Steven Soderbergh's Contagion

JP Liz V1

http://www.totalfilm.com/news/first-trailer-for-steven-soderbergh-s-contagion-unleashed?ns_campaign=news&ns_mchannel=rss&ns_source=totalfilm&ns_linkname=0&ns_fee=0&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+totalfilm%2Fimdbnews+%28Total+Film+IMDb+aggregate%29

The first trailer for director Steven Soderbergh’s virus thriller Contagion has been unleashed online.
Far from simply promising us Outbreak II: The Virus Strikes Back, Soderbergh’s film instead appears to be a terrifyingly realistic portrayal of a deadly epidemic.
With no less than six massive A-list names involved (and some stellar support), Contagion looks sort of like a Roland Emmerich epic if Roland Emmerich made taut, pulse-raising indies.
Tracking the progress of a lethal airborne virus, Contagion stars Matt Damon, Kate Winslet, Gwyneth Paltrow, Jude Law, Marion Cotillard, Lawrence Fishbourne, Bryan Cranston, Demitri Martin and Elliott Gould.


Trailer

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e0v8BSYq7KY

Mickeroo

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

Basq

Cracking cast and looks very good actually!

Sad Professor

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

Kiith

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

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

don ramo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4sYSyuuLk5g

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,

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 "

Galvasean

Sounds pretty promising.

JP Liz V1

http://collider.com/contagion-movie-character-posters/108320/

bnt

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

Gwyneth's character kicks the bucket

.

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.

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>.

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.

minidazzler

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

Hank_Jones

Far too many character arcs.

Think I counted 10 seperate storylines.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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?

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.

Jonny7

awful film - steer clear

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.

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

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?

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....

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!)

Fysh

joethelion wrote: »

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!)

You can substitute the illness for magical arse-raping pixies if you like, the biggest flaw in this film was that a whole bunch of characters were presented as being senior or trusted figures in various government agencies - positions which could not be attained without several years of experience and substantial amounts of training. Said characters then proceeded to behave in a manner completely incompatible with both their training and the various reviews and appraisals that would have been required in order to reach their respective positions. With the exception of Fishbourne nobody even batted an eyelid at them doing this, and even then

there weren't any consequences for the silly bastard

.

If you're completely unaware of the basic principles that govern scientific research, know nothing about how government agencies and relief organisations work and want a story dealing only in characters so thinly-sketched you may as well be staring at a cardboard cutout of the actors playing them, this is your film. If you would like said story to be so sentimental you feel like you're drowning in saccharine, you're in luck.

If, on the other hand, you want something that doesn't make you feel like stupidity is attempting to colonise your brain through osmosis, you should skip this massive turd of a film and watch something like Phase 7 instead.

joethelion

Fysh wrote: »

You can substitute the illness for magical arse-raping pixies if you like, the biggest flaw in this film was that a whole bunch of characters were presented as being senior or trusted figures in various government agencies - positions which could not be attained without several years of experience and substantial amounts of training. Said characters then proceeded to behave in a manner completely incompatible with both their training and the various reviews and appraisals that would have been required in order to reach their respective positions. With the exception of Fishbourne nobody even batted an eyelid at them doing this, and even then

there weren't any consequences for the silly bastard[/b].

If you're completely unaware of the basic principles that govern scientific research, know nothing about how government agencies and relief organisations work and want a story dealing only in characters so thinly-sketched you may as well be staring at a cardboard cutout of the actors playing them, this is your film. If you would like said story to be so sentimental you feel like you're drowning in saccharine, you're in luck.

If, on the other hand, you want something that doesn't make you feel like stupidity is attempting to colonise your brain through osmosis, you should skip this massive turd of a film and watch something like Phase 7 instead.

Jesus! who put the bug up your ass?
Having said that I will check out Phase 7 - thanks!:eek:

Fysh

joethelion wrote: »

Jesus! who put the bug up your ass?
Having said that I will check out Phase 7 - thanks!:eek:

Sorry, that post wasn't meant to come off as angry at you in particular, it was more an expression of my frustration with the film itself. I wanted it to be a really nasty depiction of what a serious pandemic would look like and the kind of breakdowns that would happen with such an event, but I thought it was way too soft and predictable. I think I understand what you're getting at about imagining the same sort of scenario but with something other than a disease epidemic, and in a certain sense the collapse of social structures is reasonably depicted in the film - but without a coherent and factually-accurate depiction of how various agencies would respond to the situation the story can't really be gripping.

I liked Phase 7 because while there were characters in it who were very silly, or unaware of their circumstances or even just plain barmy, the characters themselves were set up well such that their actions made some sort of sense.

joethelion

Fysh wrote: »

Sorry, that post wasn't meant to come off as angry at you in particular, it was more an expression of my frustration with the film itself. I wanted it to be a really nasty depiction of what a serious pandemic would look like and the kind of breakdowns that would happen with such an event, but I thought it was way too soft and predictable. I think I understand what you're getting at about imagining the same sort of scenario but with something other than a disease epidemic, and in a certain sense the collapse of social structures is reasonably depicted in the film - but without a coherent and factually-accurate depiction of how various agencies would respond to the situation the story can't really be gripping.

I liked Phase 7 because while there were characters in it who were very silly, or unaware of their circumstances or even just plain barmy, the characters themselves were set up well such that their actions made some sort of sense.

