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."
reply
share