Pandemic (2016) User Reviews

Definitely had potential...

[paul_haakonsen · 5/10 · 6 June 2017]

After I saw the trailer for "Pandemic" by sheer luck on YouTube, I just had to track down this movie and get it watched, especially since I am a huge zombie aficionado. And the trailer for 2016's "Pandemic" looked really intense.

Well, at least the trailer was intense. The actual movie, meh... It was actually semi-boring, which was somewhat of a disappointment and a slap to the face. I must expect that I had expected a lot more from this movie after having seen that trailer.

Certainly there were some good parts to the movie, and those parts had lots of action and a really great and fast pace to it. And that was really what held the movie afloat.

This is not a movie that is driven by acting performances or by character development. Actually the characters in "Pandemic" were very mundane and generic, to the point where you didn't really care if they died or survived, and it didn't matter who died and who survived, because they were essentially the same character, just with a different face.

The acting in the movie was fair enough, taking into consideration the limitations that the acting talents had to work with in terms of script and direction.

The first person view that permeated the movie was a different but not entirely unwelcoming approach to the zombie genre. Sure it has been seen before, but it actually worked out well enough in "Pandemic".

A zombie movie needs proper special effects, and honestly, then "Pandemic" was limping here. The special effects and CGI effects were not impressive to be bluntly honest, and that was sort of holding the movie back in a way.

Putting the cards on the table, then I have to say that "Pandemic" was an adequate movie in terms of being entertaining. But it was far from being an impressive movie addition in the zombie genre.

A disgrace for the name, the zombie genre and cinema in general

[siderite · 3/10 · 23 May 2016]

What I don't understand is how can you get a decent cast and a decent budget and make this crap of a film. Rachel Nichols is the main actress, and she kind of carried a TV show for four seasons; Alfie Allen is Theon Greyjoy in Game of Thrones; remember Mekhi Phifer from when he was the hot black guy that En Vogue were falling for? Paul Guilfoyle played in everything! And what do they do with this? A shaky-cam version of a zombie movie where even the zombies act subpar.

Frankly, it all feels like a collection of bad cinematic sequences in a really dumb game, only acted by real people. A bored programmer in a basement could have made a better film with 3D models.

The plot is the typical "infected people act like zombies", complete with pseudo-scientific categories from 1 to 5, and ridiculous explanations about what happened and what the plan is. As most zombie films it completely ignores the reasons why zombies aren't attacking each other, and since they are only infected people, why it is so difficult to kill them.

But what really pisses me off is how they use the name Pandemic, letting me hope even for a millisecond that once, just once, someone might make a movie about a real pandemic: no zombies, no government conspiracies, no dangerous trip in a car with family or close friends, just a very possible viral outbreak.

We need reality here, else at the first pandemic Americans take out their guns and start shooting each other in the head. God damn it, make a movie about the Spanish Influenza! Tell the story of tens of millions of people dead while governments at war censor the news to keep moral high. Tell the story of the Black Plague, without making it about witches or religion or some other crap like that. Show people what nature is really about and don't make it about people trying to get to their families and improbable villains that get nothing from spreading the disease.

Why the characters are so stupid?

[yasojith · 3/10 · 23 April 2016]

Acting is good. Story outline is good.

But characters are are so stupid. They should have rational behavior. They don't even use basic protection methods when they are not in safe zone.

If mom use bit brain she can save herself at the end. Just she had to do is wait inside the van until soldiers clean the area and then show her blood test to the soldiers.

Also since there is lots of time after the infection, the government definitely keep a method to identify the infected people and save others at the gate.

I recommend this movie only for those zombie film fans who don't any films left to watch. For others, its a waste of time.

Beyond crummy.....

[s3276169 · 1/10 · 3 April 2016]

Pandemic is simply put, beyond crummy. This is a real month old, left in the sun, pickled stinker of a film.

The film, such as it is, looks like it was shot mostly, in the same manner as a first person shooter, computer game. Its a disorientating approach and adds nothing, beyond simple novelty, to this title.

