"Snowbeast" is a 2011 TV remake of the 1977 TV film of the same name. This one stars John Schneider.The titular monster is a yeti, basically a bigfoot that lives high in the snowy mountains. In the original film the snowbeast was hanging around Crested Butte ski resort, Colorado, which is where the film was shot; this remake largely takes place around a posh cabin in the Canadian Rockies. A ski resort is nearby but you'll barely see it. The original movie ripped-off the plot of "Jaws" verbatim and just relocated it to a ski resort while this remake throws out most of the "Jaws" similarities.The yeti in the original looked quite good for a TV film from 1977, nice and malevolent. I suppose it helped that you hardly got to see the creature. Less is more, as they say.Which brings us to the main problem with this remake: The yeti is fully seen early on and continues to appear throughout the rest of the film. This wouldn't be a problem if the monster costume was convincing, but that's not the case. The head and face look good, especially the eyes and mouth - very monstrous - but the rest of the costume looks really fake. The body of fur just doesn't look real or lived-in. In fact, it looks like the beast just came from the dry cleaners. Couldn't the producers have spent another grand on the title creature's appearance?But the cast is good and likable. John Schneider plays a scientist studying lynx in Canada. He brings two colleagues and his daughter from Florida. Meanwhile, the local police department investigates a couple cases of missing persons that, of course, lead to the beast.For some reason, Schneider is perfect for these types of roles. He's just an all-around quality protagonist. Jason London is also on hand as one of the policeman.Another big plus are the two women: Danielle Chuchran, who plays Schneider's teen daughter Emmy, and Kari Hawker, who plays Schneider's young brunette colleague, Marci, with whom he seems to have a (mutual) interest. Each is totally gorgeous in different ways.The snowy Rocky Mountain locations are another plus; very scenic.CONCLUSION: Both films are about the same quality, although the original version loses points for being a wholesale rip-off of "Jaws." Each were made as traditional monster movies and are therefore pleasantly derivative. In other words, don't look for originality or cutting edge cinema, just enjoy them for what they are. The only major flaw of this remake is the fake-looking fur suit of the creature, which engenders laughs more than frights (although, again, the head & face look good). The plot is much thinner than the original, but the story is somehow less boring, which indicates solid storytelling or maybe they hooked me in with the likable cast. Probably both.GRADE: C+ or B-

Quite some runtime has focus on the daughter and father, on their dysfunctional relationship. Will they fix their relationship? Well guess - you won't get it wrong. A yeti runs amok, killing senselessly, most likely because the characters aside from our main four blatantly don't matter, and don't contribute much aside from... actually, with most kills occurring offscreen the "body count" characters don't really add anything and receive little screen time. An unambitious creature feature, "Snow Beast" has nothing for anyone with experience watching creature features.

I think this was one of the most boring movies I ever saw. No good special effects and a boring story. This movie must have been very cheap. This was like this old Chinese or Japanese Godzilla movies. A human in a low priced costume and a low priced film location. That's why the movie appears not be scary rather a little bit funny. I don't know if the movie is able to get someone scared except a little kid who doesn't be allowed to watch this movie. Always they take a weapon they don't load it until the beast stands in front of them. Why it is so necessary to be so unprepared if you know that there is a dangerous creature which waits to kill you? The way the beast kills people is always unspectacular. I don't like the dialogs. They are unpretentious from my opinion.

Since the original film was released back in the 1970s major advances in special effects have bought some truly brilliant films.Unfortunately the man in a furry coat does not advertise these said advances. The slow motion sequences do add to the feel of the film - slow.I am torn as to why this film fails to deliver - maybe it is the wooden acting, a script so predictably awful that is borders on the comic or the attempt to bring horror with monster slippers? Whatever the reason I just regret not using the hour and a half to do something more enjoyable - such as filling in my tax return.