Studio: Shudder
Director: Gustavo Hernandez Ibanez
Writer: Juma Fodde Roma
Producer: Sebastian Aloi, Ignacio Garcia Cucucovich
Stars: Pilar Garcia, Daniel Hendler, Paula Silva
Review Score:
Summary:
A viral outbreak transforms people into bloodthirsty rioters, but two survivors desperate to save their loved ones discover they have 32 seconds of calm following each violent rampage.
Review:
The day before screening “Virus: 32,” I watched the negligible Netflix “thriller,” their word not mine, “Choose or Die.” In that review (found here), I editorialized about how bizarre it is that Netflix consistently puts out terrific television series, yet their feature films, specifically the horror offerings, are just as consistently unremarkable, if not wholly disposable.
Now, I know some people make similar complaints about Shudder, although I think many of those moaners are wannabe edge-lords who consider anything without gratuitous gore or near-naked women being mutilated to be crap. But I’ll say this about a major difference between these two streamers when it comes to original genre features. Shudder’s midrange movies, I’m talking about the ones that aren’t poised to be big breakouts but are still respectable slices of indie entertainment, are infinitely better than the routine chunder Netflix churns out just to say, “Look at how much new, exclusive content we’ve shoveled onto our service!” Shudder doesn’t always have the big names or eye-catching enticements. But the pad around their middle is far healthier than the flabby potbelly growing over Netflix’s belt.
Shudder’s “Virus: 32” makes an excellent case study for what I mean. It’s not trendy, so you’re not going to hear it being buzzed about like it’s an uber-popular festival favorite. It’s in Spanish with English subtitles, so that narrows its niche even further. All it wants is a small spot on your list of Thursday night activities, it’s not looking to make a bigger impact, and that’s more than adequate for a cleanly crafted little spin around the block where undead apocalypses reside.
Iris anchors the story. She’s a deadbeat mom of sorts, though that has a little more to do with self-inflicted emotional pain than totally selfish negligence. She’s clearly going through something since she still seems to love her estranged husband, yet she’s living with a roommate who enables her carefree lifestyle of pink hair, shots of rum before work, and middle fingers pointed at security cameras.
These things also make Iris a “fun” mother, at least in her eyes. When she’s suddenly saddled with watching her eight-year-old daughter Tata for the night, Iris elects to make the best of an undesirable situation. She brings Tata along for her late shift as an old athletic club’s security guard, and does a bit of bonding by teaching curse words, encouraging occasional irresponsibility, and treating Tata like another flighty friend, even though what the girl wants is a reliable mother.
Iris has to face this fact when Tata reminds her today would have been her little brother’s birthday. In a curious coincidence, “Choose or Die” and “Virus: 32’s” heroines have the exact same tragedy hanging burdensome guilt over their heads: blaming themselves for a child’s drowning death. If you’ve seen how “Choose or Die” did next to nothing with that thread except torture its lead, watch how much more poignancy it has as a theme throughout “Virus: 32.”
Confronting parental failures becomes even more urgent when an unknown virus explodes throughout Uruguay, turning everyone who gets infected into a mindless madman determined to viciously destroy the progressively fewer survivors who are still human. They’re not zombies. They’re afflicted with a contagious illness that immediately inspires furious footraces, feral growling, and brutal violence. The only respite is that for 32 seconds after each savage attack, the infected inexplicably become completely calm.
As she fights to find Tata in the labyrinthine building after it’s invaded by infected, Tata teams up with Luis, who also wants little to do with being a parent. While on his way to the hospital with a pregnant wife in labor, chaos caused Luis to crash. Now he and Iris need each other’s help to take care of their loved ones while desperately clawing their way to safety.
That summary right there is what kicked “Virus: 32” up a significant notch for me. It’s a horror movie that’s actually “about” something. It’s about confronting loss by accepting accountability, and how it can sometimes take trauma to make a person proactive instead of reactive when it comes to fighting for a family previously believed to be inconvenient. This isn’t indistinguishable creatures running around, drooling red corn syrup out of their mouths while prop guns fire muzzle flashes. Being authentically meaningful is what makes “Virus: 32’s” action intriguing.
Momentum still gets stuck on several slow sections. Hide-and-seek stalking, which the film features too much of for its second act, isn’t all that suspenseful when you’re in the midst of a movie where frenzied maniacs are sprinting full tilt in streaks of slaughter.
“Virus: 32” continually gets itself back up to speed thanks in part to a Steadicam that keeps simple scene energy flowing freely without being distracting or overcompensating. The movie is made from a small cast in a single location, yet the production feels bigger than it is. There’s a requisite amount of substance to the setup and to the characters so the plot doesn’t feel shortchanged and the script doesn’t seem skimpy even though the 89-minute runtime breezes by. Director Gustavo Hernandez Ibanez also tries a few tricks to hide how compartmentalized certain sets and infected hordes are with smoke, silhouettes and other bits of clever staging to heighten atmosphere.
I consider “Virus: 32” to be a solid example of a three-star film, 3.5 for me personally, and that’s really all it needs to be. Getting back to what I was saying about mid-road movies on streaming services, I’d much rather have to be reminded of a movie I saw and then react with, “Oh, now I remember, yeah, that was pretty good” rather than fully forget a film, and that’s the difference between a “Virus: 32” and whatever is briefly blipping on Netflix this weekend. It’s a fine enough film that may not blow you away, but it won’t blow up your entire evening either. Netflix content strategists assigned to this lower-profile tier could learn quite a bit from the lessons “Virus: 32” teaches.
Review Score: 70
“Kraven the Hunter” might as well be renamed “Kraven the Explainer,” as it’s much more of an unnecessarily tedious origin story than an action-intensive adventure.