The film resembles its viral subject a little too closely: an intricate, formidable mechanism with no evident purpose.
"no evident purpose"
i believe that this film's main purpose is to show the world the obvious human nature and how pharmaceutical companies react (and make profit) in such disaster.
Sep 13 - 09:01 PM
Also, it's a disaster movie. It's not a documentry or an educational video. It's main objective is to entertain and to thrill the audience, and that's what it does. If the movie was made up mostly of facts about actual viruses and their threat to humanity, then the movie would pretty boring, if you ask me.
Sep 14 - 12:35 PM
Don't make viral analogies when you don't have a concept of what a virus is and what it does!!!!!
Sep 15 - 05:47 PM
I agree!!! This is a stale documentary
Sep 17 - 05:18 PM
I couldn't quite put into words how I felt about contagion, then I read this and thought, yeah, that's pretty much it.
Sep 18 - 07:44 PM
In Your Dreams
Mar 29 - 11:46 AM
The problem is aiming for no "fatuous uplift or mawkish tragedy" does not a good movie make.
IN the end, despite its good points, the screenplay was a mess and it's harder to survive that than the latest nasty virus.
Sep 24 - 09:01 AM
Wow! This is EXACTLY what I thought in the end. Well-made, well-acted ... but what was the point? It was simply a CDC procedural - "here's how a disease starts, here's how it spreads, here's what the CDC does, here's how society responds, here's how we get things back to normal, here's the credits" - I do appreciate an occasional film like this that doesn't sensationalize the plot to the point of absurdity (cough...OUTBREAK...) - but after one watch through, I could never sit through it again without falling asleep.
So basically, not bad, not great ... just "meh..."
Sep 24 - 05:34 PM
In one sentence, you managed to sum up exactly how I felt about the movie.
Feb 2 - 04:58 PM
You could say this about any movie. But thanks for the free Fresh, loser.
Mar 29 - 11:47 AM