Biohazard: Patient Zero

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.

We've seen it before. Scientists creates virus. Virus creates zombies. Zombies create chaos. However normally the story isn't told with this much precision and in such a tight little package. After a brisk beginning, we slow down for a bit (but not to a halt) for some nice levity and character development, but as soon as the facility is "locked down" and the tactical team shows up for quarantine, the ride begins.

Good performances all around, especially from Slagle and Quattro, and some fun sequences that will keep you on the edge of your seat and hugging the nearest pillow. Recommended.

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.

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

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?