Toxin

I often come on here looking at reviews and overall average ratings before deciding on my next film to watch. And I thought I'd give this a try based on having a few known and established actors. And that it has one one the worst average ratings for a budget film I think I've ever seen that I've looked at.

Yet another example of even if below an average film that the IMDb average review rating seems well off. I mean, what the hell are people comparing such films to in order to give such low ratings?. If you want to see a £50-£100 million plus budget film go and see 1 than watch these budget films yet judge these against Hollywood films with countless times the budget. People should try to judge films far more fairly based on a number of criteria.

However, that's not to say this is a great film as it's far from that. A reasonable passable effort at best thats made the best use of getting known and established actors on board that clearly carried and probably influenced the performance of the supporting actors. A shame no budget is stated as always nice to try and base a review against its budget.

At first I thought the film was some ten minutes short (maybe a higher than normal budget to the main stars might explain this). But in reality and on reflection it could easily have been several minutes shorter again due to scenes that had no place in the film and look only to have been put in to pad out the production to get to a minimal film length production.

Had this been several minutes shorter, pointless scenes cut out and more a one off TV special this would have been and felt a much better production. Overall story is not the worst for these films, but not great either.

Sadly another film that had potential yet fell well short even if using established and known actors. Acting overall was good to decent, but more a feeling of more a showcase film for upcoming actors and film makers to showcase their talents alongside established actors.

The guys that left the other poor reviews were being kind.

If you are yet to watch this then don't, for the love of God please don't!

But I'd imagine that you are just here to confirm that the film that you've just wasted an hour and a half of your life watching really is that bad and that other people thankfully agree with you and you're not going mad.

Apparently I have write ten lines for my review to be considered valid by IMDb. Bugger, there really isn't anything in this film I want to write ten lines about, the other reviews have already captured pretty accurately just what a stinker this is.

Well, Danny Glover's in it and he's not a good guy but it's an okay movie. Good Time Waster not as bad as some of these and it's got an interesting topic and it's done really well. Kind of like a serial killer movie without the serial killer and a virus instead bumping people off. Really not as bad as some of these reviewers are making it out to be. Just watch it and then judge for yourself.

I didn't expect much from this movie, and that's just what I got. I had hoped Danny Glover would make it worth while, but no luck. He has a smaller supporting role, and turns in a lackluster performance. The rest of the film is predictable, and poorly executed for the most part. It kept my attention enough to see it through to the end, but it really wasn't worth it. Don't bother.

How this movie got funding it is a mystery to me . To put it mildly movie is awful . Bad acting ,bad script ,bad directing ,no special effects, plot insults your intelligence ,characters insult your intelligence . It is like they got together one afternoon and decided to make a movie ,they shot it next day and this pile of S#%t is the result .It amazes me to know that in 21st century they can not find a decent script nor gather enough creativity to make something better than this . They made better indie movies than this in 60s and they had worse equipment less money and less talent . It would be greater pleasure to be sodomized for 80 minutes than to be forced to watch this "movie" again.