rogerdarlington

(2012-04-27 21:41:23)

Promises much but delivers less

This is a movie which promises much but, in the end, does not quitedeliver the punch that it should. The subject matter - the threat of a pandemic that spreads around theglobe with terrifying speed and potency - is all too real with therecent scares of SARS and H1N1 in our mind and the film's scientificadvisers ensure that plot is all too authentic and believable withreminders of the 1918 flu pandemic that killed at least 50 millionpeople. The cast is top-notch with Laurence Fishburne, Kate Winslet,Jennifer Ehle and Marion Cotillard all working to combat the virus,Matt Damon and Gwyneth Paltrow as victims, and Jude Law as a bloggerwith an unorthodox solution. Then we have acclaimed director StevenSoderbergh who also acts as his own director of photography (under thepseudonym Peter Andrews). And it starts so well with scary images andan urgent score. So, why doesn't it work? The main reason is poor pacing. It shouldbuild up to a dramatic finale but there are too many slow bits thatinterrupt the tension and the discover of a vaccine is just too easy.Then there are the loose ends. Bits of the narrative just seem to beleft hanging without explanation. And there is a serious under-use ofthe acting talent that has been assembled - even if we do get to beinside the head of one of them. Some of the stars are killed off earlyon and others have too little to do. There's a 1970s feel to this movie: a collection of well-known actorsput into a disaster setting. But "Outbreak" in 1995 did the 'beat thebug' story better and Soderbergh himself marshalled multiple charactersto better effect in his work "Traffic" in 2000. Having said all this,it's still an entertaining film. Just don't see in a cinema when youhave a bad cough ...

tnega007-1

(2012-04-27 14:15:32)

Waste of a great cast

Looking at the poster for this film and seeing the great names attachedyou might, "Hey, this looks good, I should go see it." My advice: saveyour $10 and go see something else for the second time.I saw this movie a few weeks back and was excited to see what directorSteven Soderbergh had done with this great ensemble cast. As great ashe is, Soderbergh couldn't make this work. The premise is simple: adeadly virus breaks out and threatens to decimate the entire world. Noone is prepared and no one can do anything to stop it. While this"Contagion" is the whole point of the movie, it's also the biggestproblem. It's a disease, a virus, an unseeable villain. You hate thedisease by its nature, but it's not bad guy that you love to hate likethe Bond villains or Hannibal Lecter. Now if you're an avid movie-goer you might be waiting to hear about thezombies. Surely a movie like Contagion has some zombies, right? Wrong.Zombies would have made everything better and I never thought I'd saythat. This movie was so heavy, was so dramatic that it needed to easethe tension a little. But it didn't. A good zombie might have done thetrick. I'd have even settled for a vampire. But instead all you get isa pale and ugly Gwyneth Paltrow and a rather chubby Matt Damon. Thatshould tell you something right there.As I mentioned, the cast is great. The movie moves between multiplestory lines, such as Matt Damon and his daughter, Laurence Fishburne(who might give the best performance of the film) trying to figure outa cure, and the cynical Jude Law who likes shaking things up. Theproblem with these characters is that you don't have the desire to rootfor them. Because the film is constantly changing from one storyline tothe other, you don't get to become emotionally involved and care forthem. Not that I was rooting for them to all die, but I almost didn'tcare either way. This is NOT a feel good movie. You're not going to walk away feelinginvigorated and high on life. There is nothing incredibly exciting,humorous, or fun to watch in these 105 minutes of bleakness. The end,which I won't spoil, was a cop out of an ending and left everything tobe desired. I've said it once and I'll say it again:A zombie would have helped.

CylonTheater

(2012-04-26 10:41:03)

Movie a 7, soundtrack a 2

Okay,I enjoyed the movie overall and there are so many good reviewswritten on IMDb that I will just get to the part that almost made itunbearable to sit through... the music soundtrack! How would I describeit? Horrible, annoying, 70's meets 80's with a dash of porn? I'msitting in the theater and wishing Mike Tyson would show up to chew myears off! Does that explain it well enough? I get that they may havebeen going for a certain mood or feel, but they could have done awaywith 90% of that music and improved the movie a lot.The acting was very good and the plot was well thought out and done. Ijust wish the movie was made a bit more to modern standards ortechnique I guess....

