Title DossierAction

Patient Zero

ActionScience-FictionThriller

Two young scientists are swept up in a government plot to suppress the truth about a biological disaster at a genetic research facility.

Année

2012

Durée

1h 8m

IMDb

3.9

Regarder maintenant

Poster Feed

Casting

Brandon Slagle

Dr. Jonathan Wright

AP

Amanda Phillips

Dr. Jenna Barnes

Van Quattro

The Major

Casting

Brandon Slagle

Dr. Jonathan Wright

AP

Amanda Phillips

Dr. Jenna Barnes

Van Quattro

The Major

Carl Savering

Sheriff Klein

Natalie Makenna

Liz

Larry Jack Dotson

Marvin Johnson

FD

Frederic Doss

Tactical Commander

LB

Lindsay Barrasse

Young Woman

MB

Madison Barrett

Scientist 1

Michael Belardi

Male Test Subject

RB

Rusty Brooks

Air Vent Zombie

Marissa Joy Davis

Test Subject

JH

Jackey Hall

Kerri Klein

Samuel Haun

Richard

MM

Michael Marcano

Black Op 2

Ben Cody Rogers

Black Op 4

JW

Jena Waldron

Corporate Hostess

Suggestions mises en avant

Envie de plus de divertissement ? Découvrez notre plateforme de jeux recommandée et notre destination de mini-dramas.

Jeux instantanés

Gamixo

Jouez à des jeux de navigateur casual avec puzzles, cartes, sport et défis rapides en quelques secondes.

Mini-dramas

VSKIT Drama

Regardez des mini-séries tendance, des romances et de nouveaux short dramas avec des mises à jour rapides.

Commentaires

10 commentaires

abir abNov 29, 2025

didilekitlaneMay 29, 2023

source: Biohazard: Patient Zero

Jucie HNov 22, 2022

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.

Angellinio Leo-PolorNov 22, 2022

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.

user8543879994872Nov 22, 2022

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.

Abuzar KhanNov 22, 2022

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.

MayampitiNov 22, 2022

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.

Solanki RidhinNov 22, 2022

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.

Alexandra MavNov 22, 2022

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?

Merveil NgoyiNov 22, 2022

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