Review of Contagion (2011) by Martin R — 28 Mar 2015

[3/29/15] I bought "The Cabin in the Woods" and "Shark Attack 3" two days ago and so I was able to get "Contagion" for a dollar. Now I remember watching "Contagion" in theaters and walking out very disappointed.

To the point that I didn't even think the film was recommendable. Now mind you that "Contagion" was released in 2011, two years after the Swine Flu outbreak--a lot of people died and I'm not trying to downplay the event--BUT I wasn't worried about the Swine Flu.

I live in America, if it doesn't affect me then I don't care (I'm being sarcastic, settle down). Point is, having multiple narratives weaved together into one storyline did not line up with what I would have called at the time 'suspenseful' or 'interesting.

' But what happened last year that definitely made headlines in America? That's right, Ebola. Now that was an epidemic that had me trying to stay up-to-date after a case was reported near my area (turned out to be false) but still, Ebola was a scary virus on its own, and the possibility of it wreaking havoc was a real threat.

Fortunately, last year's Ebola outbreak did not pack the punch of something like the 1918 Spanish Flu event, because that would have been very bad. Nonetheless, having watched "Contagion" recently, I find myself in a position where I must admit that the movie is more intriguing than I thought.

There's a lot of "this is how the CDC works" moments in the film as the characters try to hang on and survive the biological attack on humanity. Jude Law plays this '"the man" has a cure but only for themselves,' 'the government is in bed with pharmaceutical companies' anti-vaxxer, who you JUST hate.

It's not a hate towards the actor, but a hate towards what the guy represents on-screen - the anti-vaccination movement; people who don't understand science and yet assume that they know more about it than actual scientists.

Yeah, THOSE people, mm hmmm, which, Jude Law ultimately represents pseudoscience and the dangers of following unreliable, untested, and invalid statements about REAL issues. For example: a vaccine is created in the movie and Law's character shrugs it off like "no, that thing might cause autism in 10 years.

I have the virus but I'm taking 'x drug' [forgot what it was called] and I'm still here." Well, it turns out that Law's character was faking being sick because he was making money off promoting the 'x drug,' which people thought would help keep them healthy.

And I so greatly admired that portrayal of anti-vaxxers - for all that they claim to be against "big pharma" because "big pharma has an agenda and they just want to take your money," hey, guess what? Anti-vaxxers have an agenda too, and it's not a positive one either.