Viral

A virus breaks out causing the infected to lose their faculties and attack the healthy. In a small American town two sisters try to survive on their own when their parents are locked outside the quarantine zone.

This film starts off really well. The two female leads are excellent, with strong engrossing characters. Watching them live their ordinary lives is great viewing. The relationship between the two sisters, one who is sexually active and the other not, is played out with great skill. As things start to head south they deal with the situation as best they can.

This is where my praise for the movie ends. You can actually hit the pause button and see the exact second where some company executive taps the director on the shoulder and says "hey, bud, you remember this is a Sci-fi right?"

The director and writers obviously weren't up for this. I think they probably asked the guy from the local comic book store for advice. As all the hard work and investment in the characters is thrown away to stick some ridiculous tentacles in - then try and pass it off with some very flaky biology.

I am a big fan of sci-fi, especially post apocalyptic stories. This fails to deliver on both accounts. Despite my tastes I would rather this had panned out as a coming of age movie.

Watch it for the characters, then turn it off to avoid the laughable appearance of the actual virus.

I wanted to like this movie, I really did, but once I realized that it was Blumhouse production, I knew I was going to be sorely disappointed. If there was ever a production company that catered to the worst parts of horror, and to the lowest hanging fruit in society, it's Blumhouse. What they have done to soil horror in the last 20 years will not be easily remedied, and this movie is no exception. Teenagers you can't stand start contracting a virus that makes them violent and belligerent. Town is quarantined. Shoehorned romance. The End. Nothing about this movie is original or well-done, and the ending left such a horrible taste in my mouth that I physically spit up phlegm. One of the worst of the PG-13 crap that has been permeating cinema as of late, it screams of lack of creativity, vision or care. In fact, the only saving grace about this movie is that the acting was actually very well done. The rest of the film? Garbage, pure and simple. Do not make the same mistake I did and avoid this movie like is actually spreading a virus. Pathetic.

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.

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".