The Plague

1992
The Plague
5.6| 2h28m| en| More Info
Released: 26 August 1992 Released
Producted By: Canal+
Country: United Kingdom
Budget: 0
Revenue: 0
Official Website:
Synopsis

In a city in South America an outbreak of bubonic plague occurs. While people try to flee and the military close the city, an idealistic doctor decides to stay and help the sick. In the ever-changing circumstances, he puts up a brave fight, being helped by others but also involving them without being able to control the situation.

... View More
Stream Online

The movie is currently not available onine

Director

Producted By

Canal+

Trailers & Images

Reviews

ccthemovieman-1 Wow, right from the start this movie is a real downer, not exactly an uplifting film! This is really depressing.William Hurt, Robert Duvall, Raul Julia, Sandrine Bonnaire and Jean-Marc Barr star in a film dealing with a plague that is infecting a South American city. It sounds interesting, which is why I rented it, along with the great cast.However, I found this very disappointing, not only because it was so depressing but it's too talky, the photography disappointed me and I think it tries to be a lot "smarter" than it comes across. I can't see a lot of people enjoying this film. Half the cast members don't seem to be into this story, either, especially Duvall who usually gives great performances. A friend of mine suggested I read the book and forget the movie. I should have taken her advice. At least the author was famous.
Peter-174 Too talkative. Crappy acting. Pathetic writing. I could go on for a while... It is a shame that such good material was wasted. The film is clueless, since the makers had no vision. The film even manages to become boring. It also tries too hard to be meaningful and deep, but it just isn't intelligent enough. The photography is OK, though. But that's about the only good thing in this movie. As far as I know the film is only out on DVD in Asia. The DVD can often be found on eBay. Not that I would advise you to buy it, though.The DVD is 4:3.Some of the actors deliver performances that are far below their usual standard. This must mean that director Puenzo did a lousy job.
loui-in-stlouis imperfect only because mr. hurt takes his traum-welt sleepwalking characterization too far, and mr. puenzo drops the emotional anvil one time too many, this is nevertheless the most artistic political commentary i have seen. i compare it to CLOSETLAND. camus set the novel in his home of algiers, and mr. puenzo reprises with the buenos aires location that is his home. like post-war camus, mr. puenzo has much to say about his country's recently fallen dictatorship. camus would certainly have approved. the timing, in the face of the literal plague of aids, adds to the momentousness of this film.sandrine bonnaire, robert duvall, and jean-marc barr are essential to the movie, and the sheer pulchritude of buenos aires shows, even though the city is cast as hapless, plague-stricken oran. it is the tragedy of argentina that makes it a perfect oran. and it is the beauty of its capital federal that makes it a perfect setting for camus' triumph of humanity over inhumanity.the movie is complex, with explicit visual reference to the holocaust, and even a fair treatment of the complicity of the medical doctor (whose responsibility? remember, camus was above all an existentialist author). but the movie is not about a public health disaster, or oran, or the insanity and subsequent tragedy of civil resignation in germany's 1930's. oran could be anywhere at any time, and mr. puenzo has understood camus well on this point.
Skerik Don't even think of watching this without first reading the book. And if you have read the book don't put yourself through this mockery of one of the most outstanding novels ever. This movie takes from one of the greatest works ever crafted by man and somehow screws it all up. It takes way too many liberties with the story and replaces almost all of the themes and metaphors with simplistic and uninspired doppelgangers. Although the book was exemplary this movie only takes from it slightly. The screen writers probably didn't even read the book. The themes are inane. The dialogue is downright horrible(except when taken from Camus exactly). The Actors while well meaning do not hit the mark with their characters. And serious flaws in the story line are plentiful like weeds. Also plentiful is female nudity, but it's not erotic or even meaningful it's just obnoxious and quite frankly sickening.Unless you want to see a version of the Plague that puts Oran in South America in 199..., changes the Rambert character to a woman who fingers herself in a cafe while checking for Buboes, changes Tarrou and Grand into giggling novelties, and replaces the enlightening separation theme from the second part of the novel and changes it so that the characters and merely horny, than this is for you.This "Plague" is an insult and owners of the rights to Camus' works should be shot for letting this mockery manifest itself. Don't bother with this awful movie. Bullets are cheaper and provide the same feeling when put into heart.If you are at all interested in renting or buying this awful movie, don't! Read the book! It is one of the best you will ever read I guarantee. Plus it turns this movie into a comedy as you laugh at the possible thoughts of the producer, screenwriter, actors, director, grips, cinematographer, etc... It's apparently impossible to give no stars with a review. So now the makers of this film owe me one.However bad the movie was the book made up for it in spades. If you enjoyed the movie (shame on you) read the book and be amazed at how good it could have been.