Evengyny Thanks for the memories!

Exoticalot People are voting emotionally.

Kien Navarro Exactly the movie you think it is, but not the movie you want it to be.

Isbel A terrific literary drama and character piece that shows how the process of creating art can be seen differently by those doing it and those looking at it from the outside.

Claudio Carvalho Two amateurish hunters are attacked by creepy birds in the woods. Meanwhile seven delinquents are camping in the forest with their counselor in a program of reintegration to the society. Suddenly they are attacked by the birds and the counselor dies and one of the youngsters is wounded. The brutal Johnson (Jonathon Trent) imposes his leadership by force to the others while they are hunted by the birds. Meanwhile the ranger Garrett (Lance Guest) finds one of the hunters fainted in the forest and brings him to the hospital. Dr. Jacqueline Hale (Clare Carey) discovers that the patient is contaminated by a lethal influenza and she calls CDC that seals off the hospital putting everybody in quarantine. The youngster Eva (Sarah Butler) calls Garrett and tells their position, but the chief of security decides to blow up the whole area. "Flu Birds" is a lame and stupid horror movie with a dreadful story, awful characters and terrible acting. It is impressive how flawed and unintelligent the badly written screenplay is, with clichés and mistakes. There are so many stupidities but I would like to highlight the following: (1) The security guard shoots the doctor and feels sorry, but he is incapable to physically block her. (2) The scene with the soldiers shooting at the birds is something pathetic. (3) The hunter in the beginning leaves his friend instead of shooting the bird. (4) The sacrifice of Johnson killing the two birds (weren't they five?) in the end is absolutely incoherent with the personality of the character. (5) The hospital is forgotten in the rest of the story. (6) The leader of the security flies with the pilot alone to bomb the cabin is also terrible. My vote is three.Title (Brazil): "Vale dos Mortos" ("Valley of the Dead")

zero_destiny_0 Lo, for the genius of humanity reveals itself in Flu Birds, the most awe-inspiring movie ever - before it's over you'll wish you were playing solitaire on your computer, it's just that grabbing. As this abomination progressed, I found myself gaping, gasping, laughing, crying, even shivering - all in agonizing pain. The epic fail this movie is, is riveting. Surely it is the horror equivalent of Beverly Hills Chihuahua, which we all know is the best film ever with its Bottom 100 rating. The only thing scary about Flu Birds is the blatant discontinuity and the idiocy of the characters, all of whom are either exceedingly stupid or just plain assholes. You'll hate them all and wish them dead. The "birds" look more like pterodactyls than anything; the idea that they are even mutated doesn't fly. Their CGI was okay, although there were many scenes that were sickeningly fake. Scientific and logic flaws are so numerous there's just no counting them. Indeed, you will shed many tears of disappointment and despair that this movie could even be put into production, if it doesn't burn your eyes out first. Do yourself a favor and rent a documentary about rocks. It'll be better than this movie by far, and you're far less likely to kill yourself at the end.

Twosocks42-1 An infectious, reeking, horrible excuse for a movie. I cannot believe I spent a dollar at the red-box renting this movie; a mistake that will be sure to haunt me for days to come. Trying to put down all of what went wrong in this movie is a confusing and overwhelming task- it seems like there is no end to the list of mistakes a person could put down for this "movie". However, trying to come up with some positive points is a much easier and rather manageable task, so let me give it to you:1. The special effects in terms of the graphic gore (of which there was plenty) was not 'that bad'. I would not go so far as to say very good either, but at least this was tolerable. It looked believable enough.2. The character range was believable, given the nature of their grouping. They had a drive that reflected who they were, which gave what little drive there was to this plot.Now, what was wrong with it? 1. The majority of these hardly known TV bit part actors couldn't act to save their life. Seriously. Someone should find them an alternative career path and encourage them to seek a start in it immediately, before I or anyone else has to sit through another movie with their sub par acting making already bad movies even worse.2. The story had all kinds of plot holes and little was to be expected in the way of tying things together and having this make any kind of sense whatsoever. Do you want to see a movie that you can follow? Rent anything else. Do you want to stare at your TV in disbelief for the next couple of hours, thinking about the other things you could be doing with your time besides trying to figure out WHAT just happened and how? Well this one is for you my sadistic pup.3. Discontinuities up the wazoo. I won't spoil it for you by describing what all the messed up, but believe me, it is extremely noticeable- and I often don't notice these little screw ups the first time I watch a movie.This movie looked like it had the potential to be a mix of a classic and a good movie- The Birds and 28 days later. Instead, I was quite disappointed and to say the least quite surprised that I did not pick up my pen and shove it through my eye and as far into my brain as I could, so I could get out of seeing any more of this film.

Helen Kay So my warning to those of you who have not yet wasted their time, no matter how cheap you may view it, DON'T.This is what the Sci-Fi Channel is becoming known for; brain-dead movies which are not in the least "Sci-Fi". At one point in history, not so long ago, say, prior to 2002, the Sci-Fi Channel was true to its name. Then came movies like this. And in droves! Garbage, pitiful piles of dung which never cease to amaze for the sheer low quality they exude.What's most notable about this "movie" is the sheer LACK of anything GOOD to say about it! Rare is the movie which is of such all-encompassing lackluster merits that there are no good points to be offered. No, this movie doesn't even have the "cheese" appeal; you can't even say "it's so BAD it's GOOD"! If you want that, watch some of the Japanese monster films from the 1960s.About the only remarkable quality of this film is how the Sci-Fi Channel manages to produce movies which continue to get WORSE.