Side Effects (I) (2013) User Reviews

It isn't what you think--superbly acted and directed

[secondtake · 8/10 · 13 July 2013]

Side Effects (2013)

Tightly scripted, superbly cast and acted, well-crafted movie all around. This is in a conventional story-telling style but the details are so finely tuned it's a pleasure, and a suspense, all through.

I'm not sure who gets more credit, Jude Law in his role as Dr. Banks, a truly well-meaning psychiatrist or Rooney Mara as Emily, the patient (in various stages, and not always so well-meaning). Both are brilliant and believable. You half expect them to click romantically, but that you'll have to see about.

The plot, at first, has to do with Emily dealing with her husband getting out of jail (he was in for insider trading). Then with her depression coping with it all. Then with the pills she's taking for same. Then with the apparent side effects of the medication, which loom as a whole new horror story.

And that's just the beginning. There are surprises (one of them hinted at in the opening scene) and then further and further twists. The plot threatens to get overly sensational but somehow keeps itself in check. So the movie becomes increasingly a thriller with its feet on the ground. Always interesting.

Director Steven Soderbergh is a true artist movie maker. And you can feel things finely tuned and in control here. He has never been the kind of auteur as the famous greats like Coppola or Kubrick or more recently even Nolan (whatever the excesses of the latter). But within the conventions of conventional movies, he usually makes really watchable, polished, and visually beautiful movies. That's very true here.

"Did You Try to Hurt Yourself?"

[the_grand_lebowski · 7/10 · 10 February 2013]

In our pharmaceutically inclined society, side effects are ever-present hazards of prescription drug usage. Whether they are minimized in print, or spoken in a hushed tone at the close of television commercials, side effects have become a shady companion of prescription drugs. Side Effects, Steven Soderbergh's alleged final film, focuses on the consequences visited upon a young couple after the side effects from the wife's medication cause her to commit an alarming act. As the chasm opens beneath this young woman, her psychiatrist struggles with his responsibility for her predicament, and confront his lingering suspicion about his patient's state of mind.

Ever the auteur, Soderbergh remains delightfully unpredictable with this latest feature. Side Effects initially presents itself as an indictment of the pharmaceutical industry, wearing its heavy-handed message on its sleeve, but promptly converts into a psychological suspense thriller. Soderbergh stares you directly in the eyes while he rips the rug from beneath your feet, sending you spiraling toward a conclusion that is equally unexpected and pleasing. Soderbergh and screenwriter Scott Z. Burns (Contagion, The Bourne Ultimatum) channel Hitchcock, creating an in-depth narrative that remains unpredictable until its final scene.

Soderbergh is known for generating a positive film environment for his cast, and maximizing the actors' potential in his films. Although the cast for Side Effects is comprised of actors who have previously provided impressive performances, each actor presents a character that rivals any prior roles. Rooney Mara plays the young woman at the epicenter of the conflict. Mara is extremely engrossing, creating an aura of discontent and depression within her situation. She acts as the film's catalyst, holding all the characters together while prompting them toward their conclusions. Attractive, graceful, and erratic, Mara is the wounded girl who isn't all that she seems.

While the film's driving force is Mara, Jude Law is its principle focus. As Mara's overwhelmed psychiatrist, Law provides his most empathetic role to date. Law establishes a flawed character who struggles with the consequences forced upon him, and transforms into a protagonist worthy of our admiration. Law and Mara provide such intriguing characterizations, Soderbergh seems to have difficulty deciding which to devote more time to. The scenes they share are the most arresting in this film.

There are few things more satisfying than a film which receives little attention, but creates an unexpectedly entertaining experience. Though Soderbergh has billed Side Effects as his swan song, he confirms that he is a cinematic mastermind in a film that would be an impressive conclusion to an eccentric career. Indulge in this unconventional thriller; you won't mind the side effects.

flickermotion.blogspot.com/

Being Fooled is Part of the Fun

[kkboyd-603-991354 · 8/10 · 8 February 2013]

I read an article that said that, with Side Effects, Steven Soderbergh wanted to return to the old suspense classics like Jagged Edge and much of Hitchcock, psychological twisters that aren't made much anymore.

