Friday, July 19, 2013

Side Effects (2013)


side effects

Side Effects (2013)

Director: Steven Soderbergh

Writer: Scott Z. Burns

Why I Watched It: I am a fan of several of Soderbergh’s previous films, and I was curious about this one.


My Reaction, In a Nutshell: Never has my reaction to a film gone downhill so dramatically. At the beginning, my response was: “Hey, this is going to be great!” I was captivated by the interesting characters and masterful cinematography. Later in the movie, my response shifted to occasionally rolling my eyes and muttering, “Um … seriously?” By the end, I’d devolved into repeatedly shouting “Oh for fuck’s sake!” at the screen. I guess if I really wanted to reframe that nicely I could say, “It was a hell of a ride.”



An Irrelevant Personal Note:

I make no secret of the fact that I know far more about psychoactive medication that any non-medical professional ought to know. Depression/anxiety doesn’t just run in my family — it gallops. Psychoactive medications have been life-saving for many people, including myself and people who are very close to me. But there is a tremendous amount of trial and error involved, and sometimes competent doctors go out on a limb and prescribe something relatively untried. It’s scary, grueling, and almost invariably complicated by side effects you’d rather not deal with, but — if you’re lucky — well worth it.

I’m fairly open about this stuff because I think it’s something people should talk about, so others struggling with these issues know they don’t have to hide in the dark. But out of respect for readers (and by “respect,” I mean I want to keep the few readers I’ve managed not to run off), I’ll spare you my nasty war stories about medications and side effects.

side8f-11-web

Review:

Emily Taylor (Rooney Mara) has been through the wringer. Her husband, who she wed after a whirlwind romance, has just been released after a four-year stint in the hoosegow for insider trading. While he was in the pokey, she suffered a miscarriage. It isn’t surprising that she appears to be struggling with severe depression.

After an unsuccessful suicide attempt, she connects with a new psychiatrist, Jonathan Banks (Jude Law). He makes the risky decision not to hospitalize her after she crashes her car into the wall of a parking garage. Later she admits to having suicidal feelings in a subway station, and he still doesn’t admit her. In my opinion, that was just sheer dumb-ass stupidity, but I digress. The good doctor tries several medications. After an unsuccessful stint on Zoloft, Emily tries an experimental new medication called Ablixa.

I felt like I was watching three completely different movies here. Unfortunately they aren’t combined seamlessly — it’s a jumbled mess. First, there’s an interesting, beautifully shot story with intriguing characters. By the time I saw Dr. Banks helping a young Haitian who’d seen the ghost of his dead father, I was hooked.

Then the film morphs into something else. A plethora of potentially weighty issues is thrown at us. The risks and benefits of antidepressant medications. Inadequately tested drugs being used on vulnerable patients. Whether all the gifts and payments pharmaceutical companies bestow onto psychiatrists represents a grossly unethical — and potentially dangerous — conflict of interest. All these issues are worthy of discussion, but here they were dealt with quickly and in a way that seems too slickly packaged. But I was still enjoying the film, and I felt like the writer and director could successfully bring it home.

Then it dissolves into a twisty thriller — kind of like Basic Instinct on a shiz-load of psychiatric meds. That’s when they lost me. I’ll be honest — I love a good thriller. I appreciate a writer or film-maker who keeps me guessing, and I love being outsmarted by the storyteller. But the twists have to be genuinely rooted in the story. The viewer ought to be able to say, “Ah! Damn! I should’ve seen that coming.” Here I wasn’t outsmarted by the storyteller — I was just confused and annoyed by a film that kept changing the rules and pulling plot twists out of left field.

On the positive side, the cinematography was consistently wonderful, and the acting was quite good. I was especially happy to see Ann Dowd (Compliance) offering another outstanding performance. And it was great to see Polly Draper again. (I watched her in Thirty Something, back in the day.) Sadly, I was left with the sense that all this good stuff was wasted on a story that lacked consistent direction, played false with viewers by concocting implausible twists, and delivered something substantially weaker than what was promised.

13 comments:

  1. I'm not exactly sure where you are on this one, but it seems that this flick is completely polarizing. For as many 'it's soooooo goood' reviews and comments, I've read a slew of 'f this noise' types as well.

    I enjoyed it, especially early on, but probably overall, too.

    Oh, and I'm glad you too had problems with the ending as well, because I just thought I was stupid or something. Well, extra stupid.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm definitely on the "f this" side of that question. :-) Not a fan of this flick. However, like you, I did enjoy parts of it, especially in the beginning.

      Delete
  2. Good Review. I agree with you that some of the twists do come out of nowhere, but it never stopped me from enjoy this flick. When I watched it in theatres. Hearing audience members gasp at certain scenes made me like this a bit more.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks! I'm glad you liked this movie a lot more than I did. And I can see that hearing audience members gasp at certain moments would increase the fun. :-)

      Delete
  3. Nice review. I liked this flick because it was insane, crazy, and a whole bunch of fun. Maybe not the best, or most memorable note for Soderbergh to go out on, but it was still one that I enjoyed. Besides, he'll be back.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks! I'm glad you enjoyed this a lot more than I did. Sometimes I enjoy movies that are just sheer insane fun. :-)

      Delete
  4. Great review! Yeah, the plot twists can be ridiculous, but I thoroughly enjoyed the film on the first two viewings. Glad you liked the cinematography and the cast, which were two of my favorite components of the film.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It seems that the things that made this film a dud for me didn't bother many other movie buffs. :-) But yes, the cinematography and some of the performances made it *almost* worth sitting through.

      Delete
  5. Aw, that's a bummer you didn't like this! I enjoyed it, it was at the top of my list for 2013 films until recently. I did roll my eyes at the whole "Emily being her old shrink's secret lover" thing.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This is really a divisive movie, isn't it? Some love it, and some hate it. It makes it a fun one to discuss. ;-)

      Delete
  6. I really liked the first 20 minutes of the movie but the longer it went the worse it became. The story was such a mess, none of the subplots made much sense. Huge waste of Mara and Law :/

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Wow! You articulated my reaction exactly. Great minds ... ;-)

      Delete
  7. I had much the same reaction as you and Sati. I did think the acting was superb.

    ReplyDelete

Hello, and thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts -- reader comments make this blogging gig worthwhile. :-) Due to excessive spam, we are now moderating all comments. Like that dude in the Monty Python skit, we just Don't ... Like ... Spam. I will try to post and respond to your comments as quickly as possibly.