The storyline, such as it is, is bland and hackneyed, the sets second rate and the action uninteresting. The acting is alright and there are even some capable actors, such as Rachel Nicols, on board.

Nothing, however, can save Pandemic from the label of abysmal. One out of ten from me.

First person shooter stupidity

[adeel-76779 · 2/10 · 3 April 2016]

There is no good plot to this movie. In addition to that, the First person shooter camera is really irritating in movies.. (you hear me movie makers?)

It looked like the director was just trying to make use of every possible content in a short time, so nothing was well executed.

It was panic everywhere and none of the character seemed to be doing its job properly (acting was good, talking about characters here). Though it had been long time the virus had started, they should have gotten bit used to it, but it didn't seemed like it. They were making every false call possible e.g. when any person gets out of the bus in middle of a town full of infected people, you close the damn door and wait for that person to come back. Instead they decided to keep it open and wait.. knowing none of them knows firing a gun properly.

Save your time and don't watch it. You will get aggravated on character's stupidity and wont be able to enjoy movie anyway.

Thanks for reading.

Dont even start

[severstjepan · 1/10 · 2 November 2020]

It isn't common for me to brake up movies after 10min but this one is sadly unwatchable. It's bad beyond your imagination.

Pandemic madness

[acoustic_domine · 1/10 · 4 April 2020]

I think the shaky camera and total chaos in the scenes was added to distract the viewer from just how awful this movie is The story line was weak the acting was amatuer dramatics whoever financed and sanctioned its release obviously had more money than sense

Pandemic: not recommended unless you have a really broad interest in film making.

[niutta-enrico · 5/10 · 11 April 2016]

If you are looking for an enjoyable zombie movie I would never recommend you this title: poor locations, poorer costumes, awful effects, unrealistic fighting and repetitive framing take away all the fun from watching.

If your interest in movies goes beyond normal, on the other hand, you could probably get interested in this film: besides the lovely Rachel Nichols, always pretty, and the convincing Alfie Allen (Theon Greyjoy from 'Games of Thrones'), there is a somehow original post-apocalyptic world and a coherent script.

In other words, even though the film is bad, there is talent in Mr. Suits (Producer and Director) and in Mr. Benson (Writer) and I'll be glad to watch their future works.

Not as bad as they are saying

[LizDuv · 7/10 · 13 October 2016]

I am not sure where all the hate for this movie comes from. Was it top notch? No, but it also didn't suck. It was your typical B movie and had me saying "Seriously?" a few times. Overall though it was not as bad as the other reviews made it out to be. I can't say that I would ever watch it again but then there are few horror/sci-fi/B movies that I would watch a second time. I hate movies that do a lot of dark scenes but most horror does that. It wasn't predictable and that is a plus but it also did not make you say "WOW that's new!" Seriously though worth a watch if you like this genre. Love Rachel Nichols from Continuum,Mekhi Phifer from ER and Paul Guilfoyle from CSI and think that they added something to the cast for just being known actors. And I took this movie as it stood, not Oscar material but also not garbage can.

I'm trying really hard to think of a worse film and I can't

[jonnithomas · 1/10 · 9 April 2016]

I am very much a scifi fan and don't mind the odd horror movie. However they do need to have some form of story and dialogue.

This film has a story that I can describe fully in three sentences. It has little dialogue and the acting is, putting it mildly, wooden.

so I will write this without any spoilers because there is nothing to spoil. it's a cheap, badly written, badly acted and badly produced film attempting to piggyback the success of things like the walking dead.

It really is an insult to any potential audience and I would suggest that it would be a total waste of time to watch it.

As a review has to be 10 lines I will simply say in summary that this film could be condensed into 10 minutes and you wouldn't lose anything from it.