I suspect that's because today people expect vampires, car chases or buckets of blood to justify the price of a ticket. Well, I too remember those old classics and I loved them. Side Effects is a worthy addition but be warned that it's a thinking person's movie not a chainsaw caper.

I'm surprised that so many people mention the twists and turns. Yes, there are some but not that many and they're what makes it all so fascinating. You think you know what's happening -- but you don't! What I especially enjoyed was the gamesmanship the different characters displayed. It's like a chess match with three people and more to kibitz.

And yet as we travel through the story, the surprising bits do make sense and we wonder why we didn't think of those things before. We're deep into the heart of mental illness and psychopathology. Almost every character has secrets or hidden motives they would not like to see the light of day. Although the main character seems at first to be the troubled young wife, it becomes clear that it is Jude Law's character as the shrink who is struggling to find the truth and do the right thing.

Just when you think everything that can go wrong for him has, the tide begins to turn and it's Oh My Gosh. Just like a Hitchcock film, you have a guy to root for and wonder how he will ever work his way though. I expected a different -- more startling -- ending, but there is the promise (perhaps?) of more horror to come.

Yes, let's definitely have a sequel! Okay, Stephen?

Soderbergh's passable Hitchcock-like thriller, doesn't always add up

[Turfseer · 6/10 · 7 March 2013]

Steven Soderbergh's 'Side Effects', first appears as if it's designed as a critique of psychiatry and the pharmaceutical industry. Ultimately, it becomes more like a Hitchcock thriller. It's a film that keeps your interest but you'll have to suspend your disbelief quite a bit, to appreciate it.

Rooney Mara (looking quite more appealing than her stint as angry Goth in 'The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo'), plays Emily Taylor, a seemingly depressed wife of her husband Martin (Channing Tatum), who has just come home after doing four years in prison for insider trading.

When it appears that she tries to kill herself by slamming her car into a wall in a parking garage, she's assigned to a psychiatrist, Dr. Jonathan Banks (winningly played by Jude Law). Banks is a fairly typical psychiatrist who prescribes one psychotropic medication after another, hoping that Emily's mood will change. Still feeling forlorn, Banks consults with Emily's former psychiatrist, Victoria (Catherine Zeta-Jones) who recommends that Emily be placed on a new experimental drug, Ablixa. Banks takes the pharmaceutical company's money and convinces Emily to participate in the study.

The stakes are raised when seemingly despondent Emily stabs husband Martin to death but claims she can't remember anything and blames everything on the Ablixa. Suddenly, Banks is no longer the complacent psychiatrist but is now a scapegoat, as the press blames him for dispensing the medication which everyone assumes is the cause of Emily's violent outburst. His patients start leaving him in droves and he's investigated by the State Licensing Board. Furthermore, the pharmaceutical company drops him as one of the testers of the Ablixa study.

Soon, Banks figures out that there's something much more sinister underfoot. Like Hitchcock's 'Wrong Man', he now must clear his name. As Emily has taken a plea bargain in which she pleads guilty by reason of insanity, Banks is assigned to be her psychiatrist at the Ward's Island Criminal Psychiatric facility, and has full say as to whether she will be eventually released or not. And here is where I had the biggest problem with this film. If Banks' reputation is so in tatters (he's been smeared in the press) and the state licensing board is investigating him, why would the court even entertain the idea that he should continue to be involved with Emily? And without this caveat, the film's denouement, could never develop as it does.

So let's suspend our disbelief over this major plot point and see whether the rest of 'Side Effects' has any more credibility. As it turns out, Banks does indeed figure out that Emily was faking all along that she was depressed. He also discovers that Banks turned out to be the former lover of her former psychiatrist, Victoria, who convinces Emily to participate in an incredible scheme to drive the stock price down of pharmaceutical company who's been promoting Ablixa. By selling short, Emily and Victoria end up making a bundle but once Banks figures everything out, he forces Emily to wear a wire and rat out Victoria.

