Very well executed

I am only giving this movie a 1 for the great cast, though I can't imagine what any of them were thinking. This movie was horrible

The plot isn't so bad, but the pace of storytelling is too slow which makes people bored. Certain moments are so obvious and unnecessary for the main plot. I would've fast-forwarded those moments if it was an online streaming. The ending looks like implying a sequel, not sure if this movie will get one

The acting in this movie is really good.

In 2017 a virus kills much of LA. Somehow the area is isolated without the virus getting out. A team is sent in to find a doctor who has a cure. However the cure is being sold to big Pharma by an individual within the government.Plot was ill conceived. Acting was bad. Characters were made lame by dialogue. Soundtrack was made for TV quality. Bad editing.

Really just a waste of time. The acting is incredibly stiff, I even found myself prompting the actors with their lines, it's so predictable. The score is incredibly cheesy and obviously put together by a student filmmaker. The timing is horrible, the actors lines being delivered too soon or too late in almost every scene. Glaringly obvious mistakes and bloopers throughout. I was going to point some out but I'd be here all day. The story did not flow, make any sense or engage the audience. I actually found myself rooting for the 'infected' just to kill off some of the more disappointing leads. I honestly think that the positive reviews on here are planted by the friends/relatives of the actors and producers because it's just that bad. Wooden acting. Poor score. Mediocre story. Don't bother.

When people talk about the "good old days" of film they are referring to one of two periods in film history. The first is the classic era of black and white where lighting and shadows were the draw. The second is the time period of the 1960's- late 1970's when movies had you use your imagination to decode what the camera didn't show you, allowing you to draw your own conclusions to what was happening (Think Texas Chainsaw Massacre). What Infected brings to the table is along the lines of the second period of film. We are told little of the infection and are open to draw the conclusion on whether it was truly man made or a natural event from that was harnessed for mass scale testing. In today's market where the "zombie" genre has been so diluted by over marketing and goreification (Walking Dead, George Romero remakes) that most films of the genre almost forget to focus on the people and the personal aspects of the survivors. What Infection does is almost make the virus an afterthought to bring the perspective of the survivors to the forefront. The survivors do fall into the stereotype roles, soldier, child, medic, shady stranger, fool, but the writing does the roles justice. Each character is written for their role wonderfully and the writing does not stray from these types. In the homeopathic era of the 'monster' film it is always good to see that people remember what the genre should be and are still willing to take risks to keep it as fresh as possible.If I had to give a comparison to other movies I would have to say it falls into the area of the Steven King TV movies where a lot of what was going on was done through imagination and dialogue.

I saw this movie at the premiere in Los Angeles. It was excellent with a new twist on the whole zombie thing. The acting was good as well. I loved the prisoner, Jared Quinn especially the Monk like coat he wears. There are no "Old Cobblers" in this movie, that's another movie with the same name. I've seen both movies and this one is much much better. This is my first review, but I just felt that I had to tell people what I saw in the film. The movie also highlights government corruption in the event of an epidemic. The film really makes you wonder how you would survive in Los Angeles if this really happened. Who is more of a threat, the Infected or the Strangers you are with?