IMDb > Infection (2005) > Reviews & Ratings - IMDb

Reviews & Ratings for
Infection More at IMDbPro »

Write review
Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Page 1 of 3:[1] [2] [3] [Next]
Index 23 reviews in total 

14 out of 16 people found the following review useful:

I'm confused...

Author: Misteriomag32 from Portugal
25 March 2008

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

I spotted the DVD on a store near my home, and since I'm a "cheesy horror movie/alien flicks" addict, I wondered how good it was. It even had two award mentions on the cover (I don't remember what festival it won) so I figured "Hey this might be good". So I bought it (for five euros) and I came here to IMDb to check out some reviews. Here, either people bashed the movie to say it was bad, or people said the movie was a wonderful feat in indie movies bla, bla. I then played the DVD, not thinking about any review I had read, with an open mind, and not expecting anything at all.

Man... I don't' like being this critical, but the movie was genuinely bad... OK, I'm just going to give out some pointers of what I thought:

1-Acting/dialog: The acting was so confusing... sometimes the actors did a decent job, but there were scenes were I could spot no effort at all from them! The dialog was even worst... I think it was probably the aspect I most disliked in the whole movie. The talking in between characters seemed... off. Not just bad, but far away from the actual happenings in the movie. The monologues of the female character, although well delivered, became boring and annoying in a little while... But of course the most ridiculous aspect was the... "aliens" or the "infected"... I wont even comment on that one, just going to say that it was absolutely ridiculous and took the entire mood away from the picture; 2-Visuals: the strongest aspect in the movie... if you forget the awful FX and light flashes they used to simulate explosions or what the hell they were supposed to be. The "camera in car" aspect was quite cool actually, but they didn't even used the environment to inspire fear or dread. They left that to cheap sound and video FX and the three "infected" characters. The movie becomes boring in so many scenes...; 3-Sound: Talk about editing... this movie has no problems in showing how weakly edited it was. From computer sounds imitating the forest animals to the "alien dialog"... ah...

So what did I like in the movie... (SPOILERS) the only thing I really liked and it was actually quite scary was the succession of two scenes where the car is still and you spot something/someone walking in a distant. At first I really thought it was me seeing things, but when the character realizes that the "figures" coming towards her were her own reflection, I was surprised! Pretty creepy idea done well! Apart from that... I had an awful time.

And I don't recommend this to anyone... not even "teen get together" because you can't even laugh at this...

I give it a solid 2. Only some technical achievements worked here... apart from that... yeah... nothing

Was the above review useful to you?

13 out of 17 people found the following review useful:

What did I do to deserve this

Author: I_can_get_you_a_toe from Earth
15 March 2011

'What did I do to deserve this?' the lead actress wails and I can't help but wail that question alongside with her.

This movie was told through the perspective of a dashboard mounted camera in a police car, so if watching the view of headlights illuminating a dirt road in the middle of the forest for over an hour is your idea of entertainment, then this is the movie for you! The basic idea of this 'film' is sound, meteorites fall to the earth in a small town and one by one the residents are infected with some kind of alien slug thing deposited in the ear. However, you see none of this. What you do see is headlight illuminated grass with low rent sound effects playing in the background to give the illusion that something intense is going on.

I kept waiting for something to happen, and when nothing happened I kept waiting for someone to bludgeon me over the head for being so stupid as to continue watching this tripe.

If this quantifies as a film, then next time I'm stuck in motorway traffic and not moving for over an hour, I'll just film it and lay a soundtrack of machine gun fire and helicopters over the top and call myself a filmmaker.

Was the above review useful to you?

6 out of 8 people found the following review useful:

Retains a modicum of creepiness.

Author: Golgo-13 from The IMDb Horror Board!
14 July 2011

A film for all those who say The Blair Witch Project was tedious, stupid, or poorly acted, or rather, a real example of a film that is tedious, stupid, and poorly acted. Still, despite its many faults, Albert Pyun's Invasion does retain a modicum of creepiness, perhaps a testament to the first-person approach (here, through a cop car's camera) combined with mysterious horror. The end credits run for 16 minutes, or nearly a fifth of the movie's running time. They just keep going and going, and going, and going...and going, and going. And going some more. Is this review now long enough to be submitted? Yes, yes it is.

