Advertisement
If you have a new account but can't post, please email Niamh on [email protected] for help to verify your email address. Thanks :)
New AMA with a US police officer (he's back!). You can ask your questions here

Steven Soderbergh's Contagion

«13

Comments

  • Administrators, Computer Games Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 31,018 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭ Mickeroo


    Looks decent, isn't Soderbergh retiring after this? Looks pretty scary although the trailer is a bit spoilery I thought.


  • Registered Users Posts: 43,455 ✭✭✭✭ Basq


    Cracking cast and looks very good actually!


  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 22,515 CMod ✭✭✭✭ Sad Professor


    Looks really good, but I find it hard to excited about anything Soderbergh does anymore.


  • Moderators, Computer Games Moderators Posts: 21,838 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Kiith


    Saw the trailer for this earlier. Looks very good, and as said above, it's got a fantastic cast.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,514 ✭✭✭ Dermo


    Mickeroo wrote: »
    Looks decent, isn't Soderbergh retiring after this? Looks pretty scary although the trailer is a bit spoilery I thought.

    He's got a few movies to go. He's doing, at least, a Cleopatra 3d rock musical, Liberace and The man from UNKLE. But he has said when they are finished he will retire


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 4,533 don ramo




    out here in october, looks a bit like outbreak which i dont really mind as long as there not stupid enough to follow it too closely, steven soderberg is directing and it has a decent all star cast,


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,340 ✭✭✭ PhiloCypher


    Tagline should read :

    " IN 1975 STEVEN SPIELBERG MADE YOU AFRAID TO GO INTO THE WATER

    THIS OCTOBER STEVEN SODERBERGH WILL MAKE YOU AFRAID TO TOUCH

    ANYTHING "


  • Registered Users Posts: 30,747 ✭✭✭✭ Galvasean


    Sounds pretty promising.


  • Registered Users Posts: 75,375 ✭✭✭✭ JP Liz V1




  • Registered Users Posts: 12,749 ✭✭✭✭ bnt


    There's an early review in Time Magazine. Contains a few spoilers, like the trailer e.g.
    Gwyneth's character kicks the bucket
    .

    Parvi enim sunt foris arma, nisi est consilium domi.



  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,414 ✭✭✭ kraggy


    Went to see this at the weekend.

    Awful. The plot has more holes than a golf course. As for the ending, it's hideous.

    Cannot understand how it's at 84% on Rotten Tomatoes. Have found the RT gauge to be fairly out with other movies recently but this takes the biscuit.

    Confirms for me that Soderbergh is one of the most overated directors around. Why the big names work for him is beyond me.

    And don't get me started on Jude Law in this. Never liked him anyway, but in this, I just want to punch him in the face.

    Seriouly, don't get your hopes up about this one.


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,245 ✭✭✭✭ Jesus Wept


    I'm wary of any movie that puts the directors name in front of the title or '<Insert director name> introduces <insert movie name>.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 383 ✭✭ fullback4glin


    It gets a 6/10 for me. Some of the acting is seriously suspect, even from Paltrow and Fishburne. And for the first 45mins it just felt like I was watching the news. I can not do that at home like.


  • Registered Users Posts: 15,066 ✭✭✭✭ minidazzler


    It was OK not terrible, but the whole time I was just thinking "SHUT DOWN EVERYTHING" ala the Pandemic 2 meme.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,783 ✭✭✭ Hank_Jones


    Far too many character arcs.

    Think I counted 10 seperate storylines.

    It's a 1 hour, 40 minute film, not The Godfather...


  • Registered Users Posts: 6,999 ✭✭✭ the whole year inn


    I didnt like it gave it 3 stars on imdb.
    There was too many archs,I was saying to the lads what was the point of jude law character,he really adding nothing to the story.Found it very boring with some bad acting,matt damon was decent tho.


  • Registered Users Posts: 17,969 ✭✭✭✭ Drumpot


    Can anybody clarify what happened at start ? I missed start and only got into cinema on day 2 when
    Paltrow took a call from the guy she had cheated with!

    For me it was only ok. I didnt think I enjoyed it as much as I did outbreak.

    There were times when I thought I was going to get into the mood of doom that the movie was showing us but for some reason I never felt the fear/emotion that I have in other movies. I like to leave reality outside the cinema and get into movies!

    The kind of movie that it set out to be, it should of scared the Crap out of me, but it didnt and I didnt really care too much about the characters.I neither found it mainstream like Outbreak or really serious so for me it didnt really tick a particular box of satisfaction. - 5/6 out of 10.


  • Registered Users Posts: 257 ✭✭ paulosham


    Soderberg is always a bit hit or miss with me and this was a miss. While I did like seeing
    Gwyneth Paltrow having her scalp pulled down over her face
    I thought the only good performance was from Matt Damon. The scene
    at the end when he breaks down in the bedroom just before he goes downstairs to his daughter
    was, for me, the only real show of emotion in the whole film.

    And yes, too many arcs


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,312 ✭✭✭ Josey Wales


    Drumpot wrote: »
    Can anybody clarify what happened at start ? I missed start and only got into cinema on day 2 when
    Paltrow took a call from the guy she had cheated with!

