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 -
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!! -
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 -
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.
-
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.