Was the above review useful to you?

6 out of 10 people found the following review useful:

A disappointing experiment from B-movie auteur Albert Pyun

Author: Richard Hawes from Kent, England
5 March 2011

Director Albert Pyun does not inspire confidence. His name evokes groans and memories of cheap and often pretentious genre films. But when I heard that his latest project was a single uninterrupted shot I was as intrigued as anyone to see the results. The fact that Infection (retitled Invasion when it DVD) was getting praise from critics only served to heighten my interest.

The film's novelty is that it is a science fiction film told from the fixed view of a high definition camera mounted on a police car. With a cast of mostly unknowns and an aura of mystery, Infection inspired a similar level of intrigue as the much higher profile Cloverfield (2008). If only the results were as exciting. Whether the consequence of budgetary limitations or a misguided artistic aspiration, Infection is a huge disappointment.

Shoddy-looking news footage and title cards set the scene as the film begins with a Police officer driving down the dirt roads of a national park. He meets a local resident acting very strangely. Once again something alien has come to small town USA, but while the soundtrack provides plot information the visual element is an endless steam of footage of bland dirt roads.

Pyun is both a prolific hack and a talentless artist and has been consistently disappointing viewers for nearly 30 years. One can theorise that this event-free narrative experiment and its largely meaningless visuals are intended to isolate viewers. To hypnotise or unsettle an audience used to seeing everything. If that was the artistic intent that's fair enough but it simply doesn't work. While I respect that using a single traveling camera to encounter various characters is a complex undertaking I can't help but feel that he could have done more.

Set within an urban location and with a larger cast this could have been, like Cloverfield, an extraordinary film. As it is it's just a bore. The fact that over-the-top sound design, a smattering of dubious visual effects and an admittedly interesting score seek to shatter the faux-realism of the found footage merely adds to the overwhelming sense of disappointment.

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 1 people found the following review useful:


Author: TerminalMan from Earth
24 March 2014

...but that by no means makes it good or even mediocre. This doesn't rise to "complete crap" status. And that's the fascinating part: it's such a non-movie that you keep watching and waiting for something to happen so the movie can get started. But it never does. It actively avoids everything...period. I can't stress enough that isn't an exaggeration, this lack-of-a-movie avoids it's own characters and plot, even just abandoning them completely by the side of the road and goes for a long, slow drive through the countryside. Yes, that literally happens, it's actually a pretty succinct summary of the entire 70 or minute runtime.

The most interesting thing about the whole thing comes from the fact that it was made at all: who thought this was a good enough idea to make a movie? Who heard the pitch and invested real, actual money to make it happen? How can an absolute absence of story and characters and events be anything but boring? Was this just another attempt to scam the foreign video market with a fake movie made for $20 and a tank of gas?

If nothing else, "Invasion" raises a lot of questions. "Can't there be an IMDb rating BELOW 1?", for example.

Was the above review useful to you?

3 out of 5 people found the following review useful:

FearNet Strikes Again

Author: cnlmanders from United States
28 October 2011

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

I made the mistake of giving my good friend Mr. Chark the remote control at 1 AM last night, and per usual he immediately shot for the OnDemand Menu, where he then proceeded to navigate to the FearNet page. For those of you not in the know, FearNet is a free movie channel devoted to delivering only the highest quality and most spooktastic films created. The night prior I had tossed the remote to him and we ended up on 'Boogeyman,' a 2005 spookfest starring 7th Heaven's Barry Watson. I didn't make it to the end of that one, but I'll take Mr. Chark's word for it and believe that it was not only spooky, but good.

Mr. Chark's process for choosing FearNet films is based on two parameters: the year created and the first sentence of the movie description. If the film has been created prior to 1980, or the description does not spook Mr. Chark out by the end of the first sentence ('A meteor/spaceship crashes...' 'A spaceship crashes...' 'A house/young girl is terrorized...' 'A monster/plague/horde of bats is unleashed...' etc) he will be inclined to select another.

