Viral

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 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?)

Had I seen VIRAL in 2016, like others I'd have been frustrated by the stupidity of characters pulling off - or never putting on - their masks during a viral outbreak. "How ridiculous!" I would have opined, "NO ONE would be that stupid!" How time sadly changes perspective.

This isn't "World War Z" and doesn't try to be. It treads closer to a teen-centric "Contagion," focused on character rather than gore. The performances of Black-D'Elia and Tipton as sisters of varying temperament and maturity ring true, and a budding romance evolves as organically as one might under this circumstance.

I found VIRAL satisfying as a sisters-under-duress-sticking-together kind of movie, and as for the believability of people behaving recklessly and stupidly during a pandemic? This movie was certainly ahead of its time.

This movie can surprise you the idea was well executed and the two leads felt like actual sisters, to me that's the high point in the movie how their relationship unfolds, they are complete opposites still in the situation they care for one another, and the roles from strong and weak will go back and forth.

Sadly everything else is fairly passable as it focuses on what happens when your cut off and teenagers make some dumb decisions, I can say this could have been better but the way it was executed was pretty enjoyable.

The parasite idea I thought was pretty good.

I recommend this one but be ready for a slow burn.

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".