Just Another Y.A. Blockbuster

Thanks to the box office success of Twilight and The Hunger Games, we can pretty much expect every semi-popular young adult novel to get big screen treatment in the near future. Every studio of worth out there will spend the next few years purchasing filming rights, throwing them at audiences, and seeing what sticks. We've already seen several examples of failures ranging from I am Number Four to Beautiful Creatures, and if there's something to be said for the adaptation of Veronica Roth's Divergent, it's that it stuck. Not "great" or "wonderful," or even "unique."That's because the story is so derivative of other, better material that it's bound to appeal to not only fans of the novels but any similar moviegoer curious enough to check it out.

The movie follows The Descendants star Shailene Woodley as Tris (God, it even rhymes with "Katniss"), as she navigates the trials of growing up in the ruins of a futuristic, post-war Chicago. Society in this world has been divided into five factions to maintain peace, and Tris is of the age where she can decide whether to stay with her family in the kind and selfless Abnegation faction, or join one of the other four groups, which pride themselves on traits like intelligence, honesty, and peacefulness. This is complicated when the test that helps students decide to what faction they "belong" fails to work on Tris, categorizing her as "Divergent" and unlikely to fit in anywhere. Naturally, Divergents are treated as enemies of the system, and our heroine tries to hide her nature by joining up with the brave, kinda-crazy faction "Dauntless", where she falls for the hunky instructor known as "Four" (Theo James). But when Divergent-hunters come calling... you know what? Forget it, I'm just going to stop right there.

She got tattoos! So you know she has an edge now.

There is barely a single word or sentence in that previous paragraph that could not be used to describe countless titles that have come out just in the past decade (except perhaps Abnegation... learn something new every day!), and that's Divergent's biggest, BIGGEST problem. Whether it's due to the direction of Neil Burger (Limitless), the screenplay by Evan Daugherty (Snow White and the Huntsman) and Vanessa Taylor (Hope Springs), or even Roth's novel itself (Or, most likely, a combination of all three), the biggest sin is that there is barely anything noteworthy or original to grasp onto and declare "Yes, this is why it's special!" For all the crap I give it, Twilight took a familiar concept (supernatural) and put a unique twist on creating its universe. The Hunger Games, while ostensibly a copy of the Japanese book/movie Battle Royale, still made itself original enough to stand alone (not to mention the casting of Jennifer Lawrence). Beautiful Creatures had an amazing and appropriate setting. I am Number Four and the Harry Potter franchise had excellent lore. Divergent DOES have an interesting premise, with the factions and the disparity between them, but barely touches on it in what amounts to a rote, romance/action story. Well, to be fair, it also has... umm... wait a moment... it has... ergh... well, no... I guess... excellent acting?

Why hast thou forsaken us, Kate?

Yes, Divergent is fortunate to have such an amazing cast assembled, because they absolutely needed the best. The characters are so one-dimensional that only someone with the chops of Ashley Judd, or Kate Winslett, or Maggie Q, or Mekhi Phifer, or Ray Stevenson could make it work. When Miles Teller shows up as the generic bully, he actually brings some gravitas to the role. When Tony Goldwyn appears on screen, he isn't just a blank slate as Tris' father, but actually shows some magnetism, through his voice if not in his poorly-written words (one character ironically wonders why people keep asking her the same question; it's because of the inept dialogue, dear). And it's a good thing Shailene Woodley and Theo James are such excellent performers; Woodley plays the worst kind of female heroine, whose actions are entirely based on what is done to her and not on any driving force behind her vanilla temperament; while James' character development begins and ends with "brooding hottie". And yet, both actors make the material work through sheer force of personality. The romance between them, while basic, predictable and cliched, ends up working by virtue of their great chemistry, and they do the absolute most they can with the material. If it wasn't for that, this wouldn't much of a film. Yes, there are a few legitimate duds in Jai Courtney and Zoe Kravitz (sheez, Divergent even has a Kravitz in the cast), but even they don't detract from the story too much when all is said and done.

