I meant to write something about Moneyball. Not a review but more a review of reviews on how sometimes you see a movie you think is really good but other people (critics or not) go CRAZY about it. You don’t want to disagree, having LIKED the movie, but you feel like while the movie was good it just wasn’t THAT good.

In my head I refer to this as “The King’s Speech Syndrome” but on to more important matters, specifically the film Detective Dee and the Mystery of the Phantom Flame. This Chinese Mystery/Kung Fu/Fantasy/Period piece has everything you could want in an action film. The film has an albino, a sort of evil empress, a really cute palace official, a wise cracking detective who can kick butt and a fight wherein the hero goes up against several talking deer.

One would think that deer capable of speech and massively outweighing a human would be able to best him but he does have a special mace as a weapon. It is sort of magical.

At this point you REALLY want to see this move or REALLY do not. That is fair enough. This is an old school Kung Fu type movie, excepting that there is a lot of CGI and camera trickery going on. The really old school films didn’t do that (mostly due to the lack of a budget).  I write “kung fu type” because it is also one of those vaguely mythical history films. There is a lesson in it for your average Chinese viewer that the party is not going to be annoyed with at all. But it is also something that isn’t going to annoy a Western audience either—they likely won’t even notice this.

Walking into the theater do not expect Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon or Hero. This is not of the caliber of those films. If you go, refrain from scoffing, as the people behind me did. I wondered what sort of movie they thought they were going to see.  Raise the Red Lantern maybe? The ads for this could not be CLEARER as to what this movie was going to be.

So shut up and save your sighs for after the movie when you can talk about jazz and tilt your beret “just so.”  Is this movie beyond criticism? Hell no but for what it is intended to be? It is executed quite well. The plot is pretty silly and simple, the dialog—well who knows? I speak no dialect of Chinese but the translation is fairly goofy in parts.

This calls to mind something about the acting. It reminded me of soap opera actors and how those actors are frequently VERY good at their jobs. If you can even say the drivel that makes up the plot you have to be a good actor. Likewise, I think, in highly stylized films like this. The actors who are not good at their jobs just mug and swagger. In this film they mostly give it the old college try and pull it off—within the confines of the plot and this is not Shakespeare.

One rule is often that the amount of actual Kung Fu is inversely proportional to the skill of the actors.  If they cannot act? They better be able to fight. This film doesn’t have wall to wall fights but it does have four or five great action sequences which are well choreographed and shot. The fight sequences were choreographed by Sammo Hung (who needs no introduction to Kung Fu aficionados and the rest of you can Google him). Director Tsui Hark never, NEVER, lets the film drag or get bogged down in “plot.” They use devices from voiceover to titles to tell the audience any details that might lead to a boring conversation—and that is as it should be in a film like this.

We don’t want talk, we want guys fighting deer!

Contagion is a message film and the message is; you are not safe. And when it comes to epidemics or pandemics this is totally true. Your wealth won't help you much. Nor will your current state of health. Sure, those already ill or weak are at greater risk but sometimes the young and hale lack resistance that their elders have.

Ergo, no one is safe.

And then they start rattling of information on how many times we touch our faces in a minute after touching GOD knows what else. Then we hear about fomites (basically anything can carry and transfer an infectious agent). AND then we see subtle shots of everyone touching things and other sneezing, hacking cough sufferers touching those SAME surfaces. If this doesn't make you want to wash your hands more then you are the nut. The film is a masterwork of pacing and making you care about the smallest of characters. Yes, this has a lot to do with fine acting but it also doesn't happen without fine directing as well.

The message "you are not safe" well worth hearing. Every time there is a warming about a potential epidemic that sputters out or doesn't appear it makes people skeptical and lackadaisical which makes the almost inevitable real epidemic all the more dangerous. Between 1976 and 2006 estimates of yearly deaths, in the USA, from flu range from lows of 3,000 to highs of 49,000. . Find out more on flu at the CDC website. Even the regular yearly flu can kill you.

Contagion seems almost a docudrama but it is one with fine acting and a story that never allows it to slow down or get caught up in jargon or scientific mumbo jumbo. Other efforts at "epidemic" film making that have turned out dismally (Outbreak springs to mind) usually side-step reality and into Hollywood crapola. The crapola usually indicates the government CREATED the plague afflicting mankind. Those bad BAD men in Washington! There is almost always an "evil general" in the bad epidemic movies but not in Contagion.

In fact, there are few bad guys in this film--at least among major characters (with one exception). Everyone is trying to do their job and when some of them fail, when they do something "bad," audience members generally cannot blame them.  For instance, we'd all put our families before protocol wouldn't we? Even if that wound up being a disaster? Yes, we would.

That is another way Contagion is realistic. People behave as you might expect. Some loot, some panic, some are led into profiteering they justify, some are brave but none turn into Darth Vader.

But back to hand washing. Hand washing gets knocked but it is one of the most effective ways to keep from getting sick. That includes run of the mill flu or a 1918-style pandemic. 

One place you can find out information on infections disease is the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy. They have information and links to information on infectious disease info everyone should know. They also have a section on bio terrorism. I had occasion to interview Michael Osterholm who is the director at CIDRAP during the Anthrax attacks.  In a general discussion on infectious disease he said the one vital thing we can ALL do ourselves is to frequently wash our hands.

If Contagion causes people to do this we may have fewer flu cases this year!

One last not on the film. Often when you see a large ensemble cast of big name actors you can almost SMELL a bad movie. This is not the case in this film. Gwyneth Paltrow has minimal screen time and makes the most of it. Matt Damon, again, proves he can handle just about any role. He can be over the top or he can be subtle and convey emotion with an expression. Laurence Fishburne has the gravitas of Gregory Peck. Jennifer Ehle also stands out as an incredibly brave researcher. I'd use the word "gravitas" but I already did. None of these actors are alone. Everyone in this film makes you care about them--one way or another--without tons of character development. When that happens it means you have a great group of actors.