They made note of a stereotype cast, poor dialog, and several flaws with "Sluggish pacing, downtime, countless continuity errors, and repetitive dialogue are to be expected for a movie shot with something that can’t even be considered a budget, but "Flu Bird Horror" takes this to the extreme". "Dread Central" felt that the story concept was more plausible than that of ABC's 2006 airing of "", but noted that the virus aspect as used in the film made little sense, writing "everything wrong with the film can be traced back to the nonsensical script." They opined that the birds themselves were the stars of the film when they wrote "Those zombie buzzards are the true stars of Flu Bird Horror — both ghastly and goofy all at the same time". While noting that casting was not optimum, they wrote "On the plus side, I can't complain about the acting. I can complain about the dialogue, but I can't complain about the actors themselves." In consideration of the film's weaknesses, they still found it worthwhile by their writing "almost miraculously, "Flu Bird Horror" remains fairly watchable and I honestly don't know how Scott and company pulled it off all things considered". "Monsters & Critics" panned the acting, writing that it "ranges from horrible to maniacally over-the-top." However, they granted the film was somewhat better than most bad horror films even though representative of what is being expected from the Sci-Fi Channel by writing ""Flu Birds" is potentially some "nature on the rampage" goofball fun and a lot better than "Ghouls", but it's still not a quality film. Not that you'd be expecting one with Sci-Fi Channel emblazoned on the front". "DVD Talk" panned the film as "fairly bottom-of-the-barrel stuff, even by creature feature standards", concluding that the "characters are completely uninteresting and the ending is underwhelming and disappointing".