Where Hollywood thinks women should be: out of sight and silent.

But the acting can't fully save a story that borrows from literally every genre and trope in existence, from The Matrix (one person throwing a system out of whack), to Logan's Run ("I'm hiding my secret from the ruling government!") to Starship Troopers ("Let's get tattoos!"). Seriously, if the villains were as smart as they are supposed to be, they'd have realized that their plot to take over the city has been done a million times before, and BETTER. It's almost as if Roth cobbled together this tale from all the pop culture references and Young Adult novels she had accumulated in her young life, with nary an original thought or idea. To be fair, that might be over-simplifying things a bit; I have yet to read the book, so I can't say how many of Divergent's problems stem from her writing and how much from the adaptation process itself. But if she had ONE original thought when she compiled her novel, it never make its way to the big screen. Even the faction system is not a truly original concept, and that's the closest Divergent ever gets to declaring its independence from standard YA fare. The story is so reliant on coincidence - from Maggie Q's first appearance to just about EVERY major twist and turn - that it defies all expectation for the audience to accept the plot as it develops. And I'd even go so far as to say that wouldn't necessarily a BAD thing, as long as the story itself is told competently and the actors do a good job with the material. In fact, Burger is a pretty good, if not great, director, especially suited to this type of non-risky script, as he proved in 2011's Limitless. Even though the script is the kind of hackery that would demand multiple rewrites if it not for the film's brand recognition, Divergent turns into a competent, if not standout, filmmaking product.

Get it? It's "Red pill, Blue pill!"

Divergent tries to push a moral of anti-conformity and self-identification, but ironically does it in the most conformist fashion possible, stealing from everything that has come before and not standing out even remotely on its way to box office success. Naturally, every YA movie adaptation wants to see the same kind of success as The Hunger Games, but Divergent could only WISH that it was as interesting, compelling and urgent as the movie whose success it would wish to emulate. It's definitely a BAD movie, and yet also a WELL-MADE bad movie that overcomes many of its narrative obstacles through heart and sheer force of will. If only the filmmakers had taken more risks, as the movie does nothing to differentiate itself from the bland, predictable tropes and cliches that have never been so transparently on display as they are here. If it had attempted to deviate from the terrifyingly dull norm it had set for itself, it might have turned into something great. As it stands, Divergent is just okay, and I think we'll see subsequent sequels Insurgent and Allegiant justifiably fall off in audiences as a result. Teen girls (and anyone who identifies with teen girls) will watch and enjoy anyway, but anyone else can steer clear.

Too Dumb

All I wanted to do was see a stupid movie. Why did the creators behind Movie 43 have to ruin that?

A series of sketch shorts from the minds of Peter Farrelly and Charles Wessler (who ruled Hollywood in the nineties with hits like There's Something about Mary and Dumb and Dumber) and filmed over the course of many years, Movie 42 uses a dozen directors and an insane number of A-list stars in fulfilling the most base of art forms; they try to out-gross one another with scenes that include a young couple with a poop fetish, superhero speed dating, teen menstruation, a truth or dare game gone out of control, violent leprechauns, and a man with testicles dangling from his chin. No connection other than existing within the same 90 minutes is made apparent, and if any of that appealed to you, I guarantee that Movie 42 will still find a way to disappoint you.

Yup, Emma Stone will officially do ANYTHING.

What fools you at first into thinking that there's something here is the multitude of top-notch talent involved in the process. There are two Academy Award winners (Kate Winslet and Halle Berry) in this cast, countless former nominees (as well as current noms Hugh Jackman and Naomi Watts) and even more respected character actors, all of whom apparently didn't realize what they were getting into when they signed on for the ride. Gross-out humor is one thing when it comes from people you expect (the Scary Movie and associated spin-off franchises use most of the same low-budget talent) but with the exception of Anna Faris (in a scene with real-life husband Chris Pratt), you wouldn't expect the same from this particular class of actor. Watching these celebrities do things they wouldn't normally on film was much of the appeal of seeing Movie 43, and likely the only thing to draw audiences this past weekend.

