Viral

I quite enjoyed this film, I felt if I'd watched it at the age of sixteen I'd have loved it. As a story it's of course been done to death, but the delivery was pretty good, some nice rounded characters, with some great interplay, particularly between Emma and Stacey. The makers obviously felt no need for endless gore and violence, more subtly then terror. Trouble is we've all gotten used to hard hitting, no holds barred zombie films and serials, this would be a tad slow for many. It was watchable. 6/10

This movie had potential, especially since it took place during the early stages of an infection that would affect many people.

But the movie ultimately failed to cash in on its potential, and ended up being a mediocre movie that somehow felt like an attempt of mixing the zombie genre with elements from "The Strain".

It should be mentioned that "Viral" does have good acting performances from a good cast. And the movie also has good special effects and CGI effects.

But the movie was just suffering from being too generic and predictable. And the ending to the story was a slap to the face with a cold fish.

"Viral" offers nothing of any interest, and if you are a seasoned horror fan, like I am, then you are better off finding something else to watch because "Viral" is not all that interesting.

It has come to my attention that Hollywood loves a good epidemic to shake us at our core. With recent film like "Blindness", "Contagion", "Maggie" and "The Bay" being just a small few to name, they really allow us to fantasize and view what could become of earth if an epidemic overtook us.

"Viral" is another film to add to your collection of "Disease Outbreak Films".

Emma (Sofia Black D'Elia, "The Night Of") is a new fish in a small pond. Starting a new school and moving to a new house all at once makes her shy and nervous, unlike her big sister Stacey (Analeigh Tipton, "Two Night Stand") who rather live freely and outspoken. When a virus mysteriously breaks out, trapping their mother at the airport. Their father (Michael Kelly, "Secret in Their Eyes") is forced to go get her; trapping himself in the progress. Emma and Stacey must now deal with fending for themselves and surviving this unknown virus.

Screenwriters Christopher B. Landon ("Scouts Guide to the Zombie Apocalypse") and Barbara Marshall craft a small and tight knit script that offers some scares at times but overall lacks in momentum and storytelling unlike its aforementioned "Disease Outbreak Films". This would rather focus on the characters of the story than the disease itself, Which is fine if and only if you balance the two. Landon and Marshall would rather us pay attention to Emma and how she is affected by the virus that is rapidly changing those around her. But with Emma not being a strong character, to begin with, or lacking emotional gravitas I found myself not caring about the difficult choices she had to make throughout the film. Now don't get me wrong, she is a very confident, smart and likable character. It's just her actions make less sense as the film progress leaving us - the audience to wonder what we might have done differently in her situation.

And this is the real reason why this film suffers its setbacks. If it had been released first before any outbreak film or tried to adapt or acquire new details to this ever growing genre we would have embraced and welcomed it. But because we've seen this countless times, Nothing is new to us. Which is why I found myself wanting the film to pick a side to land on. Landon and Marshall are not so much at fault here - They do create interesting and likable characters and establish a backstory that shapes the reason why our two leads find themselves in this predicament.

Directors Henry Joost & Ariel Schulman ("Catfish" and "Nerve") feed off tension and unease as they follow the little details of this virus. After the success of "Catfish", "Paranormal Activity 3", and "Paranormal Activity 4", coincidentally both written by Landon. They have an eye for found footage horror, which maybe this could have been - I think we're all happy it's not.

"Viral" is a new addition to our list of "Disease Outbreak Films", Sadly I don't think it will make our list of "Best Outbreak Films".

It starts off as a drama, but quickly tunrs into a horror movie. Well I reckon it is rather slow - once it turns around. And it stays with you - it does try to encapsulate the horror from past days, old school as some might call it. References to something like Body Snatchers and other movies can be felt, while I wouldn't say they are being ripped off or stolen from.

This is still original for what it is and it does a solid job overall. Unfortunately there is something deeper missing - even when you care about the characters on screen, something that lights the fire, makes this really go places that make it truly great. There are things that cannot be explained (no pun intended) ... decent horror movie with quite the mayhem towards the end ... and some solace I reckon (maybe?)

Did I have a good time watching this? Absolutely. Would I watch it again? Yep. Would I recommend it? Certainly.

If you don't nitpick it to death, this is an entertaining, well made, contagious critters in your blood movie. The actors all do a good job, some of the characters are memorable, the writing is fresh, the photography looks good, and the director knows his job. I wish more movies in this genre were this good.

As for those panning this movie, I'm glad I don't have to sit through watching a movie with them, or anything else, for that matter. They're probably the type who complain about everything but contribute nothing of their own.

The people who made this movie spent the money they had, and they spent it well. They ended up with an entertaining, scary movie about highly contagious blood borne parasites....nasty little buggers too, and I had a great time watching it.