Contagion

It had quite good reviews, many four stars, some three stars but none, so far as I know, with two or less stars. Then Carol whats-her-name in The Times said the film "Contagion" weas terrifying and dull. She's usually spot on with her views but does she know anything about films I wondered?
It seems that she does because it was pretty dull. Not that it was badly made - it was made with considerable skill; you couldn't help admiring the construction of the film and the acting too was superb with some of the leading film stars of our day doing their stuff on screen (maybe they thought they were making a film that had a vital massage for us all in this day and age of terrors of all sorts, especially perhaps ones that have to with the environment and fatal bacteria scourges). What was wrong with the film then?
It told the story of a worldwide spread of a contagious disease due to a bacteria that was not known and for which there was no known remedy. It seemed to have everything right: the spread from person to person, the concerns by governments to find some means of stopping it spreading, the president and his staff taking to bunkers, people dying on the street and others rioting. But though it had everything right according to what might happen if it in fact happened in reality, it had nothing right in the way the story was told. Or, rather, stories. For there were a few stories in it of certain people who were affected in some ways by the disease but the stories didn't link and so they seemed not apt except that they were linked to the disease. I had the feeling that the makers had a plan: let's make it more human by introducing characters who suffer as a result of the contagion. These stories seemed tagged on rather than being intricate parts of the big story.
The director, Stephen Soderbergh, has a big reputation for making serious films; while he does make popular films like Oceans 11 and 12 (is there a 13?) I always had the idea that, like Orson Welles, hje made these in order to subsidise his more "sderious " films like "Contagion". Maybe I was wrong. But I can't say I like any of his "serious" films. They seem to me to lack an ingredient that should be part of all mature, satisfying work, and that is heart.
The film, however, was spot on with its theme; only today I read about the evolvement of dangerous bacteria, especially in hospitals, that have become resistant to known antibiotics. The report was quite terrifying as Carol Whats-her-name said in reference to the film.