Anna, I thought you had gotten past this!

The problem is that for all the gross-out, completely obscene humor Farrelly and company put forth, they often forgot to make sure what we were seeing was FUNNY. You can get through entire scenes without even cracking a smile, and that happens far too often. It would be one thing if there were just spots of weakness, misogyny and the over-reliance of sex jokes that interrupted the gut-busting laughter, but that is tragically THE WHOLE THING. Even if the scene in question had a promising concept, it was quickly lost to easy sight gags and rampant stupidity. For instance, watching Richard Gere, Jack McBrayer and Kate Bosworth argue over why teenage boys are having sex with their company's new music player, the iBabe (which represents a full-sized, naked woman) gets old quickly. And Liev Schreiber and Watts playing homeschooling parents who don't want their son to miss out on all the bullying, awkward situations and humiliations of high school plays like a scene out of time. Berry, Winslet, Jackman, and Greg Kinnear are all wasted as they do little or nothing that could possibly get a rise out of the audience. The only moments I found remotely funny were the skits "Veronica", in which Kieran Culkin and Emma Stone murmur dirty things they want to do to one another over the PA system of a supermarket late at night, and "Victory's Glory", in which Terrence Howard plays a coach giving an inspiring speech to a black basketball team who believe they are inferior to the opposing, all-white team. In fact, Howard's emphatic screams of "You're black! They're white! This ain't hockey!" were the only times the entire film that anybody in the theater laughed out loud.

Yup, that's the whole game plan.

It's sadly obvious that Peter Farrelly has no freaking clue what funny is anymore. While he was able to get away with gross-out gags back in the nineties, those at least were both outrageous and hilarious when they needed to be. Here his antics (and those of directors like Brett Ratner, James Gunn, Steve Carr and Steven Brill) fall completely flat, easily maintaining the targeted level of obscenity but almost never getting off the ground with anything representing actual humor. As a result, it's easily the worst movie of 2013. Sure, it's still early, but you have to WORK to be this bad, and I can't imagine anyone else falling this low in the near future. My old movie-watching sidekick Anne used to speak of the "Stupid Factor", a phenomena in which something could be so stupid that it was actually pretty funny and clever. That used to be Farrelly's M.O. not all that long ago. Now he gives stupid movies a bad rap, possibly putting out not just the worst movie of 2013, but of the whole decade.

You Sunk My Passenger Liner!

I generally like to think that I have a decent knowledge of films in general. I've seen many titles that are considered must-sees or classics by prestigious organizations like the American Film Institute. Typically I'll give anything a shot if it comes recommended by someone I trust. And of course, in recent years I've seen most of the major wide releases that were available, as well as a small number of lesser-known indies. However, I'm still a little behind on major films released in the past couple of decades. Here is a sample of some relatively recent films nominated for the Academy Award for Best Picture that I have YET to see: Toy Story 3, An Education, Milk, Frost/Nixon, Michael Clayton, Atonement, Babel, Munich, Brokeback Mountain, The Pianist, The Hours, Gangs of New York, Erin Brockovich, American Beauty, The Cider House Rules, Life is Beautiful, Good Will Hunting, the list goes on. There's barely a year you could find in which I actually saw all the nominees, and even a few in which I've never seen the Best Picture winner. One of those I've missed (or at ;east not seen all the way through) is James Cameron's Titanic. Released in 1997, Titanic was odd for Cameron in that the film was a serious drama, in stark contrast to his earlier excellent genre works Terminator, Aliens and Terminator 2: Judgment Day. Tackling one of the world's most famous tragedies, Cameron's efforts were rewarded with not just a Best Picture win, but also a Best Director statuette for Cameron himself. And I never saw it.

