Hellen I like the storyline of this show,it attract me so much

Linbeymusol Wonderful character development!

Brooklynn There's a more than satisfactory amount of boom-boom in the movie's trim running time.

Jenni Devyn Worth seeing just to witness how winsome it is.

siderite The actors were not completely bad and the premise, even with the low budget and cheesy special effects, could have gone towards a nice little horror movie. Instead, they decided to make it a horror parody, which pretty much spoiled everything as the result was neither horrific nor funny.The film itself gives off a lot of mixed signals. A psychopath seems to have written the dialogues, the special effects and acting are like from a 70's movie, down to the gigantic security cameras, the black and white monitors, the time lapsed "mold" growth and giant moustaches, but it was made in 2012. There is no real comedy in the film, only inadvertently, from the really bad script and ridiculous green and red goo splattered all around.Bottom line: I don't know what the makers were trying to achieve, but the movie sucked on several levels. What annoyed me more was that with the same resources and a decent script this could have easily become a cult movie.

Seb A demonstration of a new killer mold goes wrong and infects the scientists and some visiting VIPs. It's not a bad story and it's told quite well. Even though the film isn't billed as a comedy some of the characters are too over the top to be taken totally seriously.The setting isn't very convincing either and while you accept that in a low budget film it comes to something when the antidote is administered using the same kind of spray bottle I water my geraniums with. Likewise, there is no containment area or any equipment for dealing with an outbreak beyond some suits with prominent nuclear symbols. This definitely doesn't help the movie. Nor does a character inexplicably not reacting to their eyes exploding.Despite these flaws I thought it was pretty good for a low budget flick. Half the time these cheapies are sunk by wooden acting or crappy looking camera-work but this is a cut above that kind of thing.Before watching this movie I checked the IMDb and read the reviews. One comments that 'this is really one for the old school B-movie buffs.' You'll have to judge for yourself if you are seasoned enough to watch a cheap movie about green mold or not.Another review states 'the savagely mocking potshots on the 80's war on drugs are especially fierce and amusing.' I think it's only fair to say that this element exists only in that reviewers mind and not in the film unless you count a politician snorting coke as fiercely amusing which to be honest I didn't. I'm probably not enough of a B-movie buff to understand it or something.

trashgang Neil Meschino's first attempt as a director to make a full feature. First of all, this isn't a straight horror with gore and blood like the old slashers, neither can it be compared with the horrors of nowadays. This is clearly a throwback to the low budget horrors from way back when effects were done without CGI. By doing that and not giving us the nudity we expect from a horror or not seen a drip of gore or an amount of blood this isn't one to recommend to newcomers. this is really one for the old school B-movie buffs.One thing that the production had in mind must have been, okay, we don't have the big dollars, how are we going to attract viewers. Luckily they made the right choice by putting their cash into the effects and let take it all place in a simple setting. On the other hand they let some characters doing over the top acting which luckily worked out fine. By doing so I even had to laugh a few times because it sometimes had a bit of humour in it. Still, the effects are very simple and do refer to the old school horrors like the melting of a head or eyes being melted. I wont go into titles but there are so many to mention. The score used is also a throwback to the early eighties. But as I said, I never had any problem with Mold! but I can understand that some buffs will miss nudity and gore. The female do get out of her clothes but sadly the underwear she is wearing is a real let down. Gore 2/5 Nudity 0/5 Effects 3/5 Story 3/5 Comedy 1/5

Woodyanders 1984. A lethal experimental mold is created as a means to destroy coca fields in Columbia. However, the mold gets loose in a lab during a demonstration and proves to be just as dangerous to humans as it is to plants. It's up to a motley assortment of scientists and government officials to figure out a way to contain the deadly spore before things get too out of hand. Director Neil Meschino, who also co-wrote the compact script with Dave Fogerson, relates the fun story at a brisk pace, builds and sustains a substantial amount of tension, delivers plenty of spectacularly gross moments of graphic splatter (the gruesome make-up f/x hit the grotesquely icky spot something disgusting), and further spices things up with a wickedly funny sense of twisted dark humor. Moreover, Meschino makes the most out of the confined claustrophobic location and has a satiric ball with the 80's period setting (the savagely mocking potshots on the 80's war on drugs are especially fierce and amusing). The sound acting from the capable cast qualifies as another major asset, with stand-out work from Edward X. Young as a hard-nosed, cigar-chomping ramrod colonel, Ardis Campbell as the spunky Dr. Ardis Campbell, Mike Keller as the no-nonsense Sargeant Brisco, who gets infected and embarks on a crazed rampage; Chris Gentile as smarmy jerk Dr. Dave Hardy, Nick Russo as whiny wimp Rhodes, Rick Haymes as the bumbling Dr. Matthew Kane, James Murphy as the sleazy Congressman Stu Blankenship, and David Pringle as the sinister Edison Carter. Robert A. Fattorini's sharp cinematography gives the picture an impressive polished look. Julian Tulip's spirited shivery score does the spine-tingling ooga-booga trick. A really cool little flick.