Cubussoli Very very predictable, including the post credit scene !!!

Lovesusti The Worst Film Ever

Lucybespro It is a performances centric movie

Caryl It is a whirlwind of delight --- attractive actors, stunning couture, spectacular sets and outrageous parties. It's a feast for the eyes. But what really makes this dramedy work is the acting.

thetrueresidentevil This "film" is nothing more than a script of "what not to do while acting". I love Quarantine 1 and 2. I love the Rec films, but this Quarantine LA film is enough for you to wish a zombie infection happened and the actors of this film went first. I'd say the actors were flat, but I am curious if they even had a pulse...or a comprehension of how people even talk. The acting was garbage. The lighting was stupid (you have a light in front of the actor hanging from the ceiling, but close up shots you shine light from the side only? The director is licking-windows special). The film is the prolapsed rectum of the whole series. Gross. Unwatchable. Garbage.

Justin Haskell 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.

Cindy Frias 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?

Kevin Roberts Have seen this film at the LA Premiere in Quentin Tarantino's theater.Beautiful cinematography. Interesting plot.Finally something smart about psychology of fear and survival.Few promising new actors.Refreshing to see aggressive, mysterious 'infected' instead of your typical zombies.Similar to 28 days later.Impressive locations for a film of independent budget.Thumbs up for the composer as well - amazing original score.Strong 8/10