Jim Fordyce

(2012-04-26 04:58:26)

"Contagion" lacks action and emotion

It has an all-star cast and a premise that has been used before, butthis story of a virus attacking the planet left me cold. The storybegins when a women returns from Asia to her home in the United States.Beth Emhoff (played by Gwyneth Paltrow) lands in Minneapolis frombusiness in Hong Kong. What she thought was jet lag turns out to beoh-so-much more. Two days later, she's dead in the ER and her grievinghusband, played by Matt Damon, wants to know why. This movie quicklymoves ahead as others exhibit the same mysterious symptoms in citiesacross the globe. With a pandemic in full swing, an all-star cast playsCDC and WHO folks who try to solve the mystery, isolate the virus, andget a vaccine to save the planet. Meanwhile, a blogger (Jude Law) isconvinced that the government is hiding things, and in a weak sub plothe tries to convey his message. Although it moves quickly, this filmdoes not develop beyond "made for TV" fare. There is very littlecharacter development. Damon's character is dull and lifeless, andwhile part of the plot centers around a CDC official (LaurenceFishburne) and his wife, we learn very little about her. I really didnot care about any of these people. This movie lacks emotion, andexcept for a few scenes, it lacks confrontation and drama, as well. Itsgood points are a solid plot, some great production values, thedocumentary style it is done in, and how the mystery is solved at theend. Add 'em up and "Contagion" gets a mediocre 2 out of Fordyce.Credit Check: Nothing appears after the credits roll. But I did watchfor Pete Sack's name in the credits. He plays the TV news anchor and isan old friend.

Niklas Pivic

(2012-04-24 16:19:47)

Money unwell spent

Well, this was pap. Fodder. Nothing. Depressing.The actors behaved like they were actually depressed: very littlehappened. I'm all for non-Hollywood-esque acting; indeed, I was bettingon Soderbergh's helming to be of help, but instead this seems about asfailed as "The Island".The story is simple: a germ has been released and is quickly spreading.The incubation time is next to nothing, and people start dropping likeflies.A bunch of celebs turn up to die, conspire, try to find a vaccine andlive.The best part of the film: the soundtrack. The worst part of the film:the rest.I didn't much care for the characters in the film. Some turned up, somevanished, some turned up later. There was very little building ofsympathy for the characters, which I felt was really odd consideringwhat kind of film this is. Sure, I liked the callous scientific senseof the WHO researchers, but that quickly delved from beingthis-might-turn- interesting into sheer bureaucratic dribble, almostlike a chemistry lesson: this cell goes in there, and turns thatcell...I didn't care much. It was like playing Grand Theft Auto for too longin one go: once you go there, you end up doing stupid stuff, likeshooting people or wrecking your car just to get a rise. Watching thisfilm was like that, except you couldn't control any of the charactersand they were just...below plain.Not even the conspiracy bit - courtesy of Mr. Jude Law - wascaptivating, despite seeing him in hefty breathing apparatus which wasfunny.I must admit: the bit where the kids dance was lovely. Nothing else.Nothing.

Davor Blazevic

(2012-04-24 08:39:01)

Fictional viral outbreak plausibly dramatized in docu-like fashion

Stephen Soderbergh's latest direction, "Contagion" (2011), thoughbringing less than expected excitement, is an absorbing movie to watch,efficient as a social and behavioural study, but no less as anaccomplished collection of individual case studies, offeringsufficiently thought-provoking arguments, such as the factthat--despite all the scientific advances and exhaustive efforts of thethousands of specialists--mankind still stands pretty helpless in theprevention of new viral outbreaks and their many strains occurringglobally, when even seemingly well organised societies easily slip intochaos of the ultimate battle: the individual fight for survival, allfurther fuelled by unstoppable leaks (however, lucrativesensationalism, as well) on an almost inevitable, mutually supportive(money and power shouldn't mix, but mostly they do) corporal andgovernmental cover-ups.Many good actors partake in the movie: Kate Winslet, Matt Damon, JudeLaw, Jennifer Ehle, Marion Cotillard, Elliott Gould, to name a few,though one cannot expect remarkable character development when actionis dispersed and story spread on so many leads. Nevertheless,Soderbergh... - - - S P O I L E R - - - if you mind, please don't readany further - - - ...knows how to make people count, believing indecisive difference their increasingly frequent, self-sacrificingactions will make, trusting in ultimate selflessness and benevolence,whether among pre-organised, or ad hoc gathered communities, down tothe last individual--now under extreme conditions--rediscovering theiraltruism and, as implied in a reserved hope raised towards the end,having--against all odds--humanity still prevail.

