Biohazard: Patient Zero (2012) User Reviews

Neither good enough or bad enough

[Jonas1969 · 4/10 · 20 June 2015]

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.

It had spirit and the will...

[paul_haakonsen · 4/10 · 19 November 2016]

Actually I will start out by saying that "Biohazard: Patient Zero" turned out to be somewhat better than I had initially anticipated. True that I didn't have much hopes for this movie, fearing that it would be yet another one of those low budget zombie movies with awful make-up.

However, "Biohazard: Patient Zero" turned out to be entertaining enough. And while it wasn't as much of a zombie movie as I had hoped or would have liked, it still proved to be a watchable movie.

The story is quite simple, actually. It is about a Dr. Jonathan Wright (played by Brandon Slagle) and Dr. Jenna Barnes (played by Amanda Phillips) who works at a genetic research facility. However, they do more than just simple genetic research here, and when the bio-weapon is compromised, the entire facility comes under lockdown, and there is suddenly a real threat to the lives of everyone trapped inside.

I will say that despite the simplicity of the storyline, then director Brian T. Jaynes actually managed to turn it into something that was entertaining enough.

The movie, however, just wasn't outstanding or particularly memorable. I had expected more of a zombie movie, whereas "Biohazard: Patient Zero" turned out to be more of an outbreak movie. Sure, there were some infected people (or carriers) seen as the bio-weapon was released, but it just wasn't enough to keep a seasoned gorehound like myself satisfied. The ones that you see are merely just people with bloodshot eyes and theater blood on their faces and bodies. Of course, it would be like this as the outbreak had just started, but I just would have liked to have seen something more.

As for the acting in "Biohazard: Patient Zero", well it was adequate. Although you shouldn't set yourself up for some award-winning performances here.

All in all not an overly memorable movie, but still entertaining enough for what it was and for what director Brian T. Jaynes accomplished to muster together with fairly limited resources.

"Biohazard: Patient Zero" scores a four out of ten stars rating from me.

A good watch while your eating a meal and do not want to focus to much

[marten-hellqvist · 5/10 · 23 October 2017]

Alright, this was not very much of a fresh look on the Virus movie, but still it kept me somewhat entertained for the time it took to indulge a warm meal and surf some on the phone.

I would not recommend it but I would not discourage anyone from watching it either.

Kind of bland.

Sub-Par "B" movie

[mrorange-20 · 2/10 · 9 October 2012]

I find it nearly humorous that when I decided to view this movie it had a 7.7 on IMDb. After seeing the movie I was left with the feeling that the 27 ratings,at the time,were all put there by cast members. The movie lacks ANY depth or originality. It's another low budget film that employees actors with no real acting skill. The plot has been done in other movies...but with moderate success. I understand the concept of limited budgets in relation to movie production,but it seems like a Doc-in-the-box office was used for this level 4 bio-hazard facility. I would as soon people be honest and not dash to dupe people and make a few bucks since the backlash will cost more sales down the road as no one lies a set up and the review was clearly orchestrated and not an actual representation. I would advise against renting this movie at any time in our existence on this planet as the sheer level of acting it brings to the industry is liable to make people scream out in rage and never see another movie again :)

Not the worst

[kosmasp · 3/10 · 11 June 2016]

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

It could've been done better.

[gabriel_sanchez · 3/10 · 24 July 2015]

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?

THAT WAS HIS WIFE!

[nogodnomasters · 5/10 · 26 May 2019]

The film opens with a hunt and kill segment that is foreboding of events. Dr. Jonathan Wright (Brandon Slagle) is engaged to Dr. Jenna Barnes (Amanda Phillips). They both work at GEM, a company in a small town that genetically modifies agricultural, "saving the planet one ear of corn at a time." At least that is what everyone believes, except for people at Jonathan's level. They are developing biological weapons, something that could be described as a "berserker virus."

There are several things I noticed that was a cause for pause. Why do employees wear Tyvex clothing to protect them from infection, then go eat lunch in the same clothes? Why does the military hunt down infected people without any protective gear? And when people are infected and feel they must kill each other, yet they don't kill other infected people. Why is that?