Until now.

"I'm the king of the... no, you know what? It's been done."

Just about everybody by now knows the story of the RMS Titanic, the "unsinkable" passenger liner which struck an iceberg on its maiden voyage and disappeared beneath the waters of the Atlantic within two and a half hours, taking all but 710 of its passengers with her. Cameron's story focuses on two young people; Jack Dawson (Leonardo DiCaprio), a young, poor artist who won his ticket in a card game; and Rose DeWitt Bukater (Kate Winslet), a young woman from a rich family engaged to the stuffy Cal Hockley (Billy Zane). Against all odds and social standings the two meet and fall in love, and begin a relationship that would probably go on forever were it not for the events of that fateful day, 100 years ago...

Yeah, water perhaps adds a bit too MUCH atmosphere to the place...

I was excited to finally see this film for a few reasons. First, while I had certainly heard some grumblings about how Titanic did not perhaps deserve to win the Best Picture award, the fact is that it did; SOMEBODY not only liked this title but loved it. Secondly, watching the Titanic sink on the big screen has been described as one of the most amazing things recaptured in cinema. I've seen parts of the sinking on TV, but I'm sure we can all agree that the small scale likely wouldn't have done the sequence justice; I NEEDED to see this on the big screen. Finally, the 100'th anniversary of the ship's demise was the perfect opportunity for Cameron to re-release his Oscar winner; on top of that, Cameron's film was the perfect opportunity for those who wanted to honor the ship on the centennial of its death to do so in a fitting manner. Never mind that the film has been reformatted into 3D, even though Cameron was the man who made the technology so fashionable; post-production 3D has finally gotten to the point where it doesn't automatically suck, and I had been told by friends that Titanic's fate is all the more exciting when it's popping out of the screen. With these reasons in mind, I simply HAD to see for myself whether it would be worth the time..

Naked women... in 3D!

And in fact, it is that slow, deliberate sequence of the ship sinking that really makes Titanic worth watching. The exterior shots of the ship itself are striking enough; watching the whole thing sink into the inky darkness of the ocean on the big screen is a treat for the senses. Adding to the talents of the film's SFX crew, the 3D is also well done, though perhaps not to the degree it would have had 3D cameras been around at the time of filming. Still, even in post-production the 3D improves the visual feel of the movie to a high degree, and the sinking especially feels more immersive, drawing you into what was already your favorite part of the film.

"Listen to your friend Billy Zane. He's a cool dude." Name that movie!

The acting however, yikes. In all fairness, we have proven since this film's release that Leonardo DiCaprio can indeed act, as can many of the people who don't look like talented performers when up on this particular screen. You wouldn't know any of this from Cameron's screenplay however, and while Titanic set Cameron's places as a true mainstream director, it also seems to be the beginning of Cameron's ham-fisted screenwriting techniques, which we all saw later with Avatar. It's shocking when you consider how well-written Aliens and Terminator 2 were, but in Titanic the actors had to use every ounce of talent they have to overcome poorly-written and overly-hyperbolic dialogue and foreshadowing. DiCaprio, who was only 22 at the time, still hadn't developed as an performer, and it shows in his complete lack of commitment to the words he's given to speak. Winslet isn't much better but she at least throws herself fully into her role, and while her lines aren't any better written than anybody else's, she at least avoids becoming the train wreck in a shipwreck. Other failures are the overly smarmy Billy Zane, whose character is so obviously evil that one wonders why he wasn't given an eye patch or an ugly scar to complete the point, and Gloria Stuart as Winslet's modern-day counterpart, who painfully narrates the whole thing as if she's reading it off a teleprompter in front of her. How she was nominated for an Academy Award for this work confounds me.

May I have this last dance? You know, before we all die...