A Bit Shaky

[scythertitus · 8/10 · 7 July 2016]

The two glaring flaws to this film are its overuse of first person shaky cam, which while arguably immerses you deeper into the situation and action of the film, also quite simply makes you feel sick, and its appeal to generic audiences, as can be seen in the ridiculously broad title. However, if you can look past these two aspects, as well as the occasionally questionable special effect, then there is a lot of positive things to say.

This film has a great story, it makes sense and is carried out in an organic way, while still ticking all the usual zombie-survival boxes that have become the staple of this genre. The acting is pretty great in my opinion and conveys the right tone for each situation, my only complaint being here that with only four characters for most of the movie there is something lacking in personal interaction and team dynamic, although what there is is good and solidly written. There is also a rich world created within the framework of the film, although it is shown on a small scale, and this could easily be fleshed out more if there is a sequel at some point.

Overall I found myself really liking the simple and solid aspects of this film in the acting and storytelling, although the constant switching of first person views might be enough to put some people off entirely as it does get a bit nauseating after a while. Still there is a lot of good here, especially for fans of the genre, most of us being used to much lower production values and less cohesive plots. For non-fans it might not come across so well.

Filming it largely like a video game, definitely gives the movie a unique twist.

[Hellmant · 7/10 · 28 March 2016]

'PANDEMIC': Three and a Half Stars (Out of Five)

A zombie flick, filmed largely in the first-person point of view format. It was directed by John Suits (an experienced low-budget horror movie director), and written by first-time screenwriter Dustin T. Benson. The film stars Rachel Nichols, Alfie Allen (of 'GAME OF THRONES' fame), Missi Pyle, Mekhi Phifer (who also costarred in the popular 2004 zombie flick remake 'DAWN OF THE DEAD'), Paul Guilfoyle and Pat Healey. It tells the story of a doctor, that's sent into a heavily infected area of Los Angels; to find uninfected survivors, in hopes of finding a cure. I think the film's story, and characters, are somewhat routine; but I really like it's creative new visual storytelling style!

The story is set in the not too distant future, when most of the world's population has been infected by a zombie virus. A doctor, named Lauren (Nichols), has just left New York, which has been completely wiped out by the deadly outbreak, to aid a special survival unit in Los Angeles. Her mission, is to lead a team into a heavily infected part of town; to find uninfected survivors, and bring them back alive (for research). Hopefully a cure can be found, in their uncontaminated blood.

Like I said, there's absolutely nothing new (or especially creative) about the film's story. The characters are also kind of dull, and uninspired. The performances are decent though, and the cast is pretty impressive (for a low budget B-zombie flick, like this). What's most impressive about the movie, is it's visuals though. Filming it largely like a video game, definitely gives the movie a unique twist; and it's set for release, just a week before 'HARDCORE HENRY' (which is entirely shot in the first-person POV perspective). Since it hasn't been done dozens of times before (yet), the film is a pretty entertaining horror flick experience.

Watch our movie review show 'MOVIE TALK' at: https://youtu.be/vlqkdyuq2zY

A first person perspective peek into the world of the infected.

[Lisa_Loves · 4/10 · 3 July 2016]

I've always been a big fan of zombie/outbreak/infection movies in all their guises. This perspective however, I had not experienced before.

To start with I wasn't overly enamored with the cast. The lead actress Rachel Nichols (Lauren), struck me as being someone who should have been playing a supportive role rather than trying to carry the movie. She plays a doctor, Lauren, brought in to help in the fight against any further spread of the disease, which has already infected more than it hasn't. The story revolves around a mission to rescue a previous team of uninfected who have failed to return to base.

As I already said, attachment to the cast wasn't a strong point here. At least not until Alfie Allen who plays 'Wheeler' comes into his own. He plays a very background role until we're more than halfway into the movie, but when he comes to the fore, the movie is much improved.

The main pull of this movie for me and the one thing which makes it interesting is the first person perspective we see during the infected attacks. It definitely makes you feel more involved. Gore is quite full-on and explicit, which is always good in this kind of movie, so special effects definitely did their job well in this respect. Sadly in the case of a lot of background shots, the CGI is lacking. I can recall a bus on fire, which was just plain atrocious!