Fentoo

(2012-04-22 16:12:54)

Mishmash

I can't think of any redeeming aspect in this movie to justify it'sticket money. All the movie is so pale and shallow, without even a hintof suspense building up. Millions of people are dead? Whatever. Thecure is found? Whatever, everyone knew it would happen, move along. Thebrave scientist tests the vaccine on herself? Whatever, just another 30seconds in the movie until we move on to another pointless scene.Furthermore, parts of the movie are not even related, I'm not even surewhy these scenes were shown to me. For example, what role exactly doesMatt Damon's character play in the movie? Why should I care about histeenage daughter's romance? And for crying out loud, why that seems asimportant as the discovery of the cure itself?!What can I say, youtube is full of better directed videos done by 14year-olds. My humble advice is to watch Andromeda Strain (1971)instead, at least that one has a "soul".

davidgee

(2012-04-22 00:32:16)

Don't cough during this movie!

This low-key but unsettling disaster movie has the starriest cast sinceTHE TOWERING INFERNO, but the actors mostly disappear into the partsthey're playing in what is essentially a 'docudrama', like TRAFFIC.Plot development centres on the virus itself. Matt Damon's familyserves as a symbol for all the victims (Gwyneth Paltrow drew the shortstraw in the Casting Director's office: the role of 'Typhoid Mary').Laurence Fishburne gets a bit of back story; Kate Winslet and ElliotGould get none; Marion Cotillard's kidnap builds to an anticlimax; thebackground becomes the foreground with people dropping dead on busesand in shops.To Soderburgh's credit, there is a very real (and scary) sense ofthings getting out of control as the infection spreads and the deathtoll mounts. As in other disaster movies (THE DAY AFTER TOMORROW, 2012)the pace has to be accelerated: finding, manufacturing and distributingthe vaccine is telescoped into a few minutes of screen time. But scenesof rioting and looting give a vivid sense of how things might haveturned out if Swine Flu or SARS (or even AIDS) had turned into thepandemics they threatened to become.I half expected a mad rush to the Exit when an audience member startedcoughing!

RUdoneYETfilms

(2012-04-21 07:35:08)

A Minor Work in Soderbergh's Stellar Career

Steven Soderbergh is one of the few filmmakers who can move fluidlybetween the indie world ("Che" 2008) and Hollywood (the "Ocean's"trilogy), and his new film "Contagion" is really a hybrid of both --kind of a documentary-before-the-fact with A-list actors. Although ittries hard to get more of the science right than Wolfgang Petersen's"Outbreak" (1995), it doesn't come anywhere close to Danny Boyle's "28Days Later" (2002) for flat-out fear. So what we end up with is aglobe-trotting montage of techno-babble that shifts between a dozenmajor characters, never really lingering long enough on any one of themfor us to care about who lives and who dies. Some major stars slip intorigor mortis early on, but for some reason only a quick cutaway to aninjected monkey staring out from his cage really feels genuine. And thedigital Red camera used to shoot the movie gives the cinematography(videography?) too much of a "video-real" aesthetic -- more like ahi-def program you'd catch on Discovery Health than a movie you'd payfor in theatrical distribution... "Contagion" might make you wash yourhands and stop touching your face for a few days, but as a medicalthriller, there's little chance it will catch on.