It's pretty much a fantastic scheme and again it involves more suspension of disbelief, since it's not guaranteed that the stock price will go down that much, where the two schemers, will actually make a big profit. Nonetheless, it could remotely happen. Banks being in cahoots with the Assistant District Atttorney to turn Emily but then falsifying her personality profile and illegally ordering her to take mind numbing psychotropic medications such as Thorazine, to shut up her up, seems beyond the pale. Would an ADA risk his job to participate in such an illegal, revenge scheme? I hardly think so.

It's also a bit ironic that a psychiatrist who exceeds his authority by authorizing the administration of psychotropic medications when they are not needed, appears justified, since the patient in question, has gotten away with murder. Whether you like this final scenario or not, one wonders why Emily didn't have an attorney who could have worked to expose Banks' illegal actions. It just seemed a little too easy in the way that Banks, along with his allies, so easily were able to keep Emily as a zombie (all doped up with her medications), without any other third parties becoming involved in her case, and perhaps discovering that the 'good guys' (i.e. Banks and company), were suddenly doing a bunch of bad things.

'Side Effects' is a passable 'Hollywood-type' thriller. It has the requisite good acting and interesting plot reversals, but ultimately not everything adds up.

Additional spoiler warning (in lieu of summary line)

[harry_tk_yung · 18 March 2013]

For suspense movies, it is very difficult to write a review that is too meaningful. In some cases, even the mere mention that thing are not what they appear to be already constitutes a spoiler. Steven Soderbergh is well known for making movies with issues. Even the title "Side effect", similar to "Traffic", suggests that this movie delves into the medical profession to expose issues on matters pharmaceutical. It would therefore constitute a spoiler when I intimate that this "issue" is used here to camouflage a crime thriller. But then, you have been warned.

Using liberally techniques such as VO leading into the next scene and in and out focus in the same scene, Soderbergh has created this tale of spellbinding suspense, not quite Hitchcock-ish, but intriguing nevertheless. During the first half of the movie, you won't quite see where it is heading. The story starts innocently with attractive 28-year-old Emily Taylor (Rooney Mara) welcoming home husband Martin (Channing Tatum) released after four years' prison term for insider trading. This event, though a happy one, has triggered some of the depression problem she previously had but seemed mostly cured by a Dr. Victoria Siebert (Catherine Zeta-Jones). The recurrence takes the form of her driving deliberately into a wall. While escaping serious injury, she is brought into contact by a psychiatrist checking her out at the emergency ward (the fact that there was no braking lines look suspicious), leading to this Dr. Jonathan Banks (Jude Law) taking up her case. The story meanders a little around sporadic but continues recurrence of Emily's depression and Bank's prescription of a antidepressant called "Ablixa" which he is paid handsomely by a pharmaceutical corporation to test.

As you begin to wonder how the movie will pursue this ethically dubious (but not illegal) issue, the bombshell drops. Martin comes home; Emily stabs him dead with a kitchen knife, goes to the bed room, climbs into bed and sleeps. All of a sudden, Dr Banks finds himself in a most unenviable position of possibly administering a drug that turns a patient into a sleep-walking psychopath. But as I said, things may not be what they appear. Of the plot I will say no more.

Whether you find the plot too convoluted or absurdly predictable, whether you admire the clever twists or deplore the dumb plot holes, you would find this movie entertaining, for the acting and storytelling. Law has shown masterful virtuosi is steering a character that takes some sharp turns and keeps him on course. Someone in the league of Zeta-Jones will of course not be wasted. But the spotlight is on Mara who carries this movie with impeccable authority. I mentioned that this movie itself is not quite Hitchcock-ian, but then Mara is a perfect Hitchcock-ian heroine and it becomes her. This young (just turned 28) woman will go far.

Soderbergh's epilogue(?)

[dvc5159 · 6/10 · 8 February 2013]

Steven Soderbergh's "Side Effects" begins with the camera zooming in from the streets to an apartment window, and ends in the reverse manner (no, I'm not spoiling anything). In a subtle way, Soderbergh's final shot represents his "full circle". Will he really retire from filmmaking for good? If so, then we will miss him. He is a truly exceptional filmmaker - and "Side Effects" would be a worthy film to go out on.

