Rich Flu

Hope they didn't spend more than 100 dollars to make this movie because that's about what it looks like. The writing is laughably bad, the acting feels phoned in, and the pacing is a complete disaster. Nothing good to say about it-no redeeming qualities, no interesting ideas, just a frustrating waste of time.

It honestly feels like a 13-year-old scribbled down a half-baked script in an hour, and the next day, someone decided, "Yep, let's film this." The dialogue is cringeworthy, the plot makes no sense, and whatever message they were trying to deliver gets lost in the sheer absurdity of it all.

I want my time back. Avoid this movie at all costs.

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.

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.

The acting seems SO fake, and the dialogue and sound feels like very poor dubbing. This movie could have been good if someone else made it. But the very fake acting and unlikeable characters destroys everything that could have been good with this movie. I have seen this in other movies too lately. What are they doing? Recording ALL dialogue after the movie is finished? Because most of the actors can't speak proper English? In that case it would have been so much better with original language and subtitles (although I hate subtitles...). I gave this 3 stars because they made me watch it cause of the storyline. But really, don't waste your time on earth watching this garbage.

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.