Starring: A bunch of people of whom you have never heard and will never see in a movie again.
Directed by: Some Michael J. Hein fella
Screenplay: Someone with little or no imagination and nothing at all to add
DO NOT RENT THIS MOVIE!!!
There is no way I should have watched this whole movie and there were an almost infinite number of better things I could have done with my time. Writing a zombie movie would, apparently, have been one of them.
If you have been reading any of these reviews you might have noticed that I have some small love of B movies. Dont worry, I will find you some good ones to watch. Biohazardous is not one of them.
To begin with, this particular movie gets nowhere near a B rating. It was filmed on video and has all the quality of a low budget porn fiasco. For those of you not familiar with porn movies, picture a movie made using your local television stations equipment and actors from the local theatre troop. You cant even call this movie a film because it was never shot on the stuff. It was more like an hour and a half of cable access.
If I had to guess, I would say that someone won some money (not that much money mind you) and, having more of it than they did talent, went to work at fulfilling their dream of making a zombie movie.
Knowing little about the actual production of movies (but arguably as much as Hein probably does), I am not sure whether this movie could have used a better director or a better film crew (hell maybe even a professional one). The more I think about it the more I believe that it was the poor story, dialogue, pacing, lighting, shooting, framing (and the use of the same two hallways over and over again) that really made this movie awful. Dont get me wrong. Much of the acting was awful as well but it was really in the production department that this movie failed.
The plot centres on billion-dollar defence contracting company (GenTech) that opens shop in a small town. Like most big companies, Gentech is doing research on creating un-dead soldiers. An evil priest (bent on breaking the law of man to uphold the law of God not that he says anything that profound), a few kids (who actually did a fairly decent job) and a couple of cops get curious and enter the highly (sort of
okay not really) guarded facility (one fence and one guard) the same night that an experiment goes horribly wrong. Predictably, this failed experiment turns the 100+ staff (the director should have never had more staff than actors) into zombies.
As you can see, there is a lot about this plot that makes it sound worthwhile.
No - I am not joking.
For example, you take this plot: you change it a bit (my mom would hardly notice a difference), you throw in some marginally better actors, strengthen up the dialogue, multiply the budget by about 100 and have someone who knows what they are doing shoot the damn thing and you have something like Dawn of the Dead.
Dawn of the Dead was director George A. Romeros 1978 sequel to Night of the Living Dead (1968) and is one of the (if not the) best B movie ever made.
Night of the Living Dead and Dawn of the Dead had great influence on horror movies to come and were a huge influence on millions of people (mostly young men in dorms). Sure Romero remained in the low budget flick business (by choice) but he was making a difference. Now mom would argue that the difference he was making was not positive (she is such a hair splitter). None the less, Romero was creating something. Good or Bad, Romero was using his movies to influence our culture. He was adding to the world.
The movie Bioharzardous adds nothing to anything. In fact, the only redeeming quality it has is that the curious kids involved are not entirely little troublemaking idiot-shits like the kids in most horror films these days. For example, after the boys rescue the girls from the back of a police car the girls get back in, arguing that they will just get in more trouble if they stay out.
Unfortunately for me other than that one piece of see, kids can be normal-ish in a horror movie idea, this movie really has no redeeming qualities. Unfortunately for the people who made this masterful example of a failure, that idea, alone (even coupled by ripping of Romero which is generally a good thing) is not enough upon which to base a movie - no matter how low the break even line might be.
What I am trying to say is that this movie didnt suck because it was a low budget zombie movie with bad actors - it sucked because it was a low budget zombie movie with bad writers, directors and production. I mean, it is one thing to make do with what you have (i.e. your blood may not be the high quality stuff that Wes Craven purchases) but it is another thing entirely just to make a shitty movie.
In the end, while I hate to say it because I am certain that some people tried very hard to make this movie (and there may even be a few of them who are proud of it): this was just a shitty movie.