Indeed, "Side Effects" is a pure thriller, as it was marketed. While prescription medicine is the central plot device, the film also deals with psychology, law, insecurity, social stigma, corporate greed and obsession. Not explicitly for all of them, mind you, but subtly enough to get the point through, and not dawdling on it a second further. The taut, gripping, Hitchcockian screenplay by Scott Z. Burns gleefully twists and turns its way into unexpected plot developments, allowing Soderbergh to roam the apartments and streets with his camera, creating an intense yet unusually hypnotic atmosphere that is irresistibly gorgeous to watch.

Jude Law, looking more haggard here, is suitably desperate and obsessive as the "good?" doctor who seeks the truth pervasively after a horrific act committed by his patient, Emily (Rooney Mara). Clues lead him to Emily's previous doctor, Dr. Siebert (Catherine Zeta-Jones), which reveal that things are not what they seem. Zeta-Jones is juicily and devilishly icy-cold in her portrayal of Siebert, reminding me of those wicked female villains of the 90's thrillers. Staying in the background while having an influence throughout the second half of the movie is Rooney Mara, once again giving a strong performance as the conflicted Emily. Extremely vulnerable, soft-spoken, and unpredictable, she continues to steadily rise as one of the best young actresses working today. Channing Tatum too, as her husband Martin, an ex-convict fresh out of prison for insider trading, portrays his character outside of the stereotype, and turns him into a somewhat sympathetic and unfortunate character.

Soderbergh's complete control of atmosphere would not be complete without his usual great cinematography, crisp editing and unnerving music score by Thomas Newman, who conjures up some interesting musical themes at the proper times to rattle the characters even further. This is extremely skillful filmmaking, and although the plot has been seen and done before, it is exhilarating to see how a master filmmaker commands his given material so strongly and fleshing it out with his signature style.

This is a very good film. It's one of those movies that, when you start watching, you want to keep watching to see what happens next. Hitchcock himself would have smiled at this one. As for Soderbergh, he still has that Liberace biopic due for a TV release later this year, so he's not done with it yet. But well, I sure hope he returns someday if he decides to do so.

In danger of not caring...

[acutler · 6/10 · 18 March 2013]

I usually love Steven Soderbergh films. And this one starts off with his usual brilliance and had me hooked for the first half of the film.

The first of the film is well-acted, well-crafted, smart and involving.

Then comes the crunch: without spoiling, the second half of the film is quite different. In a sense the "smart" of the film just becomes an exercise in how "clever" the plot can be at the expense of any emotional truth to the characters. I stopped caring for the ensemble as they started to feel like lifeless pawns following the whims of a "how clever am I?" plot-line. You'll enjoy it if you like a Sunday Afternoon TV Detective movie and like solving the puzzle, but this is not great theatre.

It is better than most films, but only just. Certainly one of Soderbergh's most disappointing. Rooney Mara makes it still watchable - an actress to keep following.

Morally ambiguous characters in a deceptive, complex thriller plot

[napierslogs · 9/10 · 9 February 2013]

In "Side Effects", Emily (Rooney Mara) is feeling hopeless, suffering from prolonged effects of abandonment issues, unsure how to proceed in her life. Her husband, Martin (Channing Tatum) has just come home from prison, serving time for insider trading. But Emily doesn't know what she should be feeling; Emily doesn't know how to feel what she should be feeling. Psychiatrist Dr. Jonathan Banks (Jude Law) is exactly what the doctor ordered.

For those of us who watched "Contagion" (2011) and wanted to focus only on Jude Law's morally ambiguous blogger, Alan Krumwiede, we have finally gotten our wish. Law's morally ambiguous Dr. Jon Banks and Mara's psychologically ambiguous Emily are the only two main characters. There is only one story to follow.

