Pandemic (2016) Online

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

'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

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.

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.

Pandemic looks very generic, and it is most of the way through, but it eventually becomes a sneakily good horror flick with a pretty satisfying ending. Basically, If you like horror for the novel kills and shocking chills, this movie may disappoint. But if you like Horror for a haunting ending that makes you think a bit, you may like it...

So to be honest, I only watched this movie because I really dig Rachel Nichols, so if you're a fan of hers you won't be disappointed as she was as lovely and watchable as ever here. She and Alfie Allen (who shows off a great American accent in the film) were the movies standout performers.

The plot is bare bones:

We're following a Doctor, played by Nichols, leading a rag tag team on a hunt for survivors of a pandemic. From there on out the movie descends into zombie movie, or pseudo-zombie movie, tropes all the way through:

People doing selfish things immediately followed by people doing stupid things, 'Not Zombies' getting bashed to death followed by humans dying. It's just the same old genre clichés. There's also no one to root for or care about here, not even Ms. Nichols.

The movie itself was quality from a production angle (nice cinematography, sfx, makeup, and first person action) but the story was dull and boring, the protagonists selfish and unlikable, doing everything in their power to undermine the cause of saving humanity for their own selfish aims (Not to mention how dumb they were).

But as I stated in the opening sentence, this movie totally comes together in the third act, providing a really poetic and fitting ending that I think will satisfy most any horror fan. I really think it's worth a 90 minute investment.

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.

Just seen Hardcore Henry (2016) and let me say, this is a bit of the same. This is filmed in first person which means you are seeing it as the person sees it. Does it work, sure, some parts it does deliver jump scene's when the lights go out and we move over to night vision but on the other hand of course when they are running or are scared it delivers shaky cameras, and that can be annoying, but it also doesn't show always the effects used for the infected being killed.

The story is rather simple, save your children. And of we go from safety to the infected area. And it's all about slashing and running and killing. Why this flick came in my hands is the fact that Alfie Allen (wheeler) is in Game Of Thrones, and Mekhi Phifer (gunner) is in the Divergent franchise.

Is it worth picking up, well if you can stand a lot of shaky cams then it's a go but if you want a good story full of suspense then it isn't worth seeing. Does it have the usual zombie gore, here and there it does but it isn't in the Walking Dead style. Not boring but a mediocre horror to start your evening.

Gore 1,5/5 Nudity 0/5 Effects 2,5/5 Story 2/5 Comedy 0/5

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.

A virus takes over the planet. The uninfected on the search for other uninfected people and a cure are always endangered and in combat with some of the aggressive but (in the first phases of the illness) still human and intelligent infected. If I have to label this movie with one term it would be standard. The movie is not bad and is entertaining if you like these kind of movies but can't reach top level. Contagion, Outbreak, Blindness, Carriers or Maggie (Arnold Schwarzenegger) are imo better movies in one or another way how these movies depict or give us a perspective/narrative on a virus-outbreak. But Pandemic has nothing to do with these kind of zombie-movies where the most professional thing about is the cover-artwork and the rest is just a piece of ****. Pandemic I would compare with a movie like Crazies - it has a good share of gore and action. But what really annoyed me and dragged down this movie for me is this "ego-shooter"/pov-perspective the camera (helmet-cams) takes on a lot of time - the problem: the camera is too shaky for me, like in some of these found-footage movies. I simply don't like that kind of camera-work and imo it does no good at all or adds something good to the movie. Why the director made this decision and spoiled his movie is a mystery to me. With a "regular" camera the movie would just work fine and I would rate Pandemic 1 maybe even 2 stars higher.

I'm not sure why everyone is acting like this film should be critiqued like an academy award contender. Anyone that know the genre knows it's clearly going to be a bit cheesy with not so stellar acting. Now with that being said, I loved it! I'm a bit of a zombie buff and this was pretty good to me. Much better than a lot of other movies out there. Thought it was decent and would definitely recommend it for anyone looking for a decent zombie movie that doesn't follow the traditional zombie cliché genre.

