starving to death in North Korea. Real people not animals.

Posted by: Notyboy at July 23, 2006 3:55 AM

Yo dude, you can care for both people and animals. You don't have to choose. And these were "real" dogs (based on a true story, remember?!). Also, these real animals saved their real peoples lives and then got bupkis for it. I think that warrants some kudos and attention at their direction. I think if those dogs saved your life, or the life of your friends, as many war dogs save people in time of unrest, you'd be singing a different tune. (Some people just don't get it.)

Posted by: Stephen at July 29, 2006 8:11 PM

This site tag line is "Reviews for Bitchy People". It should read "Reviews FROM Bitchy People". You are the "emotional cripple". I wasn't a huge fan of the movie & the leopard scene was very hookey but you are out there... I'd send you a buck to buy a clue but there is obvioulsly no hope for your becoming a human being. You are a moron!

Posted by: c white at August 22, 2006 1:53 PM

The movie absolutely sucked!! What asshole would fricken leave eight dogs tied up after they saved both of their lives and say....oh yea we will be back in about 6 months. STupid Stupid stupid....they could of just taken them on the damn plane with them and left some of the other crap off the plane. I didn't even finish watching the movie it was so irritating. It left me wanting to kick all their asses and save the dogs.

Posted by: monique at September 11, 2006 10:31 PM

As far as entertainment goes, the review beats the movie hands down. Even my kids lost interest. Boring sentimental tripe with plot holes the size of Antarctica

I was disappointed that the surviving dogs did not eat the dead ones. Then the movie could have ended with an exciting inquest when they returned home to determine if the dogs did the "right thing."

Posted by: Conor at September 13, 2006 1:35 PM

I watched this movie last night on DVD and I cried my heart out. How could a person who professed to have so much love and care for his animals just leave them? Why didn't they just empty the plane to make room for the dogs? These dogs saved their lives twice and all the thanks they got was: "I will be back for you I promise" and "good dogs". Oh yes and the "girlfriend" all she could do is smile and say I'm sorry. She was a pilot for goodness sake. Why couldn't she just go back for the dogs? Unless you and your kids are very coldhearted this is most definitely not a movie I would recommend for small kids to see.

Posted by: Debi at September 15, 2006 3:00 PM

I can tell you one thing, if you thought this was sad (as I did!), your heart would completely rip if you saw the real movie that it was based on. ANTARCTICA. OMG!!! THEY LEFT 15 DOGS IN REAL LIFE!!!!!!!!!!!! 2 survived. Equipment first! WHAT THE HELL IS THAT?!!!! People really do suck. Incredibly so!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Karma, baby. It's a bitch and it's comin' to get 'em!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: HW at September 16, 2006 10:07 PM

The last time I checked, this site is called "Pajiba - Scathing Reviews for Bitchy People". Re-read the name if you need to, then ask yourself if a line can be drawn between it and this review.

If you're too lazy to think - it can. This IS a scathing review. End of story.

Posted by: Shaun at October 31, 2006 3:01 AM

Sorry, but terrible review. Owning a huskie that i have grown to love makes this movie have so much more meaning. Sure the film itsself had flaws, but if it were to stick to the true story and only two of the dogs made it out alive, it wouldnt have the same effect. Thats why it is loosely based on a true story. In my personal opinion, this was a great and touching film.

Posted by: Sean Sallings at December 5, 2006 4:19 AM

The more I hear from people the more I like my own dog. I think people should act more like the dogs behaved in the movie. They actually gave a shit about each other.

Posted by: Michelle Wurtz at December 21, 2006 11:23 PM

I cant believe you didnt like this movie. this is ridiculous, you just have no feelings, honnestly I never cried like this for a movie..
shame on you!
Btw..Paul walker makes it better too!!

Posted by: Joe at January 5, 2007 1:01 AM

I absolutely adored this film

Posted by: Sophie Potter at January 18, 2007 6:19 AM

Well, I'm not going to complain about the fact that you didn't like it, considering this is YOUR review, but it is still disappointing that you've reduced it to no more than a brainless kiddie film of tooth-decaying sweetness. What a shame. I actually saw a beautiful story about rescue dogs and the bonds they form with their owners. When one of them dies, not only do we feel the loss of a family member, but of the years it would have taken to train and prepare these animals for life in the arctic saving people from death. Most impressive was the effort in giving each dog a personality, and showing how they communicated with each other. I know who each animal is by their coloring and actions, and never mix them up because they're so clearly defined. Mya, the strong leader; Max, the young pup with icy blue eyes who is inexperienced but learns by good example; Dewey and Truman the twins, one of whom frantically tries to revive the other when tragedy strikes; Buck, the dumb brute; and others who don't get as much focus but still pull their weight on the team: Shadow, Shortie, and Old Jack.

I just found it fascinating and well-told. More importantly, it holds up to repeat viewings, as I have found since purchasing the DVD and encouraging my family to see it (they now watching it every time it appears on tv). And any movie that makes me think Paul Walker is a good actor and Jason Biggs isn't annoying gets major props from me. If more Disney films were like this, I wouldn't have to keep a revolver cocked at my temple...

As for Shaun's comment above... indeed, these are scathing reviews, though I would prefer more of the reviewing and less of the scathing. A critic by his very nature is critical of the films he reviews - this is nothing new. What makes Pajiba special is the intelligence and wit their reviewers bring to each post. This one had it's moments, but overall misrepresented the film and I couldn't find enough to enjoy in it to justify seeing a good film get so trashed. :-P Oh well, they can't all be winners.

Posted by: Nikki at February 3, 2007 10:01 AM

Um . . . why wasn't it dark outside in Antarctica in the middle of their winter?

Great topic for a movie . . . loyalty, The importance of animals versus people, the worth of a life. etc. . . it was just horribly executed . . . like, really, horribly executed.

Posted by: wren at May 13, 2007 2:50 AM