La peste

A fine example of the whole being less than the sum of its parts, this film might be more favorably received if we had been given more hints of its surreality. I certainly enjoyed it as a portrait of a city under stress; its residents not thinking clearly about what was really happening. Certainly I shared their struggle. And who knows, any of our cities may someday suffer as Oran did.

It seems a lot of people can only view this film through the lens of the book, and with the title, how can you not? This film probably would have been better received if it used a different title and suffered accusations of 'ripping off' Camus. Today, I think we may be a little more used to films being 'inspired' by particular books but not even attempting to reproduce the book faithfully. I echo of few of the reviews I've read here on IMDb - that this film, when viewed apart from the book, is a great film in its own right. The actors are great, the story is of course solid, and the style is perfect. Some of my favorite scenes that I would point to - Opening of the film - the monologue of Hurt's character - "This is what happened". Still, dispassionate, reflective, tired, guiltily transcendent. Scene in the office of Duvall's character near the opening - "Hats off!" Joyful in its innocence, the hope and admiration exhibited by the other two characters in the room is palpable. Any confrontation scene between the female reporter and the doctor, whether on the tram or in the office. Towards the end when the cameraman gets shot - "I'm dying". This film is still and quiet - Hurt conveys his exhaustion so well, Duvall his hope and frustration so well. I really, really hope we see this in Blu-Ray (BD). With so many good actors it's a wonder it never went to DVD. Hopefully time will give this film the credit it deserves.

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.

People seem awfully hard on this movie, and I don't quite understand why.

It must suffer in comparison with the book. Granted no filmmaker could possibly match Camus brilliance, but this is a pretty solid movie. One thing that disappointed me was the descision to remove the story from the time period. The time setting is integral to the allegory. All in all, though, a good reconstruction.

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.