shacklefort

(2012-04-20 16:42:41)

underwhelmed bigtime... very disappointing film with no depth at all

I really have to say that I was completely underwhelmed by thisexperience. It's not a bad film but it certainly is no thriller. It'sexactly what it says. A film about disease and the spreading of saiddisease. There's no real connection with any of the characters or anyof the stars of the cast. They try with Damon and Fishburne'scharacters but they spend large chunks of this film absent from thestory. It's a messy grab bag of a film that splinters and runs off inmany directions for no reason at all. Also, the impact of this globaldisaster wasn't even depicted to the level one would expect. Itcertainly takes a shortcut through just what an economic disaster thiswould create. No "evil" liberal blogger would be able to profit andeveryone would be economically devastated as much as anything.Overall, very disappointing.

joebjackson

(2012-04-14 02:28:18)

Great execution save for the ending

Wow never would I have thought to be really impressed and reallydisappointed at the same time (I'll get into that later!) Now the plotis basically somehow a virus has been spreading throughout all theworld and it kills within approximately 3 days at most. Now there is ahuge cast of characters and talkalot about them would be spoiling a lotso I will only briefly refer to them to not give anything away. Thefilm is brilliantly directed with harsh realism in both the shootingand in the science. The science steals the show as it is so realisticand amazingly accurate that it is surprising for this type of disastermovie. All the actors do a good job save for a few but thats whathappens when you have a cast this large. Now with all of this the movieshould be flawless right? No. There is a major flaw and that is theending! It is one of the most anticlimactic, clichГѓВ© and downrightlaughable endings I have ever seen! Now I'd hate to be spoilingsomething but I have to in this case. They find the vaccine and injecta lot of people and Matt Damon's daughter (Who only had a few sceneswith her boyfriend)Dances with the boyfriend and then the movie justends there! No possible side effects of the vaccine, no aftermath ofthe outbreak nothing intelligent it just ends on two boring teenagersdancing! This is something you would see in a teenage end of the worldmovie not this science heavy movie. I feel as though they just endedthere even though they probably had more in mind. Oh well, with theexception of the ending please go see this movie!

(2012-04-13 23:33:05)

Beyond Disappointing

I was looking forward to seeing this film and expected it to be quitegood considering the cast. Unfortunately, the cast is much better thanthe film. The virus that is the basis for the epidemic isn't nearly astoxic as the weak story. The characters display very little in the wayof human emotion and consequently, you don't really care about any ofthem. The one character that does evoke a strong emotional response isthe totally despicable charlatan played by Jude Law. There are a coupleof other "moments" of humanity but in a film that is so bereft ofemotion, those "moments" have little impact. It's generally verysterile and unengaging. It would also have us think that the CDC wouldsend just one person to investigate an outbreak. Not hardly. The ideathat the Jennifer Ehle character is going to break protocol and maybesave the world, is also very silly. They pretty much stole that fromthe Dustin Hoffman film Outbreak and it was just as silly in that film.Maybe they left the connective tissue of this film on the cutting roomfloor or maybe this is all there ever was. Either way, the result was abig disappointment and I certainly won't be adding it to my DVDcollection.

averybrooks

(2012-04-13 07:31:53)

Average, very average.

This film is VERY average. The acting and production quality was veryhigh and the concept/story line was very intriguing; the issue is thatit was very hard to buy into the protagonist even while being played byMatt Damon. They didn't stick with his story and even had they done soit was him care taking for his daughter. This story needed more civilunrest, there shouldn't have been a cure at all; this is the kind ofthing people who live in the real world would like to be entertainedby.The issue is that just like any melodrama at the end someone saves theday. In this case it just wasn't very spectacular and in general wasvery average in the manner in which they did it.I wouldn't recommend watching this film, unless you enjoy being bored.

simona gianotti

(2012-04-12 16:51:49)

Tense, realistic, paranoid drama, featuring a top-notch cast

"Contagion" , since from the title, leaves little to imagination as faras the plot: it's the story of the outbreak of a tremendous virusthreatening the whole world health. Not new, indeed, but what isinteresting above all is the realistic, almost documentary style chosenby the director. Criticised for being impersonal, in my opinion thisstyle allows him to explore the subject from different points of view,along multiple and intertwining story lines: the point of view ofscience and medicine, the political, sociological worries, theexploitation by the media, the pharmaceutical involvement, each of themcarrying its own interest, which does not always correspond with theinterest of the population. The result is a well studied and wellelaborated handling of the theme. Of course, also the common human sideis not neglected, on the contrary we feel panic and paranoia increase,as the number of infected people jumps from a few cases to thousandsand more. The cast is of high range, and definitely help increase thequality of the movie. Whether you like the movie or not, you willcertainly be more aware when you touch anything, and you'll probablywash your hands more often! And if you are a germophobe, do not see it!

