criterionforum.org

If you don't have mysophobia now, you will after you see Soderbergh's Contagion.

Looks great but the only thing that ran through my mind is that it's so fucking cool Cranston is getting these high-level gigs now.

When did Matt Damon turn into Mark Wahlberg?

That's what I was thinking. I was thinking, "So they made a sequel to The Happening?"

More like Outbreak without that adorable monkey.

Soderbergh's editing style is perfectly suited for those flashbacky "what happened/how did this spread" moments, can't wait for this one! Can't believe this leapfrogged the other Soderbergh film by like a year now.

domino harvey wrote:Soderbergh's editing style is perfectly suited for those flashbacky "what happened/how did this spread" moments, can't wait for this one! Can't believe this leapfrogged the other Soderbergh film by like a year now.

I agree, it looks like lots of fun. And I'm a sucker for those as-it-happens type films. A touch of the opening half of 28 Days Later too?

I certainly wouldn't say that "it looks like lots of fun". It looks like Meirelles's Blindness. The impact of that will be hard to top, at least as far as I'm concerned (it remains the only film I can say with confidence induced nightmares in me in my entire adult life), but I am looking forward to this.

Early script and screening reports use words like "horrifying," which certainly piques my already-present interest. Apparently it's all a little too likely

John Cope wrote:I certainly wouldn't say that "it looks like lots of fun". It looks like Meirelles's Blindness. The impact of that will be hard to top, at least as far as I'm concerned (it remains the only film I can say with confidence induced nightmares in me in my entire adult life), but I am looking forward to this.

I mean to say that it looks like an enthralling, well-made thriller. For some reason, I have a fondness for these types of film (depictions of society at its wits end). And the more seriously taken (and realistic) the subject matter is, the more enthralling I find it to be.

So you suggest that Blindness is a film I should check out?

Yes, it's his best film yet. Take what you will from such a statement.

I'll certainly agree with that, but only because City of God and The Constant Gardener are so horrendous (no playful ambiguity from me!)

I can confirm by having read the script about a year ago that it's indeed a pretty frightening film without ever veering into outlandish or even slightly implausible territory.
I don't know how I feel about the digital look, though. I suppose that explains why it's taken so long to edit the film.

I concur with tarpilot in his feelings toward Meirelles but I also feel that way about Blindness, though. It's the very definition of laying metaphor way too thickly!

Just before the book Hot Zone and those other Ebola outbreak stories came out, my social studies professor built one term's curriculum around the bubonic plague. I was initially puzzled by this approach, but it actually went over very well - analyzing its cause and the way people reacted to it helped piece together the cultural, political, religious and social climate of that era in a way that was much more edifying than counting down the most famous events of medieval times.

So when Outbreak came out (after another studio's aborted attempt at adapting Hot Zone, I think with Redford and Jodie Foster), I was massively disappointed. The material had so much potential and Wolfgang Peterson et al squandered it, churning out some ridiculous, inane shit instead.

I'm not the biggest Soderbergh fan, but I can imagine a solid, intellectual picture in the spirit of Traffic.

flyonthewall2983 wrote:Looks great but the only thing that ran through my mind is that it's so fucking cool Cranston is getting these high-level gigs now.

Who knew Tim Whatley would prove to be the best actor of that supporting cast?

I'm all for directors being the one holding the camera and I know becoming his own d.p. was one of the things that reinvigorated Soderbergh but am I the only one who finds Soderberghs' cinematography lazy? He just seems to always say, "slap a colored gel on it and lets get rolling." One color per scene.

Not sold on the trailer at all- unless it gets stellar reviews, this is going to be a rental for me.

Alan Smithee wrote:He just seems to always say, "slap a colored gel on it and lets get rolling." One color per scene.

What Soderbergh films in particular are you basing that generalization on? I get Traffic, but it's not really his habit

domino harvey wrote:

Alan Smithee wrote:He just seems to always say, "slap a colored gel on it and lets get rolling." One color per scene.

What Soderbergh films in particular are you basing that generalization on? I get Traffic, but it's not really his habit

Well, there is The Underneath.

bdsweeney wrote:So you suggest that Blindness is a film I should check out?

Absolutely. Knives got it right in his assessment. As with Sucker Punch it's the kind of extraordinarily strong film that makes me want to re-evaluate the director's entire body of work but, as with Snyder and 300, I just can't force myself to go back to look at Constant Gardener again.

domino harvey wrote:

Alan Smithee wrote:He just seems to always say, "slap a colored gel on it and lets get rolling." One color per scene.

What Soderbergh films in particular are you basing that generalization on? I get Traffic, but it's not really his habit

Ummmm I know that it's a little more subtle than Traffic, but this one (there are shots in that trailer that remind me of Less Than Zero), Brockovich, Much of The Informant, Much of Solaris (though in this case it made a certain amount of environmental sense).

I will say he seemed to try harder with The Girlfriend Experience and Che but those were both less traditional story driven. I'm not trying to form an argument against him, I do find him a bit boring but for the most part always check out his stuff. Even though I feel like it falls into the colored gel world a bit I think The Informant! is his best work.

John Cope wrote:

domino harvey wrote:

Alan Smithee wrote:He just seems to always say, "slap a colored gel on it and lets get rolling." One color per scene.

What Soderbergh films in particular are you basing that generalization on? I get Traffic, but it's not really his habit

Well, there is The Underneath.

Oh I'm talking when he took over as his own cinematographer, but yes The Underneath is a particularly egregious example.

Damn, I like The Constant Gardener (and mostly disliked Blindness). Hate to see that it's one of the forum's whipping movies.

I just hate it vicariously for Weisz robbing Amy Adams

John Cope wrote:

domino harvey wrote:

Alan Smithee wrote:He just seems to always say, "slap a colored gel on it and lets get rolling." One color per scene.

What Soderbergh films in particular are you basing that generalization on? I get Traffic, but it's not really his habit

Well, there is The Underneath.


Also, didn't the Detroit of Out Of Sight have a very cool blue look to it?

Awesome.