Very well executed

Absolutely the worst movie.

A lot more amusing than I thought it would be.

The film never slows down or bores, plunging from one harrowing sequence to the next.

Five university friends gather at a house party to ring in the New Year. Unbeknownst to them, an epidemic has erupted outside, causing outbreaks around the world.Scott Weinberg of Fearnet says, "If you can get past the fact that the flick is composed of 75% recycled ideas and 25% new ones, you may find that something to like." Sounds to me like Weinberg does not understand how the horror genre works -- few movies today have less than 75% recycled ideas. Why gripe about this one? Indeed, this was an interesting satire and attack on social media. Silly, maybe, and certainly nothing that can be taken too seriously. But not the terrible film critics (especially Rotten Tomatoes) makes it out to be. When compared to the technology-themed "The Den", this is the more mature and accomplished approach to the Internet Age.

The film is an Indie-Horror film, so the budget is quite small. That said, they did a great job with a mostly closed set and small cast.The characters run the typical range, with enough time spent on the main cast mbrs for you to either recognize or relate to.The bright spot, and I think very intentional, is newcomer Michelle Mylett.She does a fantastic job with her role. Transitioning very nicely from the initial college student facing an emotional crisis/dilemma to the character we see in the final moments of the film.Look forward to seeing her in more characters and roles asap!~~~ Plot Spoiler ~~~The biggest mistake I think people are making about the film, is reading too much into it. Yes it deals quite heavily with the social media/networking phenomenon. But where many take the film to be a slam on the potential effect of social media, I think rather it's cautionary tale about the potential of how this new (seemingly great at first) technology "can or could" be used, to ill effect by the companies that own and stand to profit from their use. This takes that potential and rightful concern and thrusts it into the realm of a survival horror tale, to great effect imoSo check it out, it's worth a watch ;)

A group of university friends make a party to celebrate the New Year. However, a strange epidemic of violence erupts all around the world, apparently related to social networks, and they are forced to fight for survival as everything goes mad around them.It sounds good, it feels good. My thoughts, as I first read about this film and started watching it, was that this could be like a 'Pontypool' type of zombie/outbreak film mixed with 'Pulse's technology based horror. A try at social commentary, which could work well with this horror style.Well, I guess I shouldn't have been expecting an intelligent horror. The comparison to 'Pulse', rather than the much better and original 'Kairo', was the only of my expectations to be met.The whole 'social network zombies' concept the film seemed aimed for (and some reviewers seemed to believe make it deep and original) ends up as nothing but a half-assed excuse to indulge on the usual horror clichés (in special, the zombie ones). Weak, drowzy acting cast performing stereotyped or disengaging characters prone to stupid and nonsensical decisions, together with a complete disregard for logic on the plot development or even in basic research (the way the 'virus' spreads... seriously?).The set-up is relatively promising, and the concept could be developed nicely. A problem most modern horror makers do is believing everything needs to be fast-paced; 'Antisocial' ends up moving so fast it rushes through the good parts of the concept. Rather than doing like 'Invasion of Body Snatchers' or 'The Thing' and building up the suspense, playing with the whole paranoia situation the film could easily create, they instead rush through for the zombie gore and Resident Evil-like 'action girl fights zombies' 'action'.As it turns out, the conflict and the tension are far too phony to work, the characters are both moronic and cannot bring the audience to care about them, and the only thing this whole film offers is the usual clichés rather than something new.Some reviewers here are trying to defend the film with the 'argument' that it pretty much 'tries to be socially engaged, exploring new themes for an horror'. It is not exploring or engaged at all; it is just the same old with a half-assed excuse to try and hide the film's shallowness. Trying something new is good, but if you do so like 'Antisocial' it is better not to try at all.

I really don't get a reason to see such a low rating becoz this movie is definite worth a watch if you are into zombie or outbreak stuff.the idea was great and the treatment was different for a change.the story grips you in the middle but bit luck-warm at the beginning and bit at the end.the acting just was there but misses the spark a bit.music is good and camera work is OK too.I think a good 15 min can be cut off from it's entire length but overall it's a different and very innovative movie,yes it's not an excellent or mind blowing one but it will not disappoint you either.If you have some free time in your hand and want to enjoy a decent and new idea film then it's for you but as I said don't expect an Oscar winning story just be with it and you may end up liking it.