Polar Opposites (2008 TV Movie) User Reviews (6)

Not that bad

[kirachloe · 4/10 · 14 September 2023]

I will call out a bad movie, but this is better than a 1 star.

Give credit where credit is due. The acting and cinematography are better than just acceptable. The people in front of and behind the cameras obviously had skills. The direction even appears to have been capable.

Ok, the script (one of my hot buttons) could easily have been better, like a great team in search of something better than a mediocre script. Even then, I wouldn't call this movie a bad script poster child ... pieces are actually good. It is almost like a good writer wrote snippets and then a really bad writer tried to piece them together. Then a so-so director wasn't sure what to do with it???

No, this won't be on TV, but this is a solid 3 or better.

Cheapest disaster flick ever

[Leofwine_draca · 2/10 · 5 October 2019]

POLAR OPPOSITES is the cheapest disaster film I've watched, and I've seen a lot of Asylum movies. No surprise that Fred Olen Ray is the guy behind it. The story is a familiar one about a nuclear test causing Earth's magnetic poles to shift and all manner of catastrophe play out, but the majority of this one just consists of a couple of characters chatting about what's taking place off-screen. It's slow and boring, let down by weak scripting which is all exposition and nothing else, and a complete lack of any kind of filmmaking essentials.

"Sometimes you just gotta go with hope"

[hwg1957-102-265704 · 3/10 · 3 November 2020]

A story that is scientifically absurd, 'Polar Opposites' goes from scene to scene without creating tension until the lame ending. The preponderance of relationship angst soon becomes boring. None of the characters are engaging and some of the acting is feeble. Even accomplished actors like Clive Revill couldn't do anything with his underwritten role. Watched it under the alternative title 'Ground Zero: The Deadly Shift'. In France the video release was called 'Disaster' which ironically is a much better description.

Polar Opposites...more like bipolar

[jamesmccormack · 1/10 · 22 June 2008]

Take one part lousy script, add painfully poor acting and turtle-slow pacing, then mix in some cheesy special effects and plenty of stock Air Force footage and you get Polar Opposites. This direct-to-the-Here! Channel exercise tries to position itself as a gay disaster movie but only ends up a disaster.

The film takes a long time time go anywhere - thanks to a mother lode of uninteresting sub plots. By the time the film gets moving, you frankly won't care. The magnetic poles on the earth are changing due to an atomic blast in Iran (oh, how topical). The movie is all downhill from that point. To make sure you get the point, the whole magnetic field concept is explained several times...in once case by using a battery and a tangerine.

See the crazy cancer patients in the free clinic endure earthquake after earthquake. See the lone scientist (didn't the actor play Mr Sheffield on "The Nanny" TV show?) who has the disaster all figured out but no one will believe him. See the scientist bicker with his live-in dad using some of the worst dialog ever put on film. See the "exciting" earthquake sequences when it is so painful obvious someone is simply shaking the camera and the falling debris is Styrofoam. See the top Army general try to make sense of what is going on and then try to stop an atomic attack on Iran (oh, how topical again).

I wish I could explain the ending but I am still scratching my head trying to make sense of it. As for the gay angle, there in one brief man-to-man kiss at the end of the film. So if you are looking for frolicking cute guys, you will not find any in "Polar Opposites." You have much better things to do than watch this mess. Go wash your hair, cut the front lawn or use a tangerine to explain to your kids about the magnetic forces around the earth.

Science-fact? Hardly!

[blizno · 1/10 · 21 October 2010]

The "science" in this movie was stunningly wrong.

First, an atomic blast changes the current of molten iron in the core of the Earth and disrupts the magnetic field. What? What? We could trigger all the nukes on Earth IN the molten core of the planet, if we could even reach it, and it would have no effect.

Second, the changing magnetic field is causing massive destruction and will kill everybody if it's not corrected. Wrong. The worst that could possibly happen, other than electronics getting messed up, is that the solar wind would hit the atmosphere without the magnetic field's protection. That would cause the atmosphere to very, very, very slowly be blown off into space. The Earth's magnetic field has reversed many times over thousands of years. During the height of each reversal Earth was without its magnetic field and faced the full solar wind. Earth has survived every pole reversal just fine.

There is no science fact here. This isn't even science fiction. It's just fiction with some science-sounding words thrown in.

I forgot to add the anti-science/pro-religion aspect. Scientist 1 says, "I admire your ability to come to conclusions without evidence, just using your common sense." (or something to that effect). Scientist 2 responds, "Sometimes you just have to take a leap of faith." Wow! That could not possibly be more opposite to science. In science you always base conclusions on evidence and never base conclusions on "common sense". Religion has to base conclusions on feelings and intuitions because it has no evidence.

Science-Fact Rocks the World

[SciVortex · 10/10 · 23 June 2008]

If you're expecting a splashy, big-budget Hollywood disaster flick, you should stick to "The Day After Tomorrow" or "Deep Impact." "Polar Opposites" strength does NOT come from million dollar fx, or performances by academy-award-winning actors. The thing that makes this low-budget independent film so engaging is the story and the relationships that develop while the story world unravels on screen.

At its simplest, "Polar Opposites" spins a tale about a possible global disaster set in motion by a nuclear blast, and how a scientist is called upon to save the day. The scientific theories proposed by the story are chillingly accurate, and they are what hooked me initially. It's refreshing to see science-fact made understandable and yes, entertaining (the tangerine/battery visual was funny). But the film goes beyond simply laying out facts and ideas to tell the story. It puts together a group of characters that have real issues in dealing with the problem, and with each other. There is a father/son relationship (Charles Shaunessy and Clive Revill) that is touching and real, funny and even corny at times. Tracey Nelson and Kieren Hutchinson play doctors coping with the crisis, but they still have a playful side to their relationship. And the actor playing their patient, Al (Ismael Carlo), is both unsettling and tender.

In the end, the disaster unfolds like it might in any other disaster flick (although, as I mentioned, without the huge big budget fx). But the story and the characters were the ingredient that actually made the film quite enjoyable.