I would recommend this to fans of zombie movies, just for the change of perspective, but overall, I don't think it's a movie that I would recommend to a casual movie fan.

This film is unforgivable in how bad it is.

[sdagwagner · 1/10 · 24 March 2020]

A director trying every visual cliche along with every predictable zombie story twist come together for a perfect storm of chaotic mess.

This is barely a film and more of a failed video game pitch reel. The first person shooter aspect fails to engage the viewer and barely hides terrible acting. 10 minutes in and it is painfully obvious where the story is going.

Stupid character choices result in predictable outcomes. The characters are one dimensional at best and so under developed that it is impossible to feel anything other than pity for the actors getting roped into this nightmare production.

There is nothing polished in this film. From the opening scene to an unfinished ending, it is just a waste of time.

Watch something, anything else.

Horrible mess, shaken not stirred

[kking-68641 · 1/10 · 2 July 2018]

At least with a handheld cam the shaking can be slightly controlled, but this 'helmet cam' POV is the most horrifying thing about this terrible movie. It is SO shaky I can't tell where anybody is or what anybody is doing - are those infected people opening the back door of the bus from the outside to get it? Seems like it, but I can't really tell because the camera is shaking all over the place. Other than that, everything was horrible. Bad script, bad acting, bad plot. Unrealistic dialogue delivered with all the skill of poorly-programmed robots. 'Plot' that is more holes than plot. Easily one of the top ten worst movies I've ever seen.

Who even am 'I' supposed to be?

[if_only_the_earth_were_round · 3/10 · 4 May 2018]

Arguably the 4.6 Pandemic (2016) has on IMDB is a little harsh, though really it is to expected. Whilst it is a much better stab at the Zombie slasher than many attempts, it is confusing, nauseating and a gross waste of evident budget and acting calibre. However, this film makes big claims and so has to watched at least. The case states the following:

'Pandemic is like nothing you have ever witnessed before. Shot in a completely revolutionary 'First Person Perspective' Pandemic makes YOU the star of the movie. YOU fire every shot and YOU throw every punch.'

'The only hope for a cure is for YOU to lead a team into the field to rescue survivors...'

It would appear that whoever wrote this back of the case blurb was unaware of two vitally important things 1) Lady in the Lake (1947) and 2) what actually happens in Pandemic. Indeed, the very same technique was employed by Robert Montgomery in his ambitious, brilliant, but painfully flawed Lady in the Lake. Shot in 1947, when the uninterrupted use of a subjective camera was actually 'revolutionary', Montgomery invites 'You' to solve a murder mystery with him as the camera takes the place of detective Montgomery. Therefore, and regardless of what the packaging says, Pandemic is not revolutionary in the slightest, and anyone ignorant of the history in his field would be well advised to band about terms such as 'revolutionary' with extreme caution. Moreover, some knowledge of what had preceded Pandemic would have seen improvements in the product manifest beyond its cover, as the film itself exhibits many of the flaws suffered by the sibling 69 years its senior.

One of the main problems (of which there were many) faced by Lady in the Lake is the strange position the audience finds itself in. We are to solve a mystery with Montgomery, and yet we find ourselves, visually at least, in place of Montgomery. We are neither Montgomery nor not Montgomery, we are seeing what he is seeing, yet overtly aware of not seeing him. We have his eyes, sometimes his hands, but we are with him and not him. It is a confusing relationship held between Lady in the Lake and its audience, one which resulted in unfair dismissal of the subjective camera by many critics, and a fairer though unfortunate dismissal of the film. All that said, at least the 'You' in Lady in the Lake meant us, and whilst there may have been confusion with our relationship to Montgomery and his co-stars, we were still 'us' and free to figure all that out for ourselves. Pandemic and its premise however bring about a new level of confusion regarding the 'You' and the 'I' of its attempted sharing of subjective experience.

