Patient Zero

But that doesn't make this good either. Especially rings true in certain moments when characters have to "act" or move the plot forward. It's really cringe worthy in the worst sense there is. The action/stunts are kind of watchable if you consider the low budget this had. The set itself is well used, though again, very constricted by budgetary reasons and it's not helping itself either.

Apart from the actors, you also get dealt your usual clichés. Nothing you have to be too much surprised about with this. But predictability alone wouldn't have hurt the movie, it's the sum of all the things mentioned. Some might have a bigger heart for this, but a lot will feel even more disappointed than my vote is displaying

There isn't anything new here and it has all been done a lot better before, but it isn't awful and considering the budget I'd call it OK.

They have borrowed a lot from other movies but primarily from Resident Evil (2002), although the limited budget means that it isn't on anything like the same scale.

If you do something that has very much been done before you need to have some twist or gimmick and here there is neither and the end leaves much to be desired as well.

If the ending had had a twist or at least tied it all together then this could have earned a couple of points more, but as it is you should only watch it if - like me - you watch everything with bio-weapons and even then there are very many movies that should be higher on your list like: Outbreak (1995), Contagion (2011) or 28 Days Later (2002) to name just a few that are in a similar genre.

I'm fond to zombie or infected stories. When I see that a movie is about those things, I can't ignore it; I need to watch it. Although, I'm open-minded: when you head for a movie like this -- a B movie, you gotta know what to expect from it.

Of course a movie like this will hit you hard with bad acting. This one isn't an exception. To be honest, the acting on this one is pretty bad.

I felt that the movie plot was rushed. They tried to put some sense on all it was going on, but with less than 70 minutes to undergo the whole thing, it got kinda convoluted.

Also, what's up with movies not trying to put believability into its story or facts that are happening? I mean, when you pass to the viewers a fact, you can't just change it when you want! It needs to feel real. That counts for the acting too! Emotions needs to look real, it has to pass that feeling that it's how things would go in real life.

It's funny, at some point they tell you something, then they go like: "oh, there's this detail that changes it all that I hadn't brought up to you until now! Opsy daisy!". Those things can ruin a movie for me.

Though it's a bad movie, I can't deny it had some potential. I feel that it could've been done way better, using the same idea.

But, with only 70 minutes of runtime, I say, if you're an enthusiast, go for it! Why not?

After reading the reviews... I wasn't going to watch it, but I was bored and there wasn't anything else.

It wasn't the worst that I've seen but you really do have to be bored enough to not walk away. Not do to any lack of effort from the actors... I've seen high profile actor work on low budget films before and have the same look and feel as this film. I would like to watch a few more films by the same director to be sure, but the way the film was shot... I would have to say that any fault lays with the director on this film. It had the feel of a homemade movie... Could have used better shots, and with less effort... making it more realistic.

It's a story line that has been done a million times before, but if your bored and in need for "something" to watch, then yes... it is watchable.

How can normally good actors, act so terribly in this movie, it must be the director. The premise is interesting but nothing ever comes of it. You will end up fast forwarding parts of this movie as it does get a bit boring. Don't bother with this movie, just watch 28 days later again.