Rich Flu

This movie is starting quiet slow with lots of annoying people, gets slightly intriguing in the middle part and suddenly fades out even slower into nothing.

Don't get me wrong, I see the efforts they've put into this and the movie features solid acting and good cinematography, but still, like others mentioned before: there is no likeable or even relatable character to find here. The plot is paper thin and doesn't do much. I guess in the end, this is more of a psychological behaviour study, that one has to sit through with a shake of the head the whole time. Narcissists do unrelatable things and that's about it. If that triggers you, stay well clear of this movie.

Ironically the movie starts with someone making a pitch for a movie script, which would have been much better, if executed right.

Don't waste your time and money, it's not worth it. In comparison to worse movies, I'd still give it a 4.5 to 5/10 for technical aspects and some good acting.

While nonsensical on many levels, I thought the premise of the film was interesting. I was fascinated to see how the world would 'connect the dots' of what was happening. But we're not witness to very much along those lines.

Instead, we're taken from 'normal world' to 'crazy world' in the flash of an eye. I realized after watching this movie, that the film makers wanted to sell their political viewpoint, but it didn't work for me.

Lastly, many films that are apocalyptical like this one, tend to use the same plot device of the protagonists needing to escape where they live, for safer ground far away, and the story revolves around their journey trying to get there. I found the journey to be boring, and I wasn't impressed once I had arrived. My rating = 5.

No pun intended - there are sayings that say money can't buy you happiness ... this movie seems to go one further and is saying it actually can buy you sickness ... how else would you decipher (interpret) the title? That's a bit rhetorical of course.

All that said, the movie is obviously a social message - philosophical and all that. What does it say about our society - about our humanity? Are we all greedy to a degree? Just different variations of that? And why can't we be happy with what we got? Not wanting more all the time ... I mean I guess it is good to not want to stay stagnant ... it's good to be on your toes, to always be moving.

And we all get to see that through the eyes of one particular family .. one that is poor at first ... so most of us can relate ... the movie is decent, the message may be a bit too obvious ... the end on the other hand is quite ... well open for interpretation I reckon ... you decide, if you can even sustain watching until the end ...

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.