The 'You' referred to so excitedly on the cover of Pandemic explicitly indicates that 'I' am to lead a team into the field to rescue survivors, the product of such an excursion somehow being a cure for the infection that earned the film its name. Holes in the concept become immediately apparent when 'I' am a camera in a smart phone looking at female protagonist Dr. Lauren Case. Granting benefit of the doubt, one is able to excuse this odd occurrence as it is Dr. Case' phone and the film uses personal cameras to obtain its footage. However things become undeniably farcical when 'I' become a cantankerous drill sergeant staring at Dr. Case as 'I' complain about something, not even wearing the odd apparatus that contains the personal camera. And the farce gains momentum as 'I' become an array of cctv cameras, an angry colleague, a dead colleague, another colleague, sometimes I don't even know what 'I' am as a result of crazed cutting and bizarre content, though I am certainly not leading a team into a field of any kind. At least I don't think 'I' am. By the time the film had ended I wished that 'I' had fallen victim to the infection early on in the saga and escaped lightly with an early death, as I feel the brain damage suffered by a 'level 5' would have damaged my brain far less than trying to make sense of what Pandemic presented before me.

A few cool shots, a few interesting ideas, but ultimately trite and stupid.

Funds to make this movie should have gone to medical research

[auprod2000 · 3/10 · 13 March 2020]

Terrible! Instead of telling a good story, it focused on making yiu jumo or be in shock. The thing that was shocking was the stupidity of the characters. Im confident that no rational human would act or react like these characters. Funds to make this movie should have gone to medical research. This could have otherwise been a promising movie had they just told a good story. If you remove the scare tactics, bad video shots, and the irrational characters, the movie was ok.

Watchable film, bones of a better film.

[Lunaroseice · 5/10 · 13 May 2017]

This movies is not as bad as people are saying. It isn't a good movie. But it is watchable. It has an interesting, if basic, plot. The acting is actually pretty good for what they were given. Slightly shaky camera work but better than something like Blair Witch which made me so ill to watch that I gave up early on. But in this case, the idea is that the camera is on the helmet and should move with the person. So it makes sense. The frustration with this film is that it is so easy to see that it could be made into a film that is much better. The real problem seems to be the dialogue. Improve that, and the 'zombie' acting, then movie would really step up. Even so, like I said, a bad movie but a very watchable movie.

Not bad if your a dedicated zombie fan

[lardychrist · 7/10 · 22 September 2016]

This film is o.K compared with a lot of other low budget zombie films that are churned out monthly these days the acting is quite solid the actors do a good job with a mediocre script the effects are reasonable the only thing that annoyed me was the first person camera work which gets a bit boring after a while and the sound is dull in parts but it's definitely worth a look if your into zombie flicks, I found it a enjoyable hour and a half as long as you don't over analyze it like a lot of people do in these reviews who've given this film a low rating by taking it far to seriously (it's only a film) just take it as a decent well acted entertaining film and definitely worthy of a look in there are so many bad zombie film out there that deserve a bad review but in my opinion this isn't one of them

Relied Too Heavily on Point-of-View Camera Angles

[Uriah43 · 3/10 · 24 March 2020]

This film essentially begins on the outskirts of Los Angeles in the aftermath of a viral pandemic which has created a type of zombie apocalypse with those not infected attempting to survive any way they can. In one specific para-military compound a doctor by the name of "Lauren Chase" (Rachel Nichols) who has been recently separated from her husband and teenage daughter "Megan" (Danielle Rose Russell) is being directed to lead a small squad into the heart of Los Angeles to rescue a group of about 89 survivors holed up in a school building. However, the bus they are in encounters significant hostile action which soon results in personal conflicts that hamper their mission almost as much as the infected people they encounter. Now rather than reveal any more I will just say that this film had a solid plot but the lack of adequate character development and the over emphasis on action greatly lessened the movie as a whole. Additionally, the director (John Suits) relied much too heavily on point-of-view camera angles which tended to detract-rather than enhance-the picture overall. That being said, given these obvious flaws, I didn't have a favorable impression of this film and have rated it accordingly. Below average.

