Seen "Side Effects" Yet? Don't Read This if You Haven't.

 

Directed by Steven Soderbergh, written by Scott Z. Burns, starring Jude Law, Rooney Mara, Catherine Zeta-Jones, and Channing Tatum - Rated R

 

A good psychological thriller is hard to find these days.  This might be because when one hears “psychological,” they automatically assume there’s going to be a twist ending or something, and because of this, the writers try to throw nothing but curveballs at the audience, which leaves everything a jumbled mess (kind of like this sentence).  Thankfully, director Steven Soderbergh and writer Scott Z. Burns don’t try to mess with the audience too much with Side Effects.   Instead, they provide a finely crafted thriller that will leave you guessing here and there, but will never make you feel cheated.

 

Side Effects marks the end of Soderbergh’s directing career (I don’t buy it, but that’s the story), and if it is, then it is a fine end.  The film is all over the place in a good way.  At times I thought it was a condemnation of any number of things: pharmaceuticals, psychologists, Wall Street, and/or our justice system.  The argument could be made that the film is about any single one of those things.  That doesn’t mean Side Effects is some sloppily pieced together political message movie; it just means that it makes you think and keeps your attention. 

 

The film, without delving too far into spoiler territory, is about a depressed woman (Rooney Mara) who becomes the focal point of a debate about antidepressants after an incident.  Her doctor (Jude Law) comes under scrutiny because he prescribed the pills, and he basically turns into a conspiracy theorist trying to figure out what went wrong. 

 

The film is much denser than that synopsis, and that’s the point.  Soderbergh puts together the film in such a way that it feels natural for it to shift around because we’re shifting with the characters.  He films depression in a very effective way.  The use of lighting, focus, and camera angles convey a troubled, distracted mind without being too showy.  In fact, this film could have been just about a depressed person and it would be worth watching for the style of it alone.  The labyrinthine plot allows the film to be more than that as the viewer goes along with Jude Law as he unravels it all.

 

Style and plot can carry a movie just fine, but the acting has to be up to the challenge as well.  Luckily, Side Effects has a very talented cast.  First, Mara, who has already proven herself with The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, channels a depressed, damaged person to near perfection.  Her performance is actually quite layered for a role that could be a plain, weepy part if handled differently (I’ll explain more in the spoilers section).  Jude Law is always good, but I really enjoyed this performance because it allowed him to be a bit crazy, and he excels when he gets to be unhinged.  Current do-no-wrong superstar Channing Tatum continues his streak here.  And Catherine Zeta-Jones rounds out the cast nicely as a slightly mysterious psychologist.

 

All in all, Side Effects was a very pleasant surprise amid the usual crappy/boring material released during this time.  If Soderbergh does truly leave the director’s chair, then this is as good a film to go out on as any, but I hope he’s not finished.  Side Effects doesn’t strike me as the work of someone at the end of their career.  This is a film that shows the prolific Soderbergh has hit his stride, but he’s decided to stop running regardless.  It’s too bad, because I want to see more films like Side Effects.  Having your head messed with can be fun sometimes.

 

Random Thoughts (SPOILERS)

I nearly didn’t write this review because of the possibility of spoiling the film.  This is why I’ve waited so long to publish the review, as well.  When it comes to films with genuine surprises, even a vague review can ruin the experience.  I went into the film knowing very little and I’m sure that’s why it worked for me.  Hopefully, you’re only stumbling upon this review after you’ve seen the film. 

 

Anyway, now that you’ve seen it, you know why Mara’s performance was, in fact, layered.  She was never depressed, but only faking it.  This is an easy role to defend, of course.  If she did terribly, then that was on purpose because her character wasn’t actually depressed.  Or if she did it well, then that shows her character was a good actress, much like Mara herself.  I’m going with the latter because she had me fooled.  I totally bought her depression, much like everyone onscreen.  I was shocked when she stabbed Tatum, and I was equally surprised when it became more and more evident that it was premeditated murder.  I went through the exact same feelings that Jude Law’s character must have gone through.  That is why I loved this film.  The filmmakers put me through the experiences of the characters on an emotional level.  Sure, action directors place you in the action all the time, but it is rare for a viewer to be on the same level as a character in a psychological thriller.  Usually, you’re able to be at least one step ahead of each character in a film like this, but I certainly was not.  That just made this film immensely enjoyable for me.  It truly surprised me, and I feel like it’s harder and harder to be surprised by movies. 