My father once described the movie Titanic in this way: the boat has so many unique and fascinating characters aboard, but the film itself focuses on the TWO LEAST INTERESTING. That this happens is obviously a mistake, as Titanic from the start carries the feel of an ensemble film, but relegates all the secondary characters to the side once the star-crossed lovers meet. What about historical character "The Unsinkable Molly Brown", played wonderfully by Kathy Bates, but a role that is so swiftly neutered that it's scary? Another good but little-visited role is Victor Garber as the ship's builder, Thomas Andrews. And Frances Fisher, who has one great line about what it means to be a woman in 1912, before being thrown out? Those are just the parts among the nobles though. How about Danny Nucci, Jason Barry and Jenette Goldstein as immigrants who are seen in the beginning but do next to nothing until the ship starts sinking? While Cameron does do a good job of examining the British class system, it matters little on the whole, and he leaves a lot of potentially interesting characters on the cutting room floor while he focuses so obscenely on his gag-inducing love story.

Seriously, I couldn't find any good images not featuring one of these two? Fail.

Still, in what was a major leap forward for his career, Cameron manages to do a great job of drawing you into the tale of this doomed voyage, despite his missteps. While some moments were far more awe-worthy than others, I couldn't help but be swept up in the story of one of history's greatest tragedies, even if this wasn't the way I would have made it. More than just a ship sinking (though not by much), Cameron's Titanic stands out in today's crowded market, even after fifteen years past. Maybe it's not the best film about the RMS Titanic, maybe it could have done more to illustrate all that went wrong on that bleak night in 1912. Still, you could do a lot worse to honor the memories of those who lived through that wretched night, and those who did not. If you were a fan of this film when it first came out, do yourselves a favor and check it out again. There are just some movies whose best attributes can only be appreciated on the big screen.

More Drama

A caveat: If I had remembered before I bought my ticket that my newest review topic Carnage had been directed by Roman Polanski, I would have kept right on walking. This isn't any criticism of Polanski's talent, which is unquestioned. What I do have a problem with is supporting the career of a convicted child rapist who fled the country at the first sign that his plea bargain wasn't going to be everything he dreamed of. I'm not even sure how respected (and a few not so respected) actors can stand to be in the same room with him, let alone work with him in a professional setting, as there is no doubt that he is a fugitive from justice. I'm not a legitimate movie reviewer. I don't get paid to write what you read three times a week. I do this because I want to. That means every time I pay for movie ticket to a movie, I'm doing so because it's a film I for some reason want to see, or at least don't have any major objections for doing so (yes, even Bad Teacher and Red Riding Hood). In sitting through Carnage, I went through with what would normally be a deal breaker: supporting a movie I didn't feel deserved my hard earned money.

Any minute now...

That being said, Polanski's latest effort - based on the award-winning God of Carnage by French playwright Yasmina Reza - is a talent packed comedy about two sets of parents who attempt to come together in a conciliatory fashion after the son of Alan and Nancy Cowan (Christoph Waltz and Kate Winslet) gets into a fight with the son of Michael and Penelope Longstreet (John C. Reilly and Jodie Foster)  and strikes him with a stick, knocking out two of the boy's teeth. In the Longstreet's New York apartment, the four start out in a pleasant enough manner that gets becomes increasingly strained as the four eventually and dramatically vent their issues with one another. This isn't limited to the argument between the couples, as each spouse turns on one another as well in their own version of the schoolyard squabble.

Aaaaany minute....

Whether or not you've seen The God of Carnage on stage, you have to admit that Polanski does a very good job bringing the popular play to the silver screen. As a film that takes place in real time, with no obvious breaks, we're treated to the entirety of the story's battle of egos, as none of the combatants are eager to let their enemy have the last say. I was reminded in the first few minutes of Sartre's No Exit, in which the characters stay in one room, the entire time, with no ability to leave no matter how much they might wish to. Early on it is coincidence and good intentions that keep these four people in the same apartment together. Later on it's a less wholesome mix of pure arrogance, pride and booze. I loved that the film leaves no breathing time to allow the characters to visibly deflate, and that the slow, anxious beginning actually leads SOMEWHERE; before the four actors began bickering I was sure the film was headed towards sheer boredom.