OK , got you.Thanks!
big movie & music fan , never heard of Phase 7 but will check out - who's in it when was it made etc;:)

Fysh

joethelion wrote: »

OK , got you.Thanks!
big movie & music fan , never heard of Phase 7 but will check out - who's in it when was it made etc;:)

It's a very recent film - I only saw it at a sci-fi film festival a month or so ago. I don't think there's anyone particularly famous in it, but the IMDB page is here.

It's an Argentinian film in Spanish and I don't think it's gotten much of a wide release yet, unfortunately - but I think the DVD is either out now or out soon.

Here's a trailer:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xV_33SzqKZI

expectationlost

Fysh wrote: »

You can substitute the illness for magical arse-raping pixies if you like, the biggest flaw in this film was that a whole bunch of characters were presented as being senior or trusted figures in various government agencies - positions which could not be attained without several years of experience and substantial amounts of training. Said characters then proceeded to behave in a manner completely incompatible with both their training and the various reviews and appraisals that would have been required in order to reach their respective positions.

isn't that called being human

Frisbee

Watched this last night. Meh really.

Pretty tedious although I liekd at the start the way it kept showing

the amount of stuff we put our grubby mitts on in a day!

Fysh

expectationlost wrote: »

isn't that called being human

Nope. As depicted in the film the actions are variously somewhere between "unbelievably stupid & unprofessional" and "a potentially treasonous dereliction of duty".

Yes, humans are flawed. Some humans, by virtue of their duties and positions, are held to higher expectations than others. One does not get to be a senior research scientist, for example, without demonstrating a good understanding of the statistical underpinnings of field testing and the requirements of basic rigour in experimental science. Similarly, it is highly unlikely that someone willing to repeatedly compromise a global medical research & relief effort would be promoted to and kept in place as a senior figure in said effort.

Fishooks12

Not the most original film ever made but it ebbed along nicely and it's not the worst way to spend 2 hours

too many character arcs alright and some were hit and miss. Jude Law's character and the kidnapped woman were pretty pointless but Matt Damon and Kate Winslet brought a bit of much needed emotion

Fishooks12

Not the most original film ever made but it ebbed along nicely and it's not the worst way to spend 2 hours

too many character arcs alright and some were hit and miss. Jude Law's character and the kidnapped woman were pretty pointless but Matt Damon and Kate Winslet brought a bit of much needed emotion

Voodu Child

I thought this was a very empty film, no real plot. A bunch of half-hearted character arcs that go nowhere. No twists, no tension, nothing. Very dull.

Dempsey

This film bored the hole off me.

Myrddin

Fysh wrote: »

Nope. As depicted in the film the actions are variously somewhere between "unbelievably stupid & unprofessional" and "a potentially treasonous dereliction of duty".

Because people in government couldn't be described that way at times?

It's only a film, it was entertaining & enjoyable to watch. Life goes on

Fysh

EnterNow wrote: »

Because people in government couldn't be described that way at times?

It's only a film, it was entertaining & enjoyable to watch. Life goes on

Some of them yes, all of them? Questionable. Especially given that the fields concerned involve an awful lot of hard work and comparatively limited rewards, and skew toward those who are passionate about the work.

If you thought it was entertaining, fair enough. It didn't engage me in the slightest and was in my opinion riddled with mediocre dialogue, some terrible scripting, and far too many plotholes for it to be taken seriously.

Myrddin

Fysh wrote: »

If you thought it was entertaining, fair enough. It didn't engage me in the slightest and was in my opinion riddled with mediocre dialogue, some terrible scripting, and far too many plotholes for it to be taken seriously.

But it's a big budget Hollywood film, did you really expect otherwise? I'd knowingly watch a film like that expecting that it's not going to take itself too seriously.

As you rightly point out above with Phase 7, if your after something that has some depth, nine times outta ten your going to have to look away from Hollywood I find.

Just finished watching it and while I did enjoy it for what it was its one of those films that could have been so much better. The Jude Law character had so much potential and from the trailers I expected his character to be some prophet like figure but they went nowhere with it. I got the impression that he was there simply to off set all the other characters who showed so much humanity. I know a lot of people took issue with the manner in which characters in positions to know better so easily broke protocol and endangered lives but I could live with it. It Added a hint of humanity to the whole thing though that said it would be nice to see a truly cynical take on the material.

The one aspect that I could not take was the fact that no one seemed to consider that the virus could be transmitted by those who were immune or cured. The logic seemed to be right out of a zombie film.

The other big issue I had was with the way the film looked. There was a yellow hue to many scenes that just looked ugly. It was as if some scenes were shot on a cheap video camera with the white balance set to auto. In some scenes it appears as if Fishburne is wearing a bright yellow shirt. For the most part the film did look fantastic, the shots of Hong Kong were just gorgeous to look at.

Nabber

Why was Jude Law in this film? His character was a waste of time. Just filling in scenes?

OldeCinemaSoz

It all looked liked a big budget RABID to me...minus the delicious eye candy and the THE YOKE she packed UNDER HER ARM.

:eek:

fryup

just wondering in the current climate...is this movie worth searching out for ?

mikhail

fryup wrote: »

just wondering in the current climate...is this movie worth searching out for ?

I liked it when I saw it, but it hasn't left a lasting impression. I guess that's a tepid 'yes' from me.