MovieChat Forums > Virus (1999) Discussion > 4.5 Seriously.. whats wrong with this mo...

4.5 Seriously.. whats wrong with this movie?

posted 13 years ago by CLOSE_6
13 replies | jump to latest

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

[–] MountainMan 13 years ago

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

[–] DarkBlueChris555 13 years ago

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 13 years ago

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

[–] Hey_Sweden 13 years ago

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!

[–] dr-strangeno24 12 years ago

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

[–] matthi-92639 8 years ago

"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.

[–] cyguration (3951) 4 years ago

I have a love/hate relationship with Screamers. I loved the concept and some of the effects, but the movie moves into some bizarre territory that sort of ruins the appeal for me.

But this was decades ago since I last watched it, and maybe I need to view with fresh eyes to get a better perspective of what I missed when it first came out.

[–] Anorensic 12 years ago

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

[–] bullpen_1 11 years ago

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.

[–] stranglewood 8 years ago

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

[–] Thenewnexus 10 years ago

I gave this one a 7

You want tah fack wit me? You ah fACKING chioah boi compahed tu me ah chioah boi

[–] Antantz (4) 5 years ago

I gave this one a low rating but changed my mind later, I liked it, I would give it a 7.

[–] Satan2016 (25575) 5 years ago

Are you insane! It's not just Imdb users (now 5.0). Metascore is only 19, no positive, 3 mixed.

https://www.metacritic.com/movie/virus/critic-reviews

Roger Ebert: "Deep Rising" was one of the worst movies of 1998. Virus is easily worse.