The film starts out slow to build character, or to let us know Jonathan doesn't have any. Amanda takes showers, but is camera shy. The action, when it does happen, is fairly light. It is a step above a Tempe production. It lacks the silliness of an Asylum/ SyFy production. There wasn't a sense of urgency in the film which it needed to compensate for the low budget action. Amanda Philips does satisfactory in a starring role, up from her normal "uncredited girl."

Parental Guide: F-bomb, no sex, no nudity.

Just a bad movie

[confidential-67897 · 2/10 · 14 August 2018]

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.

tense, effective romp

[horrorfinder · 9/10 · 12 October 2012]

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.

Watchable on a boring day.

[tanwestcoast · 6/10 · 12 October 2012]

After reading the reviews... I wasn't going to watch it, but I was bored and there wasn't anything else.

It wasn't the worst that I've seen but you really do have to be bored enough to not walk away. Not do to any lack of effort from the actors... I've seen high profile actor work on low budget films before and have the same look and feel as this film. I would like to watch a few more films by the same director to be sure, but the way the film was shot... I would have to say that any fault lays with the director on this film. It had the feel of a homemade movie... Could have used better shots, and with less effort... making it more realistic.

It's a story line that has been done a million times before, but if your bored and in need for "something" to watch, then yes... it is watchable.

Admirable Effort

[krgrk · 8/10 · 29 March 2017]

First off, this is not connected to the Resident Evil franchise, nor should the title throw you off in case you're thinking of the original title of the franchise, Biohazard. This is an independent take on the genre of bio weaponry and government conspiracy, plain and simple. It's very scientific with necessary awkward moments that are showcased nicely with a decent acting performance.

This film is an hour and 8 minutes long, and as short and sweet as the running time, the plot is straightforward, but that's the plot. This short underground film is meant to administer a cerebral punch to your thinking brain if you pay close attention to the dialogue.

If anything, this alternate version of something made popular is best seen as a homage to anything and everything zombie fandoms that mostly involve a scientific explanation. This isn't a zombie flick nor an attempt to do something better than what's out there. Underground films and fan-made material can surprise you with the detail between the plot scenes, but most people fail to appreciate certain entertainment products. This movie's an example of this. The writers and producers had a mandate to ensure that this was not designed for general appeal, which means mediocrity isn't fit to criticize unless you speak the language of the themes of the movie. It also manages to keep the zombie genre fresh by using a simplistic script design.

This deserves a solid 8.

Bang-up indie horror winner

[Woodyanders · 8/10 · 3 October 2012]

A lethal experimental virus gets unleashed in a secret government research facility and turns the bulk of the people trapped inside into deadly homicidal crazies. Will head scientists Dr. Jonathan Wright (superbly played by Brandon Slagle) and Dr. Jenna Barnes (a fine and appealing performance by Amanda Phillips) survive this harrowing ordeal and subsequently expose the government's cover-up of this incident? Writer/director Brian T. Jaynes relates the taut and riveting story at a constant brisk pace, takes time to carefully establish the well-drawn and likable main characters, generates a tremendous amount of nerve-rattling tension, creates a strong mood of mounting dread and unease, and delivers plenty of startling outbursts of bloody'n'brutal violence. The sturdy acting by the able cast keeps the picture humming: Slagle and Phillips make for excellent and engaging leads, with sound support from Van Quattro as a ruthless army major, Carl Savering as the no-nonsense Sheriff Klein, Natalie Wilemon as sweet lab assistant Liz, Larry Jack Dotson as scared local Marvin Johnson, Frederic Doss as a steely tactical commander, and Jackey Hall as perky secretary Kerri Klein. The grimly serious tone gives the movie an extra tough edge while the terse 68 minute running time ensures that it never gets dull or overstays its welcome. The crisp cinematography by Samuel Haun and John Marcinik provides an impressive polished look. Maigin Blank's pulsating score does the ominous trick. Very cool little flick.