TxMike

(2012-04-11 10:08:36)

An interesting and worthwhile examination of how the world might handle an outbreak of a fast-spreading, unknown illness.

Saw it on BluRay, from Redbox, so no "extras" in the rental copy, butpicture and sound are superb.This is a modern fable of what might happen when a new pathogen getsquickly introduced to and spread in our interconnected world wheretravelers touch each other and can span the whole world in just a fewhours. Gwyneth Paltrow is the first star featured, we see her as Beth Emhoffcoming back to Minnesota from Hong Kong, with a 6-hour layover inChicago. At home she exhibits severe flu-like symptoms and soon isdead. What does she have and how widely has it been spread? The movie uses the time-accounting technique of superimposing the daynumber as a new scene begins. The first time we see it, we are in "Day2". As the movie progresses and the days go from 3,4, and on into the140s, we still have in the back of our minds, "What happened on DayOne"? Day One holds the key to unravelling the mystery and it would be aspoiler to say what happened on Day One, but be assured it is coveredin the last 30 seconds or so of the movie. The cast is filled with big names, and in truth they all do fine jobs.When I saw one of them, my wife and I both said "What is his name, andwasn't he in 'Bob and Ted and Carol and Alice' over 40 years ago?" Yes,Elliot Gould, who I would have thought to be 95 by now, is actuallyonly in his 70s. I looked at his IMDb profile, and he is still ahard-working actor, very busy and even today involved in severalprojects. Matt Damon has a key role as Mitch Emhoff, and even though he hadcontact with his now deceased wife, he and his daughter do not contractthe illness. But as the movie states, as many and 25 to 30 % of thosewho get it will die.Another key character is Laurence Fishburne as Dr. Ellis Cheever, oneof the researchers trying to identify the bug and prepare a vaccine.Another is Kate Winslet. Jude Law has an interesting role, as online video blogger AlanKrumwiede. He apparently contracts the disease, and takes a non-FDAhomeopathic medicine and becomes cured, all online. However is all thisreal, or is he faking it to gain financial benefits?All in all a very interesting movie, and it does get you thinking abouthow easy it is through human contact to spread disease.SPOILERS: Day one is depicted as a new virus coming about when a bat,hanging upside down in a pork plant, generates infected droppings whichfall to the floor and are consumed by a pig. That allows the creationof a new bat-pig hybrid virus infecting the pig, which is sold to aHong Kong chef who butchers it and, with animal fluids on his hands hascontact with Beth, a customer that day. That is how she gets infected,then passes it all over the world by contact with others. A vaccine isdeveloped, and the world is on the mend before the movie ends.

gigadragon12

(2012-04-10 11:13:17)

Fantastic, but a little short.