It starts off with some strange camera angles (Steven Soderbergh serving as his own director of photography as he has for the majority of his films) but then settles down as a thriller, or what will become a thriller once we get to know the characters better. Emily has tried many antidepressants in the past but most leave her with undesired side effects: nausea, dizziness, or lack of a sex drive. Won't Dr. Banks please prescribe her something different? Sure, how about Ablixa, the new medication which Dr. Banks is being paid to try out on patients.

And although we now think we know in which character evil lies, we do not. Dr. Jonathan Banks is singularly the most complicated, interestingly created character in recent times. He's modern, selfish, compassionate, professionally-oriented, family-oriented, has respect for the legal system, and will go to extremes to distinguish between right and wrong. He's the focus of this character-centric, film noir thriller which uses Mara's Emily as the vehicle for the plot.

A crime is committed. It's bad, really bad. But the question is not who did it, the question is, who is guilty? In answering that question the film weaves from deception through twist to deception, never ceasing our questions of what is morally right, what is morally wrong and who is guilty? The screenplay is incredibly well-written, creating characters that amaze us, disappoint us and deceive us all the while being a part of an interesting and complex story. The dialogue fits with that theme, using words like "hopeless" to tie multiple characters together - conceptually not physically.

It's more of an edge-of-your-mind thriller rather than an edge-of-your- seat thriller. Never really scared, always questioning the moral and psychological behaviour of these characters. The ending takes some strange, sexually-charged turns, and perhaps a bit more conclusive than I was originally expecting, but don't worry, you can still question where the line is between right and wrong and when each character crossed it.

May include confusion, malaise, apathy, and/or delusion

[dfranzen70 · 7/10 · 5 February 2013]

If you're lucky, Side Effects won't be permanent. For half of the movie, it is a persuasive indictment of the pharmaceutical industry and its crass behavior toward its patients; for the other half, it is a three- cornered mystery/thriller, with double crosses and framings galore. It is fair to say that the movie is adequate during each of its disparate parts, but overall it's a convoluted story that immerses itself in faux intrigue and wraps itself up so neatly that you can practically see the bow on it.

Emily (Rooney Mara) is a depressive; her husband Martin (Channing Tatum) has just returned from a stint in prison for insider trading, but she feels anxious and can't sleep. She visits psychiatrist Jonathan Banks (Jude Law), who prescribes a brand-new drug to help her out when the better-known brands (Zoloft, Paxil, Wellbutrin, etc.) don't seem to break Emily from her ennui. But the drug, as you might have guessed so expertly, does have its side effects.

It turns out - not a spoiler - that Emily has begun to sleepwalk. Well, more than sleepwalk, she does things in her sleep, like cook breakfast and set the table, all in the middle of the night and not remembering a thing the next day. Tragedy strikes while Emily sleeps. Is she the culprit, or is the drug to blame?

At first, the premise seems to be that involving patients in drugs that are just approved, as part of a study, is pretty unethical behavior by a doctor. Dr. Banks has bills to pay, though, what with his wife losing her high-powered job. So he's working longer hours and taking on more work, including participation in this study. When the tragedy that strikes comes back to haunt him as well as Emily, the movie takes a turn - it manages to turn Banks from being just an overextended shmoe into a manipulative drug dealer who uses his patients as experiments. Up until this point, we don't know whether Banks is actually innocent. From what we've seen, he seems so, but he could have inadvertently caused someone's death by prescribing medication to someone who reacted badly to the side effects. Naturally, his reputation (and marriage) in ruins, Banks works to clear his name. This is actually easier than it is in most movies of this ilk, because he's not in prison or anything. He just needs to piece together clues.

One of those clues is Emily's last doctor, Victoria Siebert (Catherine Zeta-Jones), who is helpful but guarded. She relates that Emily left her care in Connecticut when Emily's husband got a job on Wall Street, which ultimately led Emily to see Dr. Banks.

The second half of the movie deals with Banks' efforts to find things out. Racing against time and struggling to believe various stories, he is now in full-on victim mode as presented to the viewer. It's not an unusual role; in fact, it's sort of a trope, the innocent trying to prove themselves. We're now sold on his innocence, and we as the audience just want to know what's happened.

