Rich Flu

The story appears to me super weak and the more I started to think about it and the way the actors did act in the film, the more I wanted to stop this film.

Like why is it only about the rich, if you get rid of your money, how can a virus/ bacteria/ whatever know this in real time. Or in case its something different, how could it know that you put a pile of bundled dollars on fire.

It just doesnt make any sense to me. Same for the strange conclusions and actions the actors did on certain events.

I think this film is a waste of time and I cannot recommend it.

I could manage 1hr15 mins. So maybe its better afterwards.

A quite disturbing but unique scenario about the poisonous/mundane "nature" of wealth. The ending is really impressive portraying the desire to be rich as an incurable mental/behavioral problem that constitutes the source of all suffering in human societies... This film is not for those who look to be entertained; it is a thought provoking story with many sociopolitical and ethical implications that will impress those who appreciate substance instead of spectacle!!! Overall, acting is above average, cinematography is adequate, directing is sufficient. I watched this with some friends and it triggered a great conversation after watching it. I definitely recommend it!!!

The plot was interesting - but executed terribly.

The acting is pretty solid (apart from Lorraine Bracco who was truly horrible).

Cinematography and set are ok.

But, the problem is that it's simply not a good movie. It's boring, has uninteresting characters and a very awkward pacing.

I gave it a 4/10 even though maybe a lower rating would actually be more apt.

The plot was interesting - but executed terribly.

The acting is pretty solid (apart from Lorraine Bracco who was truly horrible).

Cinematography and set are ok.

But, the problem is that it's simply not a good movie. It's boring, has uninteresting characters and a very awkward pacing.

I gave it a 4/10 even though maybe a lower rating would actually be more apt.

A virus that kills off the richest, most influential, and the most greedy sounds like a good idea. I loved The Platform (first one, not second) so of course it's worth watching Rich Flu considering it's the same writers and Director. Could it be they were high when they thought of this great concept, and continued to get high when they made it. The production is chaotic. The shaky camera work and jumpy editing made me feel sea-sick. This movie might have been better if written as a comedy or satire, especially with that bizarre "white glowing teeth" touch. Didn't work as an action drama and the characters were dull. Some components of this story were interesting, must have been part of the original great conception, but the way they weaved it together was poorly executed. What a waste of a big budget.

Laura Palmer (Mary Elizabeth Winstead) is a hard charging executive and battling a divorce. She goes to meet her rich boss in Alaska where he appoints her the head of a non-profit subdivision. First, the Pope dies. More of the world's uber-rich die. There is some sort of viral disease which is killing the richest of the rich. Laura is surprised when her boss revalues her shares to be worth $900 million as the rich try to destroy their net worth.

This is a dumb high concept premise. It makes no sense, but I do try to go along with it. They do need to make the movie logic make sense around this stupid premise. It wouldn't be that hard to suppress one's net worth. One could simply donate it to the government. That's why I didn't get not going into quarantine. I do get the need to go to her daughter. So I let that go. Once the neighbors come for her, she should leave by herself. How could she put her daughter in danger? That's not reasonable. For the sake of the movie, she should go on the road alone.

Obviously, this is meant to be the reverse of the normal situation. I'm willing to let a lot of this go, but only up to a point. I do like the adventure thrills and the complicated Laura Palmer. I just don't like the non-sense in response to the non-sense premise.