<![CDATA[4.5 Seriously.. whats wrong with this movie?]]>Archived from the IMDb Discussion Forums — Virus

CLOSE_6 — 14 years ago(September 27, 2011 12:51 PM)

I mean alright it's not the greatest film ever, but the hatred aimed at it would make you think it's a total turkey, it is what it is, the effects are cool, lots of non cgi monsters, the story is serviceable, the acting, whilst certainly not oscar worthy, is ok (with the exception of Sutherland's accent, whats going on there), the pacing is ok, I just don't get it.
It definitely deserves more than 4.5, granted not much more, but out of ten I'd give it a 6 🙂
Buuuuuuuuuung

]]>https://filmglance.com/discuss/topic/224565/4-5-seriously-whats-wrong-with-this-movieRSS for NodeThu, 14 May 2026 20:49:29 GMTSat, 02 May 2026 20:11:28 GMT60<![CDATA[Reply to 4.5 Seriously.. whats wrong with this movie? on Sat, 02 May 2026 20:11:40 GMT]]>exithereplease — 5 months ago(October 08, 2025 07:52 PM)

Donald Sutherland was way over the top at the beginning

]]>https://filmglance.com/discuss/post/1883867https://filmglance.com/discuss/post/1883867Sat, 02 May 2026 20:11:40 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to 4.5 Seriously.. whats wrong with this movie? on Sat, 02 May 2026 20:11:39 GMT]]>Thenewnexus — 11 years ago(January 07, 2015 11:19 AM)

I gave this one a 7
You want tah fack wit me? You ah fACKING chioah boi compahed tu me ah chioah boi

]]>https://filmglance.com/discuss/post/1883866https://filmglance.com/discuss/post/1883866Sat, 02 May 2026 20:11:39 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to 4.5 Seriously.. whats wrong with this movie? on Sat, 02 May 2026 20:11:38 GMT]]>stranglewood — 9 years ago(November 29, 2016 12:14 AM)

It's terrible and completely derivative, and the actors are slumming. There's no energy to it.

]]>https://filmglance.com/discuss/post/1883865https://filmglance.com/discuss/post/1883865Sat, 02 May 2026 20:11:38 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to 4.5 Seriously.. whats wrong with this movie? on Sat, 02 May 2026 20:11:37 GMT]]>bullpen_1 — 11 years ago(April 08, 2014 02:08 PM)

Agree with the 6 rating 🙂 There are plenty of direct to video releases that deserve a 4, to be sure. This isn't one of them by a long shot.

You have my word as an inveterate cheat.

]]>https://filmglance.com/discuss/post/1883864https://filmglance.com/discuss/post/1883864Sat, 02 May 2026 20:11:37 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to 4.5 Seriously.. whats wrong with this movie? on Sat, 02 May 2026 20:11:36 GMT]]>Anorensic — 13 years ago(October 20, 2012 09:02 AM)

Underrated by at least 0.5, I gave it a 7 too.

]]>https://filmglance.com/discuss/post/1883863https://filmglance.com/discuss/post/1883863Sat, 02 May 2026 20:11:36 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to 4.5 Seriously.. whats wrong with this movie? on Sat, 02 May 2026 20:11:35 GMT]]>matthi-92639 — 9 years ago(December 16, 2016 02:12 AM)

"Screamers" was amazing, I can't remember the last time I was expecting so little and got so much out of watching a film. It covers well-traveled territory but does it in a way where it manages to come off unique instead of cliche. Highly underrated.

]]>https://filmglance.com/discuss/post/1883862https://filmglance.com/discuss/post/1883862Sat, 02 May 2026 20:11:35 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to 4.5 Seriously.. whats wrong with this movie? on Sat, 02 May 2026 20:11:34 GMT]]>dr-strangeno24 — 13 years ago(October 01, 2012 07:53 AM)

The 90s were a time for utterly despising the kind of fun and visually pleasing movies that'd be liked or loved today. This especially applies to sci-fi hybrids. To name a few:

  • Virus
  • Wild Wild West
  • Lost in Space
  • Bio-Dome
  • Lawnmower Man
  • Village of the Damned
  • Waterworld and The Postman
  • Solo
  • Screamers
  • Toys
    All 90s sci-fi hybrids, all decent-to-good movies which some people will swear are the worst wastes ever spawned, usually for no articulated reason.

http://oi46.tinypic.com/nbf5w1.jpg

]]>https://filmglance.com/discuss/post/1883861https://filmglance.com/discuss/post/1883861Sat, 02 May 2026 20:11:34 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to 4.5 Seriously.. whats wrong with this movie? on Sat, 02 May 2026 20:11:33 GMT]]>Hey_Sweden — 13 years ago(May 26, 2012 08:35 PM)

I'd agree with you - it has its flaws, to be sure, but it still provides some adequate entertainment.
What do you think this is, a signature? It's a way of life!

]]>https://filmglance.com/discuss/post/1883860https://filmglance.com/discuss/post/1883860Sat, 02 May 2026 20:11:33 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to 4.5 Seriously.. whats wrong with this movie? on Sat, 02 May 2026 20:11:31 GMT]]>clacton0 — 14 years ago(December 03, 2011 03:22 PM)

Am trying to watch the film on Syfy but they have messed it right up.
First its in the wrong ratio and keeps changing it also has talking over it before each add brake over them.
Syfy is retarded
www.youtube.com/eastangliauk

]]>https://filmglance.com/discuss/post/1883859https://filmglance.com/discuss/post/1883859Sat, 02 May 2026 20:11:31 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to 4.5 Seriously.. whats wrong with this movie? on Sat, 02 May 2026 20:11:30 GMT]]>DarkBlueChris555 — 14 years ago(October 23, 2011 04:42 PM)

It's flawed but enjoyable, and certainly delivers what it sets out to deliver. Sutherland's worst acting performance ever mind you, and it was one of 1999's biggest box-office disasters.
Stop saying things!!

]]>https://filmglance.com/discuss/post/1883858https://filmglance.com/discuss/post/1883858Sat, 02 May 2026 20:11:30 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to 4.5 Seriously.. whats wrong with this movie? on Sat, 02 May 2026 20:11:29 GMT]]>MountainMan — 14 years ago(October 11, 2011 10:04 AM)

RIGHT ON, I AGREE!!!! I gave it a 7, c'mon, it was enjoyable start to finish.
Mountain Man

]]>https://filmglance.com/discuss/post/1883857https://filmglance.com/discuss/post/1883857Sat, 02 May 2026 20:11:29 GMT