Movie Review for Contagion Directed by Steven Soderbergh Review Score8/10 – Too Short, But powerful and lasting. See it in Theaters.Contagion is a movie that observes the spread of a super virus from itsorigin and its affect on the world we live in. It catalogues thejourneys of several characters, mostly scientists and representativesof various organizations set to deal with the outbreak of virus' suchas the one in the movie. The CDC, WHO, and others are representedthrough different characters. The emotional center of the story is onMatt Damon's character, whose wife is one of the original carriers.From the first moments of the movie, a blank shot with the sound ofGwyneth Paltrow coughing during a phone conversation, the movie isintense and rather paranoid. It uses long montages to detail severalcarriers and the things they touch that spread it to people, includingnut bowls, doors, handles on a bus and subway, different areas thatinfect and spread to numerous people in a matter of days. It's veryeffective and rather chilling to see, and will likely cause more than afew people to stop touching things for several weeks.The story focuses a lot more on the representatives of the previouslymentioned health organizations than the people that aren't involved.This might seem like it would make the movie a little emotionally dry,but each of these characters evolve into conflicts of their own.Another character that's set out from the norm is an onlineblogger/journalist who is radically into conspiracies aboutprescription drug companies and biological warfare, and the movieexplores that side of things as well.Really this movie is done very well. The cinematography is relentlessin the paranoia factor, the actors are all top notch A-list celebs thathave done nothing but well for themselves and portray the charactersbrilliantly. The story becomes multi-layered almost as quickly as thevirus spreads. It presents what would happen on a corporate, personal,and worldwide level as something as a new dangerous epidemic occurs.Not forgetting the potential viewpoint of people in recent history, themovie takes a few early stabs at the swine flu outbreak from a fewyears ago and handles it with the different viewpoints as well asproviding a great closing statement from Kate Winslet's character earlyon. There's a lot to love in this movie.That being said, its not a perfect film. One thing that irks me is thatthe film has a lot of characters. Having a lot of characters is not badin and of itself, but for a movie that lasts an hour and a half itcauses lots of stories to be spread a bit thin. This is felt most nearthe start, when a daughter seems to magically appear from nowhere forMatt Damon's characters after early deaths seem to shake him, and theending, which we'll get to in a minute. In short, I think this movieprobably could've used perhaps another fifteen minutes, maybe a halfhour, to more comfortably explore each of the characters involved, aswe essentially have something like 5 different viewpoints in the story.Not only that, but when you have lots of characters, there's a tendencyto rely on them meeting up at some point, and what actually happens inthis story is that only a few touch edges every now and then.Personally though, I found that preferable to the typical "Now everyoneshows up and there's a gun in the room" style of character mash up thatwe are probably used to seeing by now. This personal separation fuelsthe paranoia of the plot and functions brilliantly with the movie.Now then the ending. I'm not going to give away anything, but thismovie ends in the dictionary definition of vague. It gives you enoughto know what's going to happen and how the characters resolve, butthere was certainly a few stories that seemed to end up where they wereat, simply because the focus on them had dwindled. One character, a WHOrepresentative (played by the continued excellence of Marion Cotillard)who seems very important in the early stages manages to disappear forsomething like forty minutes before being popped back in near the endjust enough for a quick solution to her character and then left with awalking off screen with no major seeming impact to her character andlittle idea of what was going to happen. It was sloppily handled andthat was unfortunate because at the time she disappears she has themost engaging plot in the movie.So overall, I would think Contagion is the most worthwhile movie tocome out since the summer ended. It is very good, a little too short,and a little too thin on its characters, but is still an effective lookat a realistic spread of an epidemic in our world without being toovague on its world wide impact or too apocalyptic in its change.Definitely worth your time if only to catch more glimpses at thebeautiful sexy Ms. Cotillard.

chrusokomos

(2012-04-09 18:21:29)

A docu-fiction which promises more than it delivers

"Contagion" is basically a 'what if' movie about a possible scenario incase of a global pandemic. In this respect, I think it is well done andwell researched, with only two caveats - the usual focus on the US(saviours of the world yet again) despite a global setting, and anoverly optimistic resolution to the crisis. The actors are also verygood, if a bit under-utilised (you would expect more screen time forsomeone as good as Matt Damon, for instance).However, this movies fails as a movie, in my opinion, in two respects:first, and most importantly, it has no real sense of drama or plot.There is no message to it, no final catharsis - nothing. It reads likea documentary, and not a very good one at that. We don't know enoughabout the characters to feel sorry for them, and the final moral lessonseems to be, "If you want to survive a pandemic, either be a top guy orclean their apartment".Secondly, the reason behind the pandemic are not explored at all. Themovie is a glorification of animal testing, and only two minutes at thevery end are spent showing the real reasons behind most modern pandemic- the awful conditions in which farm animals are kept. I don'tunderstand this at all, because Ian Lipkin, the professor called in asexpert for this movie, clearly states that "We are one world – humansand animals – and we need to take care of one another." This is animportant message in our overconsumeristic world, not only for basicanimal welfare, but also, increasingly, for our own protection. Yet thefilm completely ignores this aspect.Soderbergh is brilliant in directing multi-faceted movie, but in thisone it looks like nobody had a real plot in mind. A real pity.