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

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.

I only write reviews of movies with low rating, which actually are not that bad. Give them a chance!

I must say I am really surprised that Pandemic has 4.9 rating (at this moment)! When I watched it last month it had something between 5 and 5.3, which is still not that good, but 4.9 rating will reject many viewers and that is bad because this is a really good movie about apocalypse! I love movies about apocalypse and post-apocalypse, and if you are a fan too then you should definitely watch this one! I don't like camera, but everything else is really good and the story is cool - movie is truly watchable. Yeah, this is nothing new, there are many similar movies, but this one can still be fun to watch.

6/10

Over the weekend I asked a family friend if there were any Horror flicks that he was after. Being a bit of a regular gamer,I was intrigued to hear from him about a zombie flick made to look like a First Person Shooter (FPS) which led to me getting set to examine the pandemic.

The plot:

Retreating to a safe zone as the world falls to a zombie virus,the last remaining humans only venture out of the zone to find food and search for other survivors. Put together as a new group after the arrival of Dr. Lauren Chase, Gunner, Denise,Wheeler and Chase herself are sent out to find survivors. Going to a school reported to be housing survivors,the gang soon find themselves having to take on the zombies and become first person shooters.

View on the film:

Using anything at hand against the bloodthirsty zombies, director John Suits & cinematographer Mark Putnam crunch the buttons with long lines of dark corridors being lit in lone torchlight which sharply captures the anxiety/excitement of turning round a corridor in a video game. Smartly having one male/female camera-person work the camera to represent the male/female character, Suits brilliantly places the viewer in the deadly world with highly stylish shots that gather pace as the group try to outrun the undead.

Shooting any zombie who steps into frame down in first person, Suits unleashes a wave of thrilling Action Horror that slams the zombies against the eerie pristine backdrop in a cinematic pulp of bullets,knife and axing gore.Keeping the motives for the gang streamlined,the screenplay by Dustin T. Benson cleverly opens up Video game-style locations (such as a school/house) to give the gang a playground where the first person shooter become the walking dead.

Marisue is on a journey of death. 5 cents special effect, no new zombie film

Rachel Nichols and Alfie Allen team up to fight an undead horde in PANDEMIC, yet another addition to an overworked B-movie genre. The twist here is that the zombies aren't real zombies as such, but rather fast-moving plague victims a la 28 DAYS LATER. A team of researchers and scientists have to battle their way through an infected world to a place of safety, so the story itself is very straightforward and familiar.

The difference here is that this is told through the first-person medium as a 'found footage' style movie. Imagine HARDCORE HENRY but with zombie fighting action and you'll be there. I found it surprisingly decent; it's simple but effective and it has a heck of a lot of action to get the pulses racing. The actors do a good job of being scared while the film ladles in plenty of gore and brutality, more so than you usually find in a zombie picture. It's fast, frenetic and often frightening; what more could you want from this kind of film?

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.

In what appears to be a mutated Ebola, mosquito carried virus infects the planet apparently even places that don't have mosquitoes. Our production focuses on the aftermath as a large group of highly organized (government?) survivors hunt for others who are uninfected to experiment on them with vaccines. Dr. Laura Chase (Rachel Nichols) from New York joins the LA group primarily because she is from LA and doesn't know if her family is alive or dead.

A group of four go out to get survivors from St. Mary's Parrish. They are not allowed to deviate from their path, but that didn't last long. The infected go through 5 stages, the last being a cannibal killer. Gunner (Mekhi Phifer) is the gunner on this trip and wants to know what happened to his wife on the previous rescue attempt. There is enough personal drama to keep us amused when hungry infected humans aren't attacking our foursome in a bus.

The film is done from first person vest cameras and many kill scenes looked like a video game. The acting was so-so and the twist while interesting, didn't add much to the story. Not for those who dislike found footage films.

Guide: F-word. No sex or nudity.