    You really only missed a few seconds. That is the very start of the film. There are a couple of shots of Paltrow waiting in the airport. Then she takes the phone call.
    You don't see Day 1 till the very end.

    I was excited to see this movie but in the end I was a little disappointed. I thought it was good, not great as I thought it would be.


  • Moderators, Arts Moderators, Regional Abroad Moderators Posts: 10,599 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Fysh


    What a bag of clumsily-attempted-emotionally-manipulative arse this film was.

    For a film trying so damn hard to be clinical, it was far too melodramatic and sentimental. The characters working on understanding and treating the disease all behaved in ways completely at odds with the years of training and experience their posts would require (eg
    the WHO agent who gets kidnapped being so daft as to not recognize her own Stockholm Syndrome, Fishbourne trusting his wife with a secret she clearly wasn't going to keep, the researcher deciding to test the vaccine on herself without documenting it first despite the fact that it's already mutated at least once..oh, and let's not forget Fishbourne lying about taking the vaccine and making himself a hidden vector, while also teaching other survivors bad habits. *shakes fist*
    ).

    If you fancy a good plague film, skip this rubbish and watch the excellent (though subtitled) Phase 7.


  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Regional East Moderators Posts: 17,383 Mod ✭✭✭✭ The Black Oil


    'That was a good sleep' was the verdict of one punter in front of me on the way out.

    I enjoyed it, for the most part. It's not Outbreak. It trundles along at a leisurely enough pace and there is no Jack Bauer undercurrent - 'sonofabitch, find a cure, dammit, Chloe!'. It's simply not kind of film and is more talky than acshun. The science is OK, (though who knows about accuracy) i.e., not rushed and doesn't clobber you over the head. There may be one or two threads that test your patience a little in the creditability department, e.g.,
    the kidnapping and 'don't tell anyone else this but', however I was (mostly) willing to let them slide. Kate Winslet's character was the one I found most interesting and I think individual deaths had more of an impact than the global tally, which was hefty to say the least. Not sure about the jump forward in time to when vaccine was sorted. I wasn't keen on the mass panic scenes, though they're pretty brief, or some of the globetrotting stuff, but hey. As for the ending with the prom night, well, yeah, that was pants and the actress playing Matt Damon's daughter wasn't great as indicated in the scene where she had to speak to him in quarantine.
    If you're not aware of how many things and surfaces you touch each day you will be now. ;)


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,881 ✭✭✭ WHIP IT!


    Saw this yesterday and just wish I'd read this thread before I went! Thought it was terrible, really.

    Boring, slow, full of characters that were irrelevant - Jude Law's; Daria Strokous' and Elliot Gould's (who I love) characters all could have been lifted from the script and it would've made pretty much no difference.

    As mentioned earlier,
    Matt Damon's scene toward the end in the bedroom when he finds his dead wife's camera is the only scene with a bit of emotion in it.

    Agreed with the poster who said the young actress who played Damon's daughter just wasn't very good.

    I thought the bit they threw in at the end, going for an ironic twist for the ending seemed like an afterthought and was just silly.

    Should've waited 20 minutes and went to see Ides of March :o


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,079 ✭✭✭ Staplor


    Cack
    Just because you have a vaccine or natural immunity from a virus you can be a carrier of the virus on your hands etc, why was this ignored?


  • Registered Users Posts: 43,132 ✭✭✭✭ Mitch Connor


    Honestly, I completely forgot about the WHO agent during the movie. Never a good sign when you can completely forget part of the story while watching the movie itself.

    I felt like this would have worked better as a TV Mini-Series, in fact it felt like the script was originally written as this but cut down and shrunk to 'work' as a movie - it is a decent idea but there were too many characters and stories that you never really saw or got involved in - the WHO agent and Jude Laws characters in particular.


  • Registered Users Posts: 6,696 ✭✭✭ Jonny7


    awful film - steer clear


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 159 ✭✭ Bus77II


    Saw it last week. It was so-so. I agree with what some others have said, it was too spread out with no real focus on anyone (other than the bug itself).
    The only thing I liked about it was the 'natural look' to the actors and lighting. Rare in a cinema film and a nice change.


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,639 ✭✭✭ Stu Redman


    I seem to be in the minority who liked this, definitely I agree with some of the criticisms above but I wouldn't call it a terrible movie apart from...
    fúck Jude Law


  • Moderators, Arts Moderators Posts: 33,061 Mod ✭✭✭✭ pickarooney


    Mickeroo wrote: »
    Looks decent, isn't Soderbergh retiring after this? Looks pretty scary although the trailer is a bit spoilery I thought.

    I have to ask because it bugs me each time I see it - what is your sig supposed to be?


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,881 ✭✭✭ WHIP IT!


    stankratz wrote: »
    fúck Jude Law

    LOL - he is terrible isn't he. One of those actors who just amazes me that he has a career...
    It was comical later on in the film when he's walking round in that silly homemade suit of his! Fer God's sake....


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 21 ✭✭✭ joethelion


    For what it's worth - saw this & loved it - did it's job & entertained me & made me think about what the film is really about - how quickly society can break down when under pressure (subsitute the illness for money & re think the plot!)


Advertisement