MosH

(2012-04-09 10:17:17)

Not contagiously enthusiastic about the movie

Contagion uses the palette of intertwining and interweaving storieslike Babel and Crash against the backdrop of a viral epidemic and boydo they have some wonderful talent among some of those story lines -Gwyneth Paltrow. Matt Damon, Kate Winslet, Jude Law, Lawrence Fishburneand many more in smaller roles. This isn't a bio-thriller or whateveryou'd call Outbreak but a more "realistic" view of how such an epidemicmight go.However, the movie is a bit disappointing because after the grippingopening scenes, the story becomes ho-hum and moves in an inconsistentpace, practically screeching to a halt at the end. The movie cannotkeep the focus and intensity up since we never get to know any of thecharacters and just have brief glimpses into their lives. Some of thoseintertwining stories are probably unnecessary and detract from themajor themes.However, the worst part is that apart from the opening scenes, it cannever quite give us a visualization of an epidemic. There are many manyfacets to an epidemic that's explored through the storylets, from thepeople in the CDC to the average husband, father etc but it always hasto resort to simplistic table talks to tell us the status of theepidemic. We never get a iconic image of an epidemic in the movie, lotsand lots of talk and people doing things but not the feeling of beingin a middle of an epidemic.Hong Kong and China are given the claustrophobic and borderline dirtyimpression, images of sick Chinese perhaps meant to be perhapsimpactful - all the while being standard fare. Back in the states, theimages lock into medical drama visuals and it's the same ho-hum we seeon TV everyday. We get lots of the TV Fishburne and heaps of the lowbudget movie inconsistent blabber that tries to imply everythingwithout really meaning anything. All the while the virus never managesto feel more than a big nuisance rather than a global disaster.I suppose intertwining story based on viral epidemic is a brave andinteresting experiment for a movie; it's just that the story sidelinesthe epidemic for human drama and the movie itself is never able toprovide a strong enough visceral canvas and background of the ragingviral epidemic to really drive the human drama home. Despite showingpromise at the beginning of the movie, it slowly drifts intoforgettable territory.

iheart_ny

(2012-04-04 20:45:55)

Contagion: A chilling, disturbing and effective disaster film.

