There are times when the quality of the camera-work reminded me of French cinema and the last sequences of 2001. it is good, without a doubt. However, sadly, visual imagery alone cannot sustain a film. There has to be some credibility in a story line so you can maintain suspension of disbelief by being too engrossed to query the occurrences you see, that creates the film experience. Antiviral's link to scientific and engineering reality is so tenuous, the happenings so illogical, even within its own story line, that you become uncomfortable with the leaps of faith the makers demand of you to remain engaged with the story as credible, even acknowledging it is set in the future. There is a feeling of low budget that afflicts the sets, the locations - an uncomfortable mix of studio future and external present day location selection - the props and even the secondary acting. At times, for those Brits amongst us, it reminded me of the poorer offerings from Dr. Who meets the cast of Interview with a Vampire and Stanley Kubrick. I would not recommend it, not even for the curious. It is neither Art nor Cinema.