Decent Zombie flick.

[christopherdmartin84 · 8/10 · 20 June 2016]

Apparently everyone on IMDb thinks they're Roger Ebert now. Why anyone would give this film such a horrible review is beyond me. It's not the greatest zombie film ever made sure but it's better than 1 star. There's a few noticeable goofs as well, but overall it's a unique and entertaining movie. If your a huge fan of the zombie genre it's definitely worth checking out and even possibly adding to your collection.

I got it on blu ray and like with any zombie film was skeptical if I would enjoy it or not, and I did. I probably wouldn't sit through it a second time and I only gave it 8 because of all the crap reviews that this film definitely did not deserve. Otherwise I would have rated it a 6. If your looking for some Hollywood blockbuster like world War z you'll be disappointed for sure, but if your a huge fan of zombie flicks and just looking to be entertained for 90 minutes give it a shot.

Great movie for Movie Buffs & Zombie loves

[troybutcher77 · 7/10 · 22 April 2016]

I would only recommend this movie to people who love zombie movies and love different styles of movies that aren't the same old main stream movie.

The problem with most movie reviews, is that people base their opinion on comparing a movie with a blockbuster "Avengers" movie. But if you take this movie for what it is: a lower-budget, different approach to all of the zombie movies out there - it's pretty good.

It is filmed from the eyes of cameras - which is definitely not for everyone. But for gamers, who are used to that sort of movement, and who want to see some pretty cool and realistic gore, and more realistic approach to a 'infected humans' similar to zombies - that's who this film was made for.

I did not like 28 Days Later, which got good reviews and lot of people like. I liked this a lot better than that.

Biggest piece of crap ever

[movier-86505 · 1/10 · 28 July 2016]

This movie was so awful, I had to create an IMDb account just to f*cking let out how much this movie sucked.

The main character was annoying AF and I found myself rooting for the zombies to take her out. The plot was predictable and simple. There was absolutely nothing that set this movie apart from any other post apocalyptic type zombie film. Virus spreads, military takes over, search for survivors, save family blah blah blah.

The only thing this film did a little different was the constant shaky POV camera that made you dizzy and want to vomit. The movie kept taking cheap shots by having zombies pop up out of no where screaming at the POV camera to insight a fear response that was not previously present since you already knew everything that was going to happen if you had ever seen even one zombie genre movie before.

All of the scenes were incoherent and no one was checking continuity. Doors magically opened, people magically appeared on the other side of vehicles, zombies appeared and disappeared. And also despite having about 80 crazy zombies surrounding them at all times, the characters seemed for the most part to escape without ever having to even work that hard at fighting back. Apparently stabbing 2 zombies makes them all run slower and not catch you. And lets please all keep taking as much time as we can having a long conversation with everyone rather than hurry the f*ck up at any point.

I literally started fast forwarding towards the end because I didn't want to devote any more time to this piece of sh*t yet for some reason had a vague interest in watching the main character die. Which, spoiler alert, she did and I cheered.

I liked seeing Theon Grayjoy but if this is the type of movie he is going to work on, I expect his career to be DOA after GoT.

F*ck Pandemic. Mic drop.

Managed the first 12 minutes

[clif-30980 · 1/10 · 17 June 2020]

Hoped in vain that the video game like POV camera work would end so stuck it out for 12 minutes. The awful dialogue and frantic axe swinging finished me off though.

I tried.

[rachelstuartwhite · 2/10 · 21 April 2020]

I had to start and stop and start and stop watching this many many times to get through it. It took 2 months. I'm not kidding. It was like watching a real life Xbox video game and yet it's trying to be a zombie movie without any scientific explainations on what the pandemic actually is and the symptoms. It just makes dead people. So a bunch of suits run around looking for healthy people to save and there's crappy camera work following them. Blair witch project crappy. Cloverfield crappy. It's tough to sit through. If you played call of duty zombies in 2009, you've seen the movie.