There it is!

When the film gets to that point, it's the actors who make it happen, and if this were a battle of the sexes, the ladies would walk away with it all. Don't get me wrong, Christoph Waltz and John C. Reilly do more than just fine in their roles. Waltz plays a lawyer whose whole existence would be on a business call if he could help it, and is as smarmy and repulsive as you would expect a sleazy lawyer type to be. And Reilly plays the buffoonish self-made man well enough, especially when the whiskey comes out and he does his best imitation of friend Will Ferrell. But it's truly the actresses who make themselves stand out, from Kate Winslet's privileged woman constantly annoyed by her husband's constant business and his disregard for their son's behavior to Jodie Foster's human rights author who is the only one who really believes there could be a peaceful reconciliation between the sons. Foster especially is engaging, and when she really brings the volume you can see veins throbbing in her neck., so dedicated is her performance. Winslet is not far behind, and especially towards the end does she stand out, at times even dominating Foster in pure screen presence. My only complaint is that while all four are portrayed as juvenile and unlikable, it seemed to me that the script intentionally allows the women to be far more forgivable in their hysterics, while the men are simply portrayed as assholes. In what would have been a great story about four unsavory people, the subtle reverse sexism is not unbelievable, but perhaps just a little unfair.

Yeah, well, he had it coming

Of course, there's not much more to Carnage than adults arguing inside the walls of their living area. Fortunately, this simple concept works enormously well, and thanks especially to some great acting from the film's cast, it's one pulled off so perfectly that it almost makes up for an agonizingly slow start and a knee-jerk ending that would works on a stage but feels completely out of place on the screen. If you want to see something a little different in the theater now, and you have no problem paying money to see the product of a child abuse fugitive on the big screen, then Carnage might be worth a couple of hours of your time. Otherwise, you're just as well off seeing it later, or perhaps seeing the stage play and skipping this altogether. I can't tell you what to do with your money; I just wish I'd been more judicious with mine.

Sick Day

Trusty film sidekick Anne and I have had a running joke in recent weeks. On the days or nights when we would go to the theater, we would inevitably see a trailer for the new Steven Soderbergh thriller Contagion. No matter how many times we came across it, our thoughts were the same: "It's the film that stars EVERYONE!" This isn't a generalization on our parts, either; besides the big-name stars like Matt Damon, Marion Cotillard and Laurence Fishburne, the trailer alone was full of recognizable actors from Just Shoot Me's Enrico Colantoni to Breaking Bad's Bryan Cranston to Winter's Bone's Acadamy Award nominee John Hawkes. Despite the topical deadly virus story being sold, it was obvious in just under three minutes what the problem with Contagion would be, as the only reason so many big names actors would be rolled out was to camouflage a story that itself was not worth the paper on which it was written. Still, it had an enormously successful opening weekend, and you just can't ignore a film with such a huge pedigree behind it. While Anne hung back in the Reel Cave with a plate of fruit and a looping BSG marathon running, I braved the crowds and elements to find out whether Contagion was SARS come to invade our cinema or a mere throat bug.

Rule #1 of surviving a virus outbreak: avoid hospitals

While returning home from a business trip to China, Beth Emhoff (Gwyneth Paltrow) comes down with what she and everyone else assumes is jet lag. The next day, when she collapses at home, a visit to the hospital eventually confirms that it is not jet lag, but an advanced variation on bird flu that has contaminated her body. Highly infectious, this soon becomes a global epidemic, with cities all over the world suffering the deadly effects of this new disease. The Center for Disease Control, led by Dr. Ellis Cheever (Fishburne), attempt to isolate, contain and cure the outbreak, and the Department of Homeland Security is worried that the virus is the product of a terrorist attack. The race is on to save humanity as a whole, but the question is not whether the mysteries of the virus will be solved, but how much politics and red tape will prevent that from happening.