In the case of 'Invasion'--or 'Infection' if you've managed to find this page, for which I commend you on your efforts--the 2005 copyright date was really all Mr. Chark needed to convince us and himself that this film would contain believable special effects and an all-around spookiness that only comes with contemporary horror films.

We were initially dissatisfied with the opening shots of the film, which consisted of 2-3 minutes of text fading in and out, but afterward we realized that the editing software used for the film was probably incapable of scrolling text (an assessment later reinforced by a 15 minute closing credit sequence that also did not incorporate a scroll). Easily forgivable. However, the second shot of the film was slightly less forgivable, in that it may or may not have been shot with a Gameboy Camera.

The third shot was probably the biggest mistake of the entire film, as it was not only bad, but it also comprised the remainder of the ~70 minutes of footage. Mr. Chark maintained that it would be a good spookfest, though, so we continued to watch.

We believed him for the first 15 minutes of said shot, which consisted of a police-cruiser-outfitted-with-an-HD camera driving a stretch of forest road. There were meteors falling sporadically, indicated by the dashboard camera inverting colors for a split-second.

The use of suspenseful music was questionable, as one would believe that a self-described 'true' POV film wouldn't need music unless it was actually diagetic in nature (a la Cloverfield, Blair Witch, mode, etc). Maybe the two characters were just blasting FearNet on SiriusXM.

There's a lot that makes sense in this movie. It's probably what would be a fairly realistic account of what driving back and forth across the same patch of forest for an hour would be like: long periods of silence, periodic mumbling that does nothing to advance the character or plot.

The 'Invasion' itself is also pretty realistic. Imagine if four people drove into the woods, and three of those four were then infected through their ear canal by an alien slug (it is now evident that the the writer and director films are young enough to have read Animorphs). Once infected, the alien's tactic for spreading itself is to stagger slowly, as if with palsy, and aggressively hug its next victim.

All that being said, the fourth uninfected human really just has to not be within arms' reach of any of the three infected people in the woods and she'll survive, which she can easily accomplish my walking briskly away from them at any point. She manages to do this for the majority of the film, which consequently means that the viewer will watch the same night-vision shot of an unmoving forest road for up to twenty minutes at a time.

Every so often we get auditory glimpses of what's going on outside the forest in the nearby town. The infection spreads there, lots of gunfire. This is relayed via radio transmission.

The best analogy we could come up for this was if 'Cloverfield' had been shot in Westchester from the point of view of a PlayStation Move camera, in which the subject is receiving text messages from a friend from NYC.

The scares were not good. I almost would have preferred things jumping out of the woods to startle me (I am a major wuss, though, so I'm glad they didn't), but it was clear that the actors had neither the physical prowess nor the coordination to work that into the script. At one point they make a big emphasis of what I took to be a bird taking a dump on the car's windshield. Is that spooky? Sort It's a bad movie. Real bad. Bad to do. Not even that spooky. I was upset. We were all a little upset. I wish we had watched Super Mario Brothers instead. That's free OnDemand, too.

I feel like on a normal review scale, 'Invasion' shouldn't register. However, I review on the Mr. Chark's Spook Scale, which puts this film at a lofty 2. While it is a miserable, half-aborted idea for a movie, it can't be the worst thing on FearNet by any means. Until he finds that movie, Mr. Chark will search on.

Was the above review useful to you?

8 out of 15 people found the following review useful:

This makes my uncle's family videos look really good

Author: writeonkat from United States
22 January 2008

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Okay, first I should say that I assume this was just made by a group of friends with a limited budget. With that in mind, it really shouldn't be compared to blockbuster features and my rating would be higher. But still...

After giving it a chance, it still violated some basic film-making rules to such an extent that both the viewer and the amateur director in me cringed. A LOT.

Think: Blair Witch in a car but REALLY boring.

Think: You left your camcorder on the dashboard and recorded yourself getting lost in the park at night for an hour, then making your friends watch it.

The scariest part (POSSIBLE SPOILER ALERT... IF SPOILING HERE IS POSSIBLE) was at one point the picture rewinds and you might think you will have to watch it all over again. SCARY.