Not a lot scares me, when it comes to movies, anyway. I can watch thegoriest horror movie, and not be scared, even in the slightest. But"Contagion" got under my skin. It has more effect than even the mostwell-done horror movie, yet, it's not really a horror movie at all.It's mostly a psychological disaster film, and at one point, it feelslike something of a docudrama, and then it morphs into a humanepsychology story, and has overtones of the power of paranoia and fearthat start when the film begins, and don't end until the last,satisfying moments."Contagion" is director Steven Soderbergh's first feature this year. Afew years ago, he directed two films in the same year, Matt Damoncomedy-thriller studio-produced vehicle "The Informant!" and porn starSasha Grey's first mainstream (albeit indie) film, "The GirlfriendExperience". This year, he repeats himself, doing two films in the sameyear, this, and the upcoming independent action thriller "Haywire". I'mintrigued to see that one as well, but I can't see it being any betterthan "Contagion"."Contagion" scared the living crap out of me. It follows characters,living throughout the world, all effected by a mysterious pandemic thatthreatens the lives of everyone. It's something like bird flu, but notquite. It has the worldwide reaction that H1N1 had on the world, butworse. It becomes a government conspiracy tale, that proves thatsomething of this catastrophic weight is not a cut-and-dry kind ofthing. There are twists coming from each imaginable angle. The biggestmystery is how this thing began, which isn't ignored, like I thought itwould be.One thing that "Contagion" has going for it, is a lot of big names.Kate Winslet, Matt Damon, Laurence Fishburne, Marion Cotillard, JudeLaw and Gwyneth Paltrow. Everybody brings more to the table than youexpect them to. Each character's story becomes vital to how the storyunfolds, and, even as it begins to delude into something of acut-and-dry docudrama, it pulls the wool out from under your eyes, andsurprises you with realistic, yet not melodramatic emotion, and becomesquite the emotionally draining and devastating tale, leaving such animpression on the audience, making this one impossible to tune out.I choose, for this review, not to really get into each character'sstory, because, one, it would take up too much time, and two, it's muchbetter experienced, not knowing very much about it, as the storyunfolds.It'll stick with you for longer than you expect it to. I read advancereviews before seeing it today, that claim that leaving the theatre, noone in the audience spoke about it, or touched anyone, or contactedwith anyone around them. Paranoia is a main ingredient to "Contagion",proving that no one is immune to fear that is unspoken, but completelypinpointed, and like I said, impossible to ignore. Seeing an afternoonshow, in the college town where I live with a few friends of mine, Ididn't quite experience this. However, it's completely believable. Itleaves you in such a state of paranoia and euphoria, that it'smaddening, considering that there aren't many films like this nowadays.Another thing that "Contagion" has going for it is how it's made.Soderbergh doesn't waste any time here. Keeping it concise, at a humanerunning time (105 minutes), it's a roller-coaster from the very firstunsettling scene, right up until the last frame. It's written in a waythat feels overall very clinical and to-the-point, yet becomes anemotional journey that makes you feel something for each one of itscharacters. The scariest thing about "Contagion" is its plausibility. Unlike yourregular horror movie, it has a base which actually could happen, andhas happened, in the past. The scares come from things that humanbeings encounter every day. No ghosts or zombies (in the literal senseof the world) pop out and scare you, while the typical ominous,trying-to-be scary score plays in the background. It's proof that thequietest movies can be the most terrifying. There's a horrifyingatmosphere about this one, that sneaks up on you when you least expectit to. This is compelling stuff, don't miss it.Grade: A-

blackeyedangel77

(2012-04-04 08:06:09)

A frightening glimpse into the future?

When I heard Steven Soderbergh was directing a film about a pandemiccrisis I was reminded of Hollywood's last similarly themed film, 1995's'Outbreak'. Alas, as I cast my mind far back all I could remember wasDustin Hoffman flying around in a helicopter chasing a monkey. Oh, andDonald Sutherland hamming it up as a military honcho threatening tonuke small town America. 'Contagion' dispenses with the standardHollywood drama, as if the threat of a pandemic wasn't compellingenough without the extraneous plot contrivances. An American womanreturning from a business trip to Hong Kong begins to show mildflu-like symptoms. Her condition worsens and within hours she is stonecold dead, but not before she has transmitted an unknown virus to amultitude of victims from every strata of society on a number ofcontinents. Foregoing melodrama, the action is laid out in a straight-aheadprocedural. We see how quickly the virus takes hold of its victims. Itsunsettling to say the least. Scott Z. Burns' screenplay employs a halfdozen disconnected story arcs which interweave and are unified as acomprehensive narrative that tells its story from a number ofviewpoints. Having used a similar style to great effect in his dramaticstudy of the drug trade in 'Traffic' I was sure Soderbergh would knockthis one out of the park. However, the human element that made Trafficso engaging seems underdeveloped here. Characters embody stereotypesand become stand-ins for faceless government agencies, keeping them atan emotional distance from the audience. Attempts at exploring humanfrailty feel incongruous in a film that would rather disseminatescientific facts. There are no clear heroes or villains like there are in Outbreak'sHoffman and Sutherland. Soderbergh's dispassionate and detacheddirection is without a hint of sensationalism. Like the MEV-1 virus heoperates with cold efficiency. Though 'Contagion' is lacking as adramatic thriller it succeeds brilliantly as a quasi-documentary. Itillustrates how a hypothetical health crisis might play out byaddressing the logistical and political consequences. Imagine having towait months to receive the vaccine if your numbers don't come up in alottery. Meanwhile society breaks down as stores are emptied by panicbuying. Homes are looted by the desperate. It's a 'what if' most of uswould rather not have to ponder. It's fortunate that someone such asSoderbergh has the pluck to make us sit up and take our medicine.