Movies -- and narrative fiction in general -- often offer insights on what might happen in the future: they propose a possible outcome. In the case of genetic manipulation, the fact that excessive manipulation might lead to large scale negative consequence is a plausible one, since manipulation is definitely on the increase, and since the biological system is far too complex for definite predictions to be made one way or the other.
What should keep one on guard is the intrusive nature of genetic manipulation. By its nature, manipulation requires the creation of an organism, or a part of one, often sentient, which is often guaranteed to experience life through a type of pain we can barely imagine.
Maybe it is unavoidable for present research to use these brute force methods. To question the practice, however, is very far from being the idle activity of someone who watches too many movies.
One simple insight arising from this type of questioning concerns language: talking about "fighting viruses" sends the wrong message. Viruses and bacteria are always here with us, since apparently they co-evolved with us. Our mouths alone seem to host a hundred different *species* of bacteria.
This means that when one of these entities turns against us, that has to do with our habits, and in general our society, just as much as it has to do with their genetic makeup. Therefore, avoiding the undesirable effects of a virus is not so much about fighting it, as it is about understanding the signal that it is sending us.
Being critical of the intrusive practices of genetics can be a positive way to understand this important concept better.