Silliness aside, this is a pretty good idea for a low-budget lets-go-make-a-movie-tonight film. But the concept walks a fine line between being really good and really bad, and let's just say it wasn't really good. There were just too many parts where nothing happened. At first I thought that was the director's plan -- you were supposed to be lulled into a sense of security and then really scary things would start happening.

I kept trying to find good things to say about it (and I had plenty of time to think), and I'll say the music was kinda cool. And I have to give the female lead credit for standing around by herself looking scared for a really, really long time. But that's it. The actors playing "infected" people looked as if they were making fun of zombie movies. Or they got their motivation from the Bug wearing his Edgar suit from "MIB." Chances are, if for some strange reason you're going to watch this movie, it's on DVD or Tivo, so you can fast forward it whenever waiting for something to happen gets too difficult.

I hate to be so critical of something, but at the same time I've watched a lot of similar movies and nothing has ever been this painful. If they just chopped a half an hour out of it and added some scary stuff, it might be decent. Maybe that'll be the director's cut...

Was the above review useful to you?

negative 5 stars

Author: tiffany-60961
18 December 2015

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

This is the first review I felt compelled to post. Maybe I can save someone else from wasting 81 minutes. This movie made my list for the 5 worst movies ever made. If you liked the Blair Witch you might give Infection one star. The whole movie is shot from the point of view of a dash cam in a police car driving up and down the same stretch of road in a park. The sound effects are puzzling (cats growling??!!) and seeing how the infection is spread makes you wonder how the first guy became infected (at that point in the movie you are looking for anything to make sense). This movie makes you want to throw things at your TV. Someone wasted $35,000 - don't waste your time.

Was the above review useful to you?

I've had more enjoyment watching peoples' vacation videos!

Author: Crotchety Old Critic from United States
8 September 2015

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

I realized before watching this movie that it was an amateur film, the budget was low, and the acting was not going to be top notch. However, this wasn't the case with this movie. Rather this movie was was prime, grade A garbage! First of all, the most basic laptops have video editing equipment. This movie wasn't edited in any way. I realize the director was attempting to do something different by making a (supposedly) constant, no break or cut in the film. Newsflash: it didn't work. Camera tricks could've been used to make it APPEAR that there were no breaks in the film like what Alfred Hitchcock did in his movie, 'Rope'. Would've made a quicker paced, evenly flowed film.

Next, why is there a music score in a film that is supposedly 'reality'? It was completely out of place. Such films like The Blair Witch, Crow's Next, VHS doesn't have one. If this wasn't shot in the manner that it was in, then a musical score would've been acceptable. But in this case, it jacked up the movie even more.

Lastly, the atrocious acting the dragged on like fingernails on a blackboard. It seemed as if the actors weren't responding appropriately to the post production audio. It was such distraction, it was so laughable.

In conclusion: this is a 'D' movie that isn't worth watching to laugh or make fun at; it's really just a waste of time.

Was the above review useful to you?

I honestly thought it was a joke

Author: hanelse from United States
25 May 2015

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

The premise sounded interesting. A horror flick from the perspective of a dash cam. Hmm, I thought. Let's give it a try.

After the first 20 minutes I thought, okay, this is one of those films meant to be bad, like Sharknado. A film not meant to be taken seriously. A joke. That's it. A joke film.

It consists entirely of driving slowly down a dirt road back and forth... back and forth. At short intervals there were a couple of people stumbling and lurching around like teens playing zombies at Holloween. Then more slow driving up the dirt road... and back... for an hour.

I actually laughed out loud when the annoying girl in the dress started stamping her feet and yelling at the walkie talkie while in front of the car. She looked like my daughter at eight being told, "Get that room cleaned." I continued to think this film was a joke until I looked up the reviews to read how entertaining the movie made to be bad was. Then I realized it wasn't a joke. This was an actual film. Really? An actual film meant to be taken seriously. Well, okay.... In that case, I wish there were a -10 rating I could give it.

I'm going to have to show hubby this one. I won't warn him. I'll just watch him watch it. Now that will be entertaining. :-)

Was the above review useful to you?

Page 1 of 3:[1] [2] [3] [Next]

Add another review

Related Links

Plot summary Ratings External reviews
Plot keywords Main details Your user reviews
Your vote history