 

Of course, maybe I’m just an idiot.  Regardless, this film was smart enough to truly keep me guessing.  If I had known it was a film like that going in, I think I would have figured it out and enjoyed it much less.  

You Should Watch "Anna Karenina" and Skip "Les Miserables." Hear me out on this...

I know this is the opposite of what most critics would tell you, but having watched both, I cannot understand how someone could tell a moviegoer to watch Les Miserables (the accent over the e is not worth the trouble, by the way, so I'll just go with unaccented throughout) when Anna Karenina goes all but ignored by nearly everyone.  Both are films that depict a story from classic literature told in stylish, ambitious ways.  The difference?  In Anna Karenina, the characters speak to each other…like normal humans in films do.  In Les Miserables, the characters…sing…everything.  Okay, you got me; I do not like musicals.  Unless it’s funny or on a stage in New York or something, I don’t want to hear the characters sing their dialogue.  I couldn’t stand Chicago, barely got through Sweeney Todd, and I cringed through Les Miserables.  So if you like musicals, don’t listen to me.  You’ll undoubtedly love Les Miserables (I refuse to shorten the title, by the way) if you enjoy any other musicals.  It’s long, it’s expensive, and it has a lot of star power.  Almost all of the other critics are salivating over it, but I don’t get it.  I am not really going to review the musical, but I have to put this out there: Russell Crowe cannot sing.  He can’t.  He sounded weird, unnatural, and generally terrible in this film.  I would call it laughable, but I found myself to perplexed by his voice to actually laugh.  Okay, on to Anna Karenina, and why, if you’re on the fence about musicals or hate them as I much as I do, you should watch this film when you get the chance.

 

First, for those of you who hear all of the hoopla over the musical (as I will refer to it from here on out) and think, “I don’t really like musicals, but everyone says it’s soooooo good,” don’t lie to yourself.  If you don’t like musicals, there’s no way this one will change your mind.  If you find it silly for someone to sing lines of dialogue describing exactly what you are watching them do, then you will still find this film silly.  It looks great, don’t get me wrong, but they still sing.  Anna Karenina (or AK as I will refer to it hereafter due to my difficulty in typing Karenina over and over) provides all of the melodrama and visual flair that the musical provides, but it doesn’t leave you asking yourself, “Why were they singing the whole time?” 

 

AK takes a classic tale of forbidden love and injects it with the amazing style that director Joe Wright is known for.  I began to truly pay attention to this director after his last effort, Hanna, because he uses style perfectly.  It’s not in your face, yet it’s still impressive.  The style calls attention to itself, but feels natural.  If he can take a dense Russian novel and turn it into a stylishly entertaining film, then this is a director worth paying attention to. 

 

I don’t want to get into the story all that much, even though playwright Tom Stoppard did a fine job condensing the novel into less than two hours, while also keeping the tragedy and depressing comedy of it all intact.  I want to focus on Wright’s take on this film.  He sets it up as if it is all happening on a stage, even to the point that there are set changes from scene to scene at times.  It was the perfect way to tell this story.  Is AK not a story meant for the drama of the stage? 

 

I acknowledge the contradiction of hating one film because it is meant for the stage and praising another because it was filmed as if it was on a stage.  I am not being unfair, though.  The musical is meant for the stage and it should stay there.  AK would work on the stage, but it is endlessly more entertaining to see it filmed as if it were on the stage.  AK is meant for the stage in that it is melodramatic and there is an inherent musical quality to the proceedings.  Musical in the strictest sense of the word in that classical music is utilized amazingly well, and the characters never feel the need to join in with the music. 

 

If I haven’t convinced you to check one out over the other at this point, I highly doubt that I will.  But perhaps a bit about the performances will help.  Keira Knightley, of course, is great as the title character.  She was simply born to play the miserable character of a Russian novel.  Jude Law was impressive as her cuckolded husband.  Aaron Taylor-Johnson (of Kick-Ass fame) continues to show his range as Vronsky.  And Matthew Macfadyen was a bright spot in a supporting role. 

 

The true star of the film, as you may have guessed, is the director.  I have not been very specific with any of the “style” of the film, but that’s because it is better seen with very little knowledge.  I had no idea what I was in for specifically, so when I saw it the first time it impressed me and kept me hooked throughout.  If you want a musical story without all the nonsensical singing, then Anna Karenina is definitely the movie for you.

"Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows"

Directed by Guy Ritchie, written by Michele Mulroney & Kieran Mulroney, based on characters created by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, starring Robert Downey, Jr., Jude Law, Noomi Rapace, and Jared Harris - Rated PG-13

A little light on the mystery, but the action more than makes up for it.

Sherlock Holmes as an action star seemed to be a strange idea before director Guy Ritchie teamed up with Robert Downey, Jr. and Jude Law to make Sherlock Holmes a couple years ago.  Now, with Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows, Ritchie solidifies Downey and Law as a bona fide buddy-action duo.  Granted, this sequel isn’t high art, but in a season filled with high profile releases and Oscar hopefuls, it makes for fun escapism. 

A Game of Shadows (which is an unfortunately bland subtitle) picks up where the original left off with Irene Adler (Rachel McAdams) aiding the evil Professor Moriarty (Jared Harris) while Holmes tries to stop them.  In the last film, the devastation was aimed solely at England; this time, all of Europe is at stake as Moriarty attempts to start a world war.  Basically, the stakes are higher and much more violent. 

While this film is primarily an action adventure there is still a bit of mystery to it.  Much like the first film, most of the characters, and the audience, are left in the dark for most of the running time.  There are clues scattered within the film, but it’s not like there is a mystery that the audience can solve on its own.  That’s kind of the point, of course, as Holmes is the only one who should be able to piece everything together.  It’s still a bit fun to keep your eyes on every inch of the screen, hoping to figure things out. 

Sherlock Holmes isn’t really a mystery film, though.  Guy Ritchie keeps the franchise in stylized-action mode and the film is more memorable for it.  There’s something to be said for a director who is willing to show action in a continuous take rather than edit it to the point of incoherence.  Not only does Ritchie keep the action in single shots, but he also slows things down to a crawl and has Holmes narrate what is happening.  Those predictive fight scenes seemed a little gimmicky in the first film, but the gimmick is played with enough times to make it amusing throughout in the sequel.  Aside from the fight scenes, other action set pieces are bigger and better than the original as well.  A lengthy mortar attack/shootout in a wooded area is among one of the best action sequences of the year.  It is an audio/visual attack on the senses, and that is a compliment. 

Action cannot completely carry a movie like this, however.  The core of the film rests on the chemistry between Downey, Jr. and Law.  As Holmes and Watson, they seem entirely natural bickering at each other like an old married couple, a dynamic that is not lost on the filmmakers as they put Holmes and Watson in plenty of thinly veiled homoerotic situations.  The joke does get a bit tiring by the end, but the actors make it work and, more importantly, they make the film fun.  Although the film does venture a bit too far on the goofy side here and there.

 In fact, the tone of the movie is decidedly lighter than the first film, even though the stakes are so dire.  The first film dealt with black magic and took place entirely in gloomy London.  A Game of Shadows features a bit more globe-trotting and there’s no magic, just artillery.  Jared Harris’s performance as Moriarty keeps things sinister enough, though.  Moriarty won’t go down as an iconic villain or anything, but Harris does make for a creepy, cold, methodical bad guy. 

A Game of Shadows could have surpassed the original film if the scope hadn’t been enlarged to include so many new characters.  Noomi Rapace is almost completely unnecessary as a gypsy fortune teller searching for her missing anarchist brother.  And Stephen Fry makes a painfully unfunny appearance as Mycroft Holmes, Sherlock’s boring, cartoonish brother.  If more characters were needed to join the journey, why not just go with McAdams and Eddie Marsan from the original?  Better yet, just make it a Holmes/Watson adventure.  The third wheel is not needed and it makes the film a bit too long. 

Faults aside, Sherlock Holmes is still a very entertaining film and more sequels would be a welcome experience around the holidays every couple of years.  The film doesn’t aspire to be anything more than a good time with some impressive action sequences.  Holmes and Watson don’t solve an amazing mystery for the ages, but they are a lot of fun for a couple hours.

Random Thoughts (SPOILERS)

The infusion of technology gives the film an interesting style, even though it sometimes seems like the film takes place in an alternate reality rather than the past.  Who cares, though? 

The gypsy stuff was kind of unnecessary.  Scratch that, it was completely unnecessary.  Ritchie mined all the laughs there were to get from gypsies in Snatch.  Really wish they would have just had McAdams go along on the journey.  That way the whole gypsy subplot could be removed and the film could be a bit shorter. 

Is it just me, or was Rapace's only noticeable because she seemed to be eating in nearly every scene?  I found it distracting and odd.

