Plague

A low budget,murky filmed "thriller" A virus escapes from a compound and threatens to wipe out the entire population.It is spread by an escaped quarantined women who infects everyone she comes in contact with,air vents etc. The acting in this film is so bad that the best performance is by a Hertz rent-a car lady who does not speak but registers the most emotion-slight impatience waiting for the escaped lady to find her credit card,a smile when she finds it,and confusion when she comes back to the counter to find the lady has disappeared{she sees a police car pull up outside}.The fugitive lady smirks throughout the the film ,totally ignorant of what shes done. This film is in need of a panacea

Contary to the opinion of one reviewer of this film, it is NOT the worst film ever made, far from it. It may not be the best either but there are countless worse ones out there. Check out 'Ransom Runner' for example, that is a stinker by anyone's standards.

I quite like the low key documentary feel of this film, far less sensational than a film like 'Outbreak,' this rather prosaic style is probably the more realistic way it would be in real life. As the saying goes, the world ends with a whimper and not a bang.

In it's own way this is quite an effective little thriller along the lines of the old BBC television series from the 1970's, the 'Surviours.' And as another fellow reviewer points out, also somewhat contemporary now with the threat of 'bird flu.' Or indeed, other fearful epidemics like MRSA or even the constant threat of AIDS. Although, this was made before any of these awful diseases were known.

The acting is nothing to write home about and is standard at best, although, the actress playing Jessica, shines as a sardonic secretary.

While not in the same class as films such as 'Outbreak' or '28 Days Later' or even 'The Satan Bug,' which use the same end-of-the-world plot line, this passes the time and holds the attention to the end. Also interesting is the final reward to the two people who help save the world.

its sometimes funny how old crappy movies turn out to be signs of the future, a flu like plague carried by birds?????? who would have thought.......

like Zombie Creeping Flesh, this Canadian flick levels the spread of an epidemic directly at the Powers That Be, and i like it for that. I didn't know this movie was available on DVD and happen to own the original VHS release under the title 'Induced Syndrome', boasting on of the greatest covers of all time - a poor rip off of Iron Maiden's Eddie bursting out of planet Earth, misleading to say the least as I was expecting a zombie film and instead got this. Also a little like Rabid, with the infected woman roaming around passing the virus.

All in all quite an OK waste of hour and a half, i'd save the money for the DVD though and get something else.

Plague is a film without special qualities - average director, script, actors. It's not bad though. The action, although standard for this type of films, holds the viewer's interest. Of course, the whole "scientific" part of the movie only sounds scientific and can only mislead a person who has no concept of bacteriology, but this is also standard for this type of films. The so called bacteria in the videos is in fact Paramecium - you can get it in the nearest swamp and studi it in a standart microscope. Don't expect action, don't look for special effects. Actors play average and you won't see known faces.

All in all, if you like 70s thrillers, you won't regret it.

most of the people who comment on this film just don't get it. they don't appreciate it for the low budget gem that it is. "gemini strain" makes an excellent companion piece to the original "andromeda strain." "andromeda" is quality "a" filmaking, a full-budgeted production helmed by a major director (robert wise). as such, it's one of the best and most interesting pictures released by a major studio during the seventies. "gemini," on the other hand, is a down-and-dirty, low budget Canadian tax shelter flick. as a result it's grungier, grime-ier, and more "realistic" in a banal way. neither film is "better" than the other. each one represents a different approach to similar material. each deserves to be appreciated on its own merits. (i'm not going to give the film a numerical rating. film is too subtle and nuanced a medium to be quantified on a one to ten basis.)