NOTE IMDb
2,7/10
1,2 k
MA NOTE
Ajouter une intrigue dans votre langueA pharmaceutical company recruits a well-known scientist to help develop a vaccine against a deadly virus.A pharmaceutical company recruits a well-known scientist to help develop a vaccine against a deadly virus.A pharmaceutical company recruits a well-known scientist to help develop a vaccine against a deadly virus.
Aryeh-Or
- PFC Thornhill
- (as Ary Katz)
Avis à la une
I should had turned it off the moment i heard "What took you so long"/ "Yeah is nice to see you too" I can't believe that dialog is still used. I honestly felt like i was watching the bloopers version or perhaps the deleted scenes all roll into a movie. I hate to be so critical but I have to admit that when I saw the budget of this movie was 500K it did bother me. You could feed so many families and instead you make this movie. I do feel bad for the camera director in this film. He was probably biting his tongue from saying anything the whole time he was filming. I'm sure at one point he asked himself "Why did I sign up for this?" after all the camera work was practically the only decent part of this movie. Even Danny G's acting wasn't convincing. I dont believe i could've kept my mouth shut if i had been involved in this project. How on earth did this film cost so much. That's what I want to know?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Le saviez-vous
- AnecdotesThe establishing shot at the beginning identifies the lab location as being "30 miles outside Dallas, Texas." The geography within that distance from Dallas, is nothing like what is shown.
- GaffesThe letter Dean receives says 'two weeks from the date of this letter' but the letter does not have a date on it.
Meilleurs choix
Connectez-vous pour évaluer et suivre la liste de favoris afin de recevoir des recommandations personnalisées
- How long is Toxin?Alimenté par Alexa
Détails
- Durée
- 1h 17min(77 min)
- Couleur
Contribuer à cette page
Suggérer une modification ou ajouter du contenu manquant