Patient Zero

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 find it nearly humorous that when I decided to view this movie it had a 7.7 on IMDb. After seeing the movie I was left with the feeling that the 27 ratings,at the time,were all put there by cast members. The movie lacks ANY depth or originality. It's another low budget film that employees actors with no real acting skill. The plot has been done in other movies...but with moderate success. I understand the concept of limited budgets in relation to movie production,but it seems like a Doc-in-the-box office was used for this level 4 bio-hazard facility. I would as soon people be honest and not dash to dupe people and make a few bucks since the backlash will cost more sales down the road as no one lies a set up and the review was clearly orchestrated and not an actual representation. I would advise against renting this movie at any time in our existence on this planet as the sheer level of acting it brings to the industry is liable to make people scream out in rage and never see another movie again :)

Alright, this was not very much of a fresh look on the Virus movie, but still it kept me somewhat entertained for the time it took to indulge a warm meal and surf some on the phone.

I would not recommend it but I would not discourage anyone from watching it either.

Kind of bland.

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?

Actually I will start out by saying that "Biohazard: Patient Zero" turned out to be somewhat better than I had initially anticipated. True that I didn't have much hopes for this movie, fearing that it would be yet another one of those low budget zombie movies with awful make-up.

However, "Biohazard: Patient Zero" turned out to be entertaining enough. And while it wasn't as much of a zombie movie as I had hoped or would have liked, it still proved to be a watchable movie.

The story is quite simple, actually. It is about a Dr. Jonathan Wright (played by Brandon Slagle) and Dr. Jenna Barnes (played by Amanda Phillips) who works at a genetic research facility. However, they do more than just simple genetic research here, and when the bio-weapon is compromised, the entire facility comes under lockdown, and there is suddenly a real threat to the lives of everyone trapped inside.

I will say that despite the simplicity of the storyline, then director Brian T. Jaynes actually managed to turn it into something that was entertaining enough.

The movie, however, just wasn't outstanding or particularly memorable. I had expected more of a zombie movie, whereas "Biohazard: Patient Zero" turned out to be more of an outbreak movie. Sure, there were some infected people (or carriers) seen as the bio-weapon was released, but it just wasn't enough to keep a seasoned gorehound like myself satisfied. The ones that you see are merely just people with bloodshot eyes and theater blood on their faces and bodies. Of course, it would be like this as the outbreak had just started, but I just would have liked to have seen something more.

As for the acting in "Biohazard: Patient Zero", well it was adequate. Although you shouldn't set yourself up for some award-winning performances here.

All in all not an overly memorable movie, but still entertaining enough for what it was and for what director Brian T. Jaynes accomplished to muster together with fairly limited resources.

"Biohazard: Patient Zero" scores a four out of ten stars rating from me.