Contagion

Steven Soderbergh’s variation on Hollywood disaster films is conceived as the exact antithesis of all of the attributes of the classic form of this genre established by A-level studio spectacles in the 1950s and definitively codified in the 1970s. At the same time, however, the aim of the film is not to subvert the genre, but rather to come up with a form of the genre for the era of extensive availability of information, so that it can again function effectively and arouse horror and tension in the audience, as compared to Emmerich-style popcorn tripe. The necessary foundation for this is provided by Scott Z. Burns’s masterful, intelligently constructed and information-packed screenplay, which is based on scientific knowledge and experience from the epidemics of that time (and therefore greatly corresponds to the real pandemic of 2020, unlike the naïve, fantastical scenario of, for example, Outbreak). (05/16/2020)

A sterile clinical procedure that goes against the greatest genre conventions and its brilliantly organized yet pedantic narrative proves that Soderbergh is equal to Fincher in this regard. Unfortunately, there are a few pointless scenes and schemes, but with some passages of resolution and distrust, Contagion is close to its maximum. It shows better than any other disaster film that fear is the worst contagion. (10/13/2011)

Soderbergh doesn’t give a shit about the audience. Zero emotions, little tension, full of stars but without any of them shining too much on screen. Contagion is simply an unbiased and detached look at a global pandemic, and it’s actually that austerity and inhumanity what brings to the surface the horror and hopelessness of the situation. It probably only needed to dig a bit deeper into the issue, the last half hour felt too short. 7/10 (12/16/2011)

Typical Soderbergh, a cold, atmospheric (music, camera filters), surgically precise film. Contagion basically imposes nothing on us, it just shows the possible origin of an infection (banality) and its consequences in the context of human infection (captivating). This is followed, of course, by other things like hysteria, looting, religious problems, ethnicity, basic needs, etc. Perhaps a slight advantage for the director is the fact that he’s working with a topic so interesting in itself that even if the film wasn’t that good, its potential to captivate would still sweep away the shortcomings. Essentially, a film that is impossible to tear away from. (01/01/2012)

One might have expected the film to go against traditional audience expectations, yet Soderbergh manages to surprise us mainly through the optics he applies to the sloppy plot. He makes do with a documentary-like tone instead of spectacular crowd scenes and quite sovereignly lets the famous Hollywood names have minimal parts, for which they reward him with great performances. This is minimalism that digs deep under the skin. PS: This is the second film this year that was largely "made" by Cliff Martinez. (10/20/2011)