IMDb RATING
2.7/10
1.2K
YOUR RATING
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.A pharmaceutical company recruits a well-known scientist to help develop a vaccine against a deadly virus.
Aryeh-Or
- PFC Thornhill
- (as Ary Katz)
- Director
- Writer
- All cast & crew
- Production, box office & more at IMDbPro
2.71.2K
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Featured reviews
Typical "deadly virus" B-Movie
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.
Toxin: Not really as bad as some are saying.
Well, Danny Glover's in it and he's not a good guy but it's an okay movie. Good Time Waster not as bad as some of these and it's got an interesting topic and it's done really well. Kind of like a serial killer movie without the serial killer and a virus instead bumping people off. Really not as bad as some of these reviewers are making it out to be. Just watch it and then judge for yourself.
Rarely a movie so lifeless, dull and stupid
For some reason I always enjoy seeing Vinnie Jones. I don't know why. His movies and performance are getting worse every time, but I still watch them. And the movie has Danny Glover, of Lethal Weapon fame. How could this go wrong?
Easy. Vinnie is a minor thug of no consequence, Glover acts worse than a wooden plank - not kidding here, there were planks that didn't make me cringe in this film - and the hero of the story is Taylor Handley, from Dawson Creek, playing a bad ass soldier coming from Afghanistan. Yet it goes further than this: the CGI is painfully bad, the dialog is pathetic, the direction is worse than non-existent, it's suicidal and the acting of everyone involved is abysmal. I mean, the best actor of them all by far was C.S. Lee, Vince Masuka from Dexter. That should tell you how bad the whole thing was.
And yet, if this would have had an intriguing premise, brought something new to the table, added at least some element of tension, horror, drama or at least comedy, inadvertent or not, I would have been OK with its existence. Instead it is a completely worthless enterprise. More effort has been put into fake comments on IMDb than in any part of the film.
Bottom line: avoid it like you would a toxin that is actually a virus that grows spores on the walls of buildings.
Easy. Vinnie is a minor thug of no consequence, Glover acts worse than a wooden plank - not kidding here, there were planks that didn't make me cringe in this film - and the hero of the story is Taylor Handley, from Dawson Creek, playing a bad ass soldier coming from Afghanistan. Yet it goes further than this: the CGI is painfully bad, the dialog is pathetic, the direction is worse than non-existent, it's suicidal and the acting of everyone involved is abysmal. I mean, the best actor of them all by far was C.S. Lee, Vince Masuka from Dexter. That should tell you how bad the whole thing was.
And yet, if this would have had an intriguing premise, brought something new to the table, added at least some element of tension, horror, drama or at least comedy, inadvertent or not, I would have been OK with its existence. Instead it is a completely worthless enterprise. More effort has been put into fake comments on IMDb than in any part of the film.
Bottom line: avoid it like you would a toxin that is actually a virus that grows spores on the walls of buildings.
Not as bad as rating claims
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.
It is hard to believe how bad this movie is !
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.
Did you know
- TriviaThe 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.
- GoofsThe letter Dean receives says 'two weeks from the date of this letter' but the letter does not have a date on it.
- How long is Toxin?Powered by Alexa
Details
- Runtime
- 1h 17m(77 min)
- Color
Contribute to this page
Suggest an edit or add missing content