Kind of wished they would have left Holmes dead at the end, though that would go against the light tone of the film.  It would be nice for a series to have a definitive end before it wears out its welcome and/or is rebooted.  I suppose there's always hope that Nolan kills off Batman next summer... 

"Sherlock Holmes"

Sherlock Holmes - Directed by Guy Ritchie, starring Robert Downey, Jr., Jude Law, Rachel McAdams, and Mark Strong - Rated PG-13

This fun take on Holmes and Watson deserves a Kurgan.



Who knew Sherlock Holmes was so cool? If you’re like me, then the idea that comes to mind when you hear the famous detective’s name is that of a middle-aged man with a funny hat, a pipe, and an uncanny ability to solve complicated crimes by simply paying close attention to every detail. That doesn’t mean that director Guy Ritchie’s new version of Holmes is an unfaithful adaptation of the beloved Sir Arthur Conan Doyle creation. After doing some research (nothing major, just a quick read through of Sherlock’s Wikipedia page), I found that Holmes was an accomplished bare knuckle boxer and he had an eccentric personality. It’s just that Ritchie and his many screenwriters (five are credited) focused on the fighting and the eccentricity. That’s not to say that the deductive reasoning is ignored, however.

Sherlock Holmes is still all about an elaborate crime that Sherlock (Robert Downey, Jr.) and his ever faithful sidekick, Dr. Watson (Jude Law), must solve. Lord Blackwood (the continually impressive Mark Strong) has just been caught dabbling in the dark arts and has been sentenced to hang. Everything seems to be going smoothly. He is executed and Watson confirms his death, but the next day Blackwood is alive and plotting some major changes in England.

The story is interesting and nicely action packed, but what makes or breaks this film is the different take on the characters. Robert Downey, Jr. is very entertaining as the quick witted Holmes. His back and forth with Watson make for the most enjoyable moments in the film. The duo makes a first rate odd couple and the filmmakers made a wise choice by throwing us in the middle of their partnership rather than the beginning. It would have been boring to see yet another origin story about an already well-known set of characters. The pacing of the film actually plays like a sequel. It assumes we are familiar with the characters and just throws you right into a new adventure.

Back to the acting: Downey is funny and all, but his delivery takes some getting used to. His rapid fire delivery works great in other films, but he seems to be mumbling at times in this film and the British accent doesn’t help, either. It was only an issue for me early in the film, though; by the end, I was able to understand all of his lines. Surprisingly, I found Jude Law to be the most entertaining member of the cast. He’s turned in a number of quality roles over the years, but he’s rarely had the chance to be truly funny. He’s not funny in the traditional sense, i.e. he doesn’t have gags or tell jokes. His humor comes from simply reacting to Holmes’s more erratic behavior. Law’s slightly feigned disgust with Holmes is hilarious and what could be a boring, plain scene becomes an amusing moment in the film.

It’s not all witty banter, though. Holmes and Watson see plenty of action; big budget action. A lot of it is played for laughs (like Holmes’s showdown with a giant) and that is for the best. Action set pieces are for movies like Transformers. Ritchie showcases his action in the few fight scenes and a slow motion explosion scene. I mention the slow motion because that’s been an aspect of most of Ritchie’s films, notably the boxing scenes in Snatch. I’m kind of a sucker for his use of slow motion so I loved every detailed second of the scenes.

A Guy Ritchie film is not only marked by his use of slow motion, though. This may be Ritchie’s most mainstream film to date, but he still manages to put some style in there, though it’s never overbearing. I don’t think that Ritchie necessarily compromised his style of filmmaking here or anything, I just think that he and the screenwriters knew what a Sherlock Holmes film should be like. The audience doesn’t need sensory overload, or quick cuts, or long sequences set to catchy music. The audience for this film should be expecting an elaborate crime in which small clues are used to solve it and that is what provides the most pleasing aspect of the film.

When things are explained by Holmes while everyone else is clueless, it doesn’t seem forced or ridiculous (at least it doesn’t seem ridiculous in the movie world). In other words, you shouldn’t come away feeling cheated by any explanation. I thought the film covered all of its bases and if you pay close attention, you can play detective as you watch. When Holmes is at a crime scene, scouring the evidence, you should keep your eyes peeled. Like any interesting work, there is a reason for everything that is shown on the screen. Maybe you’ll be able to piece some things together, and maybe you’ll need Holmes to explain it all to you. Either way, you’ll be glad you spent your time on a case with Sherlock Holmes.