Outbreak (1995)

Sloman finds it an exciting, effective thriller, despite Hoffman lacking the heroic quality the role needs. He praises Petersen’s handling of the effects and the strong supporting cast.

Nathan finds the film an entertaining, nerve-rattling thriller despite a slack final quarter and a corny script. He praises its gripping first hour and potent premise, while faulting the late shift toward an implausible action chase.

The page could not be read, so its verdict and specific praise or criticism cannot be verified. The URL identifies it as RogerEbert.com’s review of the 1995 film.

McCarthy finds the film an absorbing, commercially potent thriller despite its shift from plausible suspense to improbable action. He particularly praises Wolfgang Petersen’s fluid direction and the film’s technical craft.

The URL identifies this as a review of Outbreak, but the article text is inaccessible. Its headline singles out Dustin Hoffman as the hero and the virus as the villain; the critic’s overall verdict cannot be verified.

Rafferty’s Current Cinema piece discusses Outbreak alongside I Am Cuba, but the accessible page does not reveal his verdict. The archive listing provides no specific praise or complaint about either film.

The available page identifies this as a film review, but provides no readable critical verdict. Its description presents the disease as exceptionally deadly, but does not reveal anything the critic specifically praises or complains about.

Rainer finds the film a preposterous, visceral B-movie dressed in action-adventure spectacle, with its plausibility undermining its serious viral fears. He praises the transmission sequence showing how one infected monkey spreads the virus, while wishing for more scientific detective work.

The critic finds Outbreak effective and frightening in its quarantine scenes, but let down by a draggy, action-heavy third act. Petersen’s staging of Cedar Creek’s isolation and the emotional distance between people earns particular praise.