Focus Features | Release Date: November 23, 2005
8.4
USER SCORE
Universal acclaim based on 177 Ratings
USER RATING DISTRIBUTION
Positive:
138
Mixed:
17
Negative:
22
Watch Now
Stream On
Buy on
Stream On
Stream On
Stream On
Expand
Review this movie
VOTE NOW
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Check box if your review contains spoilers 0 characters (5000 max)
0
PedroB.Nov 30, 2005
I'm a fan of Cusack, Platt, Billy Bob, Quaid and Ramis but...this was a miserable movie. I'm embarrassed that I did not walk out and demand my money back. It wasn't a film noir - it was a film dreary.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
3
chucklerr.Dec 17, 2005
Expecting a comedy i got gore very black comedy indeed roll over shakespeare.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
3
MarkB.Dec 2, 2005
John Cusack and Billy Bob Thornton have heretofore been two of my favorites, but they deserve nothing but coal in their Christmas stockings for being such bad little actors this year! In this indifferent attempt to add some bitter, John Cusack and Billy Bob Thornton have heretofore been two of my favorites, but they deserve nothing but coal in their Christmas stockings for being such bad little actors this year! In this indifferent attempt to add some bitter, unsweetened chocolate to the usual lump of big-screen holiday-themed treacle, Billy Bob does nothing more than repeat his performance in this summer's Bad News Bears...which was in itself an extremely faded carbon copy of his brilliant, gutbusting work in 2003's Bad Santa. The best that can be said of Cusack's somnabulent work here and in 2005's earlier Must Love Dogs is that he gives both scripts about as much (or as little) energy as they deserve. The two play partners in crime in a Christmas Eve heist that goes foul due to the unpredictable machinations of various other individuals, Mother Nature and each other; the film goes out of its way to be assaultive and offensive, what with copious strip-club nudity, gore, nasty behavior even for this genre, and repetitions of Tony Montana's and Eric Cartman's favorite noun/verb/adjective/adverb, but it just doesn't have the conviction or energy to leave any marks. Redeeming traits include cinematographer Alar Kivilo's lighting of costar Connie Neilsen (Gladiator, Brothers) as though she were the reincarnation of Rita Hayworth (can't completely argue with that) and two performances that at least momentarily allow the film to partially reach its Donald E. Westlake-like aspirations: Oliver Platt is so oddly and genuinely endearing, of all things, as a serial alcoholic that I wouldn't be surprised to see M.A.D.D. start picketing the multiplex, while Randy Quaid shows everybody how it's done by delivering a truly creepy, menacing and funny performance before disappearing all too soon. But the movie's fatal flaw is its lackadaisical direction: let's face it, this material cries out for a Walter Hill, a John Dahl or a Carl Franklin...someone with a reel feel and love for the noir genre. What it gets is Harold Ramis, an increasingly uneven and erratic comedy specialist whose long career includes two films, Caddyshack and Groundhog Day, that have taken on lives of their own as cult movies. Ramis may be going for the hat trick here, but the closest that The Ice Harvest is gonna get to picking up a cult of its own is if all the copies of it that will soon be filling the $5.99 DVD bin happen to be near the checkout counter of a video store that's located next door to the local Hare Krishna headquarters! Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
2
HeatherWDec 5, 2005
Ugh. A few cheap laughs and Cusack's usual likeable-jerk, but other than that this movie was completely unredeeming. And worse than that, it was pointless and boring. Nothing new, nothing particularly clever. I don't understand why Ugh. A few cheap laughs and Cusack's usual likeable-jerk, but other than that this movie was completely unredeeming. And worse than that, it was pointless and boring. Nothing new, nothing particularly clever. I don't understand why so many reviewers like it so much. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
3
JasonRApr 25, 2009
Not enough humor or heart to make up for a lot of material that's on the extreme end of noir.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
2
JDoggNov 21, 2005
This movie was a truly embarassing feat. Harold Ramis has lost all of his genious school-kid fun from the old days and is turning in poorly written and acted crap. The movie has a decent comedy premise, but after it starts, it never gets This movie was a truly embarassing feat. Harold Ramis has lost all of his genious school-kid fun from the old days and is turning in poorly written and acted crap. The movie has a decent comedy premise, but after it starts, it never gets anywhere meaningful, and it is choppy and dull along the way. Although, Billy-Bob, asw always, is a joy to watch. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
3
PeterS.Nov 28, 2005
Good acting by John Cusack but ho hum shoot em up movie without much story to it. If you want lots of violence this is the movie for you.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
2
TomB.Nov 27, 2005
What is the point of the following subplots: the stripper abused by her boyfriend, a city councilman being blackmailed by the mob boss and Charlie and his kids? And how could a reviewer worth his/her salt (I'm looking at you, Ebert - What is the point of the following subplots: the stripper abused by her boyfriend, a city councilman being blackmailed by the mob boss and Charlie and his kids? And how could a reviewer worth his/her salt (I'm looking at you, Ebert - Siskel is rolling in his grave at the thumbs up you give to ANYTHING since he died) give a movie anything more than 2 stars with so much of the movie committed to pointlessness? What a waste of time, indeed. The way they handle Vic's dead wife is shameless. Harold Ramis had better have donated his paycheck to charity. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
1
StuQNov 28, 2005
Bad bad bad...boring boring boring.
0 of 0 users found this helpful