Freezer Burn directed by Charles Hood sounds like a good movie. A scientist falls for a younger girl and he decides to freeze himself so that he can wake up and be with her in the future. This was an interesting enough synopsis for me to place this in my Netflix Instant Queue. I would come to immediately regret this decision.This movie is beyond indie; it walks the delicate line between an indie film and guerrilla-style shooting. In general, this is not something that I mind; I welcome indie films wholeheartedly. However, adding this camera-work to terrible acting and an inane script made this movie unbearable to watch.It opens on Virgil and Rex, two scientists working on a way to preserve things in ice so that they might wake up later fully functional and just as they were before. After many unimportant plot points and absurd dialogue, Virgil eventually meets a 14-year-old student of his wife's and immediately falls into pedophilic love with her. He decides erratically that he will test his new scientific theories by freezing himself in order to wait for her to be the same age as he is. As you might have guessed, this plays out as the stupidest romantic ploy in the history of film. Once Virgil is awoken in the future, this movie really takes a turn for the worst. Nonetheless, I will not ruin the end for you as you may want to torture yourself by watching this later.I was slightly reminded of another cinematic pedophile, Lester Burnham from American Beauty. Kevin Spacey played that role beautifully, to where you were almost rooting for this poor man to hook up with the high school girl. It was to the point that you hardly even noticed it was a pedophilic crush. This was certainly not the case with Virgil. Throughout the whole film, all you can think about is how creepy and disturbing his immediate love for this ninth grader is. As well, Virgil took it much further than Lester did by freezing himself and forfeiting fifteen years of his life to attempt to be with (legally) a girl he has only met twice.There was literally nothing redeeming about this film. The acting was awful; the script was full of plot twists that made no sense and sad attempts at quippy dialogue; and the camera-work was just appalling, appearing to not have any control over lighting whatsoever. I have sat here and endeavored to think of anything positive I could say about the film; all I could come up with is that I am thankful no one in this movie has yet to do another project. Another encouraging note is that this movie gave me hope. If these people can make a horrible movie as such and get it onto DVD and even to Netflix, then maybe I, too, can one day shoot a movie worthy of Netflix.If you are an indie filmmaker yourself, then you may be able to watch this and identify with someone's first try at film. Or you may, like me, watch it and become mortified that this script was able to get any recognition, let alone money to endorse turning it into a movie.

i watched this under a friend's recommendation, & my only problem was, given the title, the obviously low budget, & the fact it involved scientists working in a cheapo lab, i naturally assumed it was going to morph into some sort of sci-fi (that's right, we still spell it that way, SyFy!!) horror film--the Rampage of the Hideous Freezer Demon, or something. but once i got past that, & settled into the film's rhythms, i was pleasantly surprised. i won't bother w/a plot synopsis, but suffice-to-say, it's a very original product, a light but dark anti-romantic comedy. sure, you can laugh that the petri dishes they use in their "lab" are in fact tin-foil take-out containers, but as a veteran of many even LOWER budget productions than this, i can tell you that the level of direction, writing, acting & the consistency of tone they achieve is extremely difficult under those circumstances, & all the more impressive for it. keep your mind open, look past the obvious short-comings, & you'll have a good time most Hollywood dreck can't provide...

Freezer Burn: 7 out of 10: A low budget charmer is the best way to describe Freezer Burn. It has some pretty good naturalistic performances as well as some pretty funny writing.It isn’t perfect by any means and some parts, in particular the ending, fall a little flat. It is also a low budget movie, with all the limitations that come with that. If you can look past the lack of polish, there are some very fun and entertaining bits in here.Ella Rae Peck gives a charming, and most importantly believable, performance as the objet d'underage de passion. Her smile brightens up the screen. (Great now I sound like the protagonist). She is however a realistic character and not some fantasy or tragic Hollywood concoction.Michael Consiglio gives the other standout performance as the wheelchair bound lab assistant. He reminds me of Nicholas Brendon (Xander) on Buffy the Vampire Slayer. He has that great ability to turn a silly throwaway line into something genuinely funny.Overall, I had a fun time. The film has a great tone. Kind of silly but also surprisingly realistic compared to a more polished Hollywood film. I certainly recommended it for both Sci-fi and low budget fans.

It's hard to say exactly what I expected from this movie going into it.It has the appearance of a turkey in the way it's executed but none the less I personally was relatively entertained and I have nothing to do with the production team. I could see how some people watching this could, if it caught them on the wrong day, hate this movie.It's a pretty unusual plot to start with, although I think the plot outline is somewhat misleading on the sensational "sidesteps the issue of age by freezing himself till its not an issue" thing. Yes that does happen but this movie is really about an inventor who is mildly a 'dweeb' who is in a relationship that is imbalanced against him and has a lab partner who is unreliable and a bad luck magnet. He invents successful cryogenics but because of everything else in his life the invention comes only in time to spare him the pain of his present existence, so he freezes himself on the off chance that he can rely on his unreliable side kick and that in the future things will go how he wants them to, but of course that's not the case.The laughs are understated, that's for sure, but I found the events not obvious and better for that. it doesn't go well for him, and if anything it's a little too realistic on the actual problems our protagonists plans might hit. Hollywood would gloss over these in order to give us a whiz bang story of sci fi adventure, where as this movie investigates all the bits Hollywood would ignore, and I found it interesting for that.Yes it is budget cinema, that's plainly obvious from the get go, and the delivery has a light comedy feel where perhaps it would have been better with something a little darker. The sets are rough and although the acting is not crap no actor manages to pull off a stunner, they all have good moments, but then they all have some bad ones too. Nothing a multimillion dollar budget couldn't fix I'm sure.a lot hinges on Robert Harriell's performance and that's perhaps where this movie trips in that he's not a particularly likable or dis-likable character. Maybe that's the delicate middle ground they wanted to take with this movie, but it would have appealed to more people if they'd made more of a decision on dark or light.Special mention to Michael Consiglio for his shifty unreliable side kick part. There were some funny throw away lines delivered well from him, he was charmingly a jerk and funny for it.In summary I didn't hate this movie. It's definitely not an indie award winner but it's not without merit either only if you manage to be in the right mood to overlook the productions flaws. Given that it's the first movie for the director and writer the next one could well be better as they all learn the craft.I give it 6.5 for an interesting concept and addressing non obvious plot points.