Come on,you detractors......what do you expect on a tiny budget of $300,000? For a spend of that size the overall production values of this Movie are excellent. The story Is Interesting and the plot has a few surprises which gradually reveal the connection between the Island and Its Inhabitants and the Girl who's arrived to stake her claim to It. I also found It different enough to keep me Interested-a pretty fresh Idea and while some of the science Is a bit silly the story Is solid enough. Those Movie buffs out there who understand all the variables that go to make a decent film will,I'm sure,give this the thumbs-up. It would have still got mine at 10x the budget. This Is a good dose of Science-Horror and I recommend It to all fans of the same.

In the 1980s, an island used for genetic research made some breakthroughs, but also had some terrible setbacks. Today (2009) some of those setbacks might come back to bite the island in the butt as a nasty slug-like virus spreads with unpredictable effects.Quite simply, this film is a disappointment and something of a mess. There is potential there, and you can glean it from time to time, but overall the feeling is one of letdown. There are two main areas this film fails: the computer effects and the plot.As far as computer effects go, it's somewhere in the middle ground of modern effects. It's not really good, but it's not as bad as some of the things you'll find on the SyFy network (like "Raptor Island"). Had the special effects people had a bit more time, they might have been able to pull this task off. Instead, the creatures come out looking like very low budget versions of the slimies from "Slither" (a vastly superior film).The plot fails in a few ways. Primarily, there is not much sense to the whole concept. If this is a research island, why do people live on it? I can understand scientists staying there, but it seems to have a thriving city. That's just pointless. But also, much of the film uses flashbacks that do not really add up until the end, by which time you've probably already forgotten about them, and the story was working just fine without them. In short, we have added confusing footage where none is necessary... edit five minutes from this film and it would be supremely better.Gabriel Cowan, the writer and director, has said this film was inspired by (of all things) the 2008 presidential debates, and the idea that we must sacrifice ourselves sometimes to get where we want to go. He saw McCain and Obama as both switching positions at the last minute, and turned this into a science fiction story... it's a stretch, but if that's what he says is the source, fair enough.And Cowan's not without his merits. His last film, "Breathing Room", I found to be startlingly impressive and plenty of fun. And he knows how to cast, securing the great character actor Richard Riehle (probably best known from "Office Space"). The problem with "Growth" may not have been the people involved so much as the budget they were forced to work with.I recommend seeing "Breathing Room". I'm not as convinced about "Growth". If you want to compare the two to see Cowan's evolution, go for it, but otherwise you'd do just as well to pass. (I cannot say whether or not the graphic novel based on the film is any better, but I suspect it is.)

In response to the first reviewer: I've seen Squirm and Slither. I liked Squirm and I loved Slither, but Growth was a mess. The difference is the former two didn't take themselves too seriously and it seemed they were made with more care than this.Growth starts out with an interesting premise, and actually very good dialogue and characters. Unfortunately, the story and editing made me sorry I got my hopes up at all. First of all, the film takes itself deadly seriously, and suffers for it. Not that I wanted a horror/comedy, but the script just couldn't pull off a straight horror story, alas.The other main complaints with the film are as previously mentioned, characters make bizarre decisions beyond the typical "stupid horror character decisions" and are not explained. The effects of the parasites are too amorphous: do they affect the will of the victim? And the weak story too heavily relies on flashbacks.On the positives, I actually thought the CGI was decently well done, the dialogue/script believable and the casting was not objectionable.I can see the director doesn't have much experience, so team him up with a better story editor and I'd see the next one.

Have just watched this and I have to say I am surprised at the previous review. I found the story line quite weak, and although a few of the actors gave believable performances, most of the acting was rather hammy. The special effects were the sort I would expect to see on a made for TV movie, and made me feel no sorrow for the victims. The story was a little disjointed in places, and because we are shown the 'parasites' very early on in the film, there is no room to build any tension and the film almost plods along. I found myself checking to see how long there was left to go. Overall, I give this a 5/10, mainly for the few actors that managed to work their script into believable dialogue.