I watched this film for the first time today. I couldn't believe how much better it was than Contagion. It makes me wonder why they bothered to make Contagion in the first place. Why make a movie that's already been done only to make it worse? I know, money, greed, blah blah blah. That's not a good reason. That's just stupid.
share[deleted]
The two movies can't be compared and Contagion is certainly not a remake of Outbreak.
Outbreak is completely unrealistic and is a typical Hollywood popcorn movie. There's nothing wrong with that and it does what it sets out to achieve but there is no comparison. Contagion is the most realistic disaster movie of all time and shows - chillingly - exactly how a virus could start and what the consequences on a global scale would be. It shows a very real scenario that could occur at any time. Outbreak, on the other hand, shows a scenario which is exciting but is completely ridiculous and nothing like anything that could or would ever actually happen.
Contagion is incredibly well researched, has superlative performances from a long list of great actors, and is a unique new idea in cinema; a fictional story that is told in a documentary style. It leaves you to form your own conclusions, rather than telling you what to feel using music and flashing lights like Outbreak. Contagion is thought provoking and one of those few films these days which actually leads you into a long conversation with the people you just watched it with. Outbreak leads to the normal post Hollywood movie conversation though:
"So what did you think"?
"Yeah it was OK. What did you think"?
"It was alright. Want to get a burger"?
"Sure thing. Let's go".
The problem with Contagion is that it is poorly marketed. People are expecting a movie like Outbreak but it is nothing like that and so they are disappointed. The wrong audience are seeing the film and it's no wonder they don't like it and that this brilliant film has ended up with such a low rating. Hopefully, as time goes by, word of mouth will lead to the right audience seeing the movie and it will end up with the accolades it deserves.
Totally agree with fillshertease on this.
Outbreak is fun in its own way (although one wonders why Hoffman was making dodgy films like this and 'Sphere' in the '90s...) but Contagion is a more intelligent and thought-provoking piece of work. You need only look at the Donald Sutherland character, who acts like a pantomime villain, and the antics of the wise-cracking scientists when they 'go rogue' and bust into the TV station, to get an idea of how silly Outbreak really is (however entertaining). In Contagion the characters are better drawn and the performances are subtle, and the whole vibe of the film is more realistic and scary (it also has better music).
I read an interview with Soderbergh where he was discussing audience responses to Jude Law's character in Contagion, and how many people complained that they couldn't tell if he was a 'good guy' or a 'bad guy', and yet this deliberate detachment and disregard for definitive answers is one of the film's strong points. Not much chance of us having that trouble with evil Donald Sutherland and his love of bombing civilians.
In the same interview Soderbergh said their aim was to make a disaster/virus movie with no explosions and no helicopters, so perhaps they were trying to deliberately and completely set themselves apart from this movie.
---
He left a note. He left a simple little note that said "I've gone out the window."
[deleted]
[deleted]
All good points but ultimately negated by the fact that Contagion has Gwyneth Paltrow in it and this film does not.
sharePaltrow is great.
Contagion was mediocre film. I don’t watch feature films to be educated or look at research.
Outbreak has a better style and genre for a virus theme in my opinion.
Shut up you idiots, nobody cares.
shareWatch both. Make up your own mind.
share