"Flu Birds", which aired on TV in 2008 as "Flu Bird Horror", is a low-budget creature-on-the-loose flick about mutant reptilian birds wreaking havoc on a group of juvenile delinquents lost deep in the forest. The birds spread a hideous disease to the people they bite or scratch. The Feds quarantine the hospital that an afflicted hunter is brought to and decide to airstrike the birds, whether the teens are still in the area or not. Meanwhile a ranger and a doctor desperately search for the kids."Flu Birds" combines the delinquents-on-the-run aspect of "The Warriors" with the flying-reptile angle of "Gargoyles" and the skin-eating disease element of "Cabin Fever".Most reviewers tear the film apart. Are their low-ratings and heavy criticisms legitimate or simply a knee-jerk result of these modern Sci-Fi TV flicks being such easy targets? Although some of their criticisms is valid I say "Flu Birds" delivers both as a wild creatures-run-amok flick and as a fascinating human interest tale.As far as the former goes, the reptilian birds are quite effective, in ways reminiscent of the gargoyles in 1972's excellent TV flick "Gargoyles" (the DVD cover completely misrepresents the creatures). One reviewer lambasted the scenes where the birds attack a jeep and helicopter as "inept filmmaking," but I thought they were effectively done. Where's the beef? The sequences depicting the skin-eating disease are well done as well; in fact, the disease is scarier than the birds. Also, there's lots of gore for those who care.In addition to this, the film has a good babes-on-the-run factor with Rebekah Kochan as Lola leading the way. She prances around with denim shorts the entire movie and she's quite pleasing to the eye. But don't get me wrong, the various women in the film do more than just flee in terror -- they lead, they fight, and a couple are doctors.Also, although there's a decidedly comic-book vibe to the proceedings and a few humorous moments, the filmmakers and cast all take the material seriously and evade the rut of camp (with the possible exception of Porky), even though there are some scenes with dubious acting, which is to be expected in low-budget fare like this.Other pluses include the great opening/ending score, as well as spectacular Romanian locations, particularly during the opening credits; post-production was done in Louisiana.However, it's in the realm of human interest that "Flu Birds" scores its highest points.At it's core the movie addresses the conflict of self interest vs. group interest, as another viewer pointed out. The Feds are depicted as ruthless in their drive to extinguish the threat of the birds and the disease they spread. Anyone who gets in the way must simply be destroyed. And who can blame 'em since they are trying to save millions at the cost of a mere handful? The whole is greater than the one, as they say.The teens, all delinquent loners from dysfunctional families, are just starting to learn the importance of sacrifice of the self or the few for the greater good of the many. In fact, the film starts out with them on retreat from juvenile jail to learn the importance of community and the team concept.Johnson, the lead teen played by Jonathon Trent, is reminiscent of James Remar's Ajax in "The Warriors". Although he initially comes off uber-obnoxious and uncaring the viewer can't help but sense something good underneath the surface, not to mention his passion and courage to survive. He possesses a wild, dangerous air and this naturally attracts the blond hottie. It also attracts the allegiance of the other two main guys in the group, Derrick and Gordon (aka 'Hip Hop'), despite the fact that Johnson is extremely tough on both at times. The reason he's tough on them is because it's a life or death situation. And even though the other leader of the group, Eva (Sarah Butler), loathes his seemingly uncaring, selfish nature she's willing to work with him to survive. She also has an epiphany about Johnson at the end. (Sarah Butler, by the way, also plays the lead in the 2010 remake of the infamous "I Spit On Your Grave").The teens face no less than three episodes that present the possibility of sacrifice -- in a tunnel, in a hunter's house in the woods and, lastly, in the tunnel again. In the initial episode the group votes on whether or not to sacrifice the disease-ridden Porky as a diversion for the birds so the rest can escape. Johnson argues that Porky is as good as dead already since he's clearly dying from the disease, but Porky objects. I guess Porky would rather suffer a slow, agonizing death in the lonely darkness of the cave than die a relatively quick death as a diversion so his fellow delinquents might have a chance at surviving. Regardless, notice how the members attitudes contrast Porky's in the two subsequent episodes. It's an interesting study and reveals the teens' positive growth in the crisis.FINAL WORD: Yes, "Flu Birds" has a laughable title and a ridiculous premise, but don't 95% of these Grade-B creature features? Yes, there's some questionable acting and the film has a comic-booky vibe. Regardless, "Flu Birds" entertains and delivers in all the requisite areas as a nature-runs-amok flick, but it's greatness emerges in its study of human nature and self vs. group dynamics.If you can look beneath the Grade-B trappings. "Flu Birds", like "Sasquatch Mountain" (which is better), possesses depth even while it successfully entertains and is therefore worthy of your time and respect.The movie runs 89 minutes.GRADE: B

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.

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.

I was not expecting a awesome horror movie when i saw the preview for this, but i did like it.I find it funny how the camp leader dies in the first 15 minutes of the movie, i thought he would have a bigger role in it, but i guess not. My favorite character was hip-hop, he was pretty funny. Now i had a BIG problem in the scene when the doctor inhales the flu virus, and goes out side to the security guard. It had NO sound in it what so ever for like 9 minutes, did anyone else have this problem? The score was pretty good, acting was good, porky was not that good, i was expecting him to surivive at least near the end, i didn't like how they just left him there when there running out of the mine.Pretty good movie over all.Watch it.