The least-sexy plastic suit of all time

This is definitely as talented a group of actors as you can expect to find attached to any movie title. With legitimate stars like Damon, Kate Winslet et al, you expect that they'll be at the top of their game. This is true in almost every instance, but the problem with Contagion is that the characters these big stars are hired to play are barely people at all, only suits and skirts designed to fulfill narrative obligations. Each person barely display more than one motivation, and often if they change their minds it is in the most inane way possible. For all the hard work Damon and Fishburne pour into their performances, their characters are remarkably one-noted and interesting only in their intensity. Jude Law taps into his asshole quotient nicely, though his independent reporter making a name (and more than a few bucks) on the back of this epidemic is not a stretch from his usual boring roles. I've only ever liked Law in Sherlock Holmes, and I think he needs to work across from superior actors to force him to raise his game to their level. That isn't present here, and he never really shares the screen with the more talented members of the cast. Paltrow and Winslet are completely wasted in bit parts with no lasting impact on the main story, and I was speaking of Cotillard's character when I was complaining of inane character choices. Some of the smaller roles actually work out well, as Colantoni, Cranston, Hawkes and Elliott Gould do some good in a small amount of time. While there are several talented actors in this film, the best character belonged to somebody you may not recognize, as Jennifer Ehle runs away from the pack as a risk-taking lab doctor who kicks ass in just about every imaginable way.

As if things weren't bad enough, Winslet just learned about the Netflix price restructuring

Of course, Soderbergh only intended one character to be multifaceted, and that was the virus itself. Learning, mutating, growing; this virus did more than any single character in the entire film could claim to have accomplished. In reality, Soderbergh's story can be simply described as dropping the virus in amongst a group and studying what happened. In this you can see the best of his work, as its obvious he left no stone unturned in determining what would happen if person A became sick but did this, this and this before meeting person B. It's almost like looking back at Soderbergh's earlier career when similar films Traffic and Erin Brockovich were mega-hits following other topical situations, garnering critical acclaim and box office records in the process. Since that time Soderbergh hasn't exactly had a lot of success getting either of those, with only the Oceans 11 remake and its subsequent sequels being the obvious exceptions. If Contagion is successful, that might be more remembered than any actual detail of the story herein.

At the Apocalypse, don't worry! Cell reception will be as strong as ever

That's because unfortunately the story tends to get as flat as its characters. For the entirety of the film we're being told that this is a bad thing, and to make sure you are careful with what you interact, otherwise there could be deadly consequences. Reasonable enough, but that this message goes on uninterrupted for just under two hours gets quite a bit boring, and since the film portrays an extreme case situation this message probably won't be heeded by most viewers anyway. Sure there's a little bit in there about the evils and flaws of man in a time of crisis, but that is almost glossed over under the seemingly mistaken impression that these are not problems we can fix. On top of that, after going the entire film without having it revealed what caused the virus in the first place, the finale features Soderbergh going right back to day one to spell out exactly how it happened, making borderline racist commentary in the process. It was a completely unnecessary gesture, one which was probably suggested by brain dead test audiences or confused studio executives rather than anything resembling a logical process.

Well, what can I say? Jude Law isn't a great actor

In the end, I managed to make it through almost the entire screening without being too bothered by the flaws, which was far better than I had expected. Only the ending and the poor character design were serious bummers, though the story as a whole wasn't helped much otherwise. A merely okay film, this is hardly the stellar Soderbergh many people seem to think it is. Instead of a riveting biological drama, it's a political and societal statement, one barely interesting or even intellectually argued. I'm not sure I can recommend Contagion to anyone to see in the theater, though it certainly deserves more attention than the latest entries in the Scream, Pirates of the Caribbean or Transformers franchises, all of which I enjoyed to some degree. Contagion carries itself firmly to the middle of the pack as far as 2011 goes, another forgettable film in a year of epically forgettable films.