I mentioned before that the movie ends rather neatly. Too neatly for my tastes, although it's not as if the explanations were implausible. But there's nothing wrong with some loose ends, some ambiguity, and this film - the 50th and final (maybe?) to be directed by Steven Soderbergh - leaves nothing ambiguous behind. We know, in full, the motives and fates of each character. Is this a good thing? Many won't be bothered by it, but for me I just prefer to have some questions left unanswered.

Law is adequate, although it feels like he's just stepping in for Tom Cruise when Cruise did all of those "framed man on the run" movies, like The Firm. Zeta-Jones is icy and opaque, two beneficial traits for her character. Mara, of course, steals the show, simply because of this: up until the last moments of the movie, we don't know whether anything about Emily is true. Instead of Law being the victim/accused, Mara's character slips quietly into that very role. In Emily, Mara brings the ambiguity the film needs - it's just too bad that ambiguity did not spread to the rest of the film. Shame; that would be a nice side effect indeed.

Soderbergh Does Drugs and Does Them Well

[Lepidopterous_ · 8/10 · 8 February 2013]

Side Effects is a psychological thriller centered around the pharmaceutical industry. I won't say much more for fear of spoiling anything, but let's just say an experimental drug prescription goes... haywire. ;)

Steven Soderbergh crafts his suspense from the very first frame with a perfect start for the film. The plot then pulls us in and keeps us guessing as the mystery slowly unfolds. The cast meshes wonderfully. Jude Law delivers a strong lead as the frustrated psychiatrist and Rooney Mara is mysterious and unpredictable. My only complaint is the performances were not as dramatic as they could have been. Mara was excellent at portraying her character's cold and lifeless depression, but I have seen what she is really capable of (Fincher's "The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo"), and she could have definitely reached those heights with this type of character. Nonetheless, a fine set of performances all around, but they take a back seat to the intoxicating narrative.

So is Side Effects Soderbergh's last hurrah? I certainly hope not, as it's probably my favorite film of his. I do wish Soderbergh got more range out of Mara, but the result is a satisfying and expertly-woven psychological drama packed with twists and turns.

Begins as art, ends with a fart

[themissingpatient · 6/10 · 8 June 2013]

Steven Soderbergh is a chameleon of a director and one of the few who has the ability to move from critically acclaimed Hollywood blockbusters, like Ocean's Eleven, to dramatic art films like The Limey. He is also one of the hardest working filmmakers today, taking on such roles as producer, writer, director, cinematographer and editor. As a director, he has been able to pump out two feature length films in a single year and he has done this more than just once. However, over the last decade his films have become weaker as it seems as though not enough time has been invested into exploring the emotional depths of the stories he is bringing to life. Therefore they lack the ability to conjure genuine emotion from their audience. It almost seems as if he does not care about whether or not audiences are moved or entertained, but rather is just doing his job, moving from one project to the next.

At the beginning of the year it was announced that Soderbergh was retiring as a director and that SIDE EFFECTS would be his last theatrical film release. In an interview with New York Magazine, he stated: "The worst development in filmmaking—particularly in the last five years—is how badly directors are treated. It's become absolutely horrible the way the people with the money decide they can fart in the kitchen, to put it bluntly."

Rooney Mara plays Emily, a woman who seems to be suffering from some sort of mental disorder after her husband, Martin, played by Channing Tatum, returns home from prison. After a failed suicide attempt Emily is introduced to Dr. Jonathan Banks, played by Jude Law, a psychiatrist who tries to help her by prescribing her an anti-depressant. As Emily's symptoms worsen, her psychiatrist and her try to find an anti-depressant that works for her. After many failed attempts Dr. Banks takes the advice of Emily's previous doctor, played by Catherine Zeta-Jones, and prescribes her a new experimental medication called Ablixa. The side effects attempt to destroy both of their lives.

Side Effects is shot and paced like a serious, well-crafted art film studying the truth behind depression which slowly builds into one hell of a tense thriller. What hold the film back is the ending. By the end this serious, well-crafted art film has succumb to a Hollywood twist gimmick popcorn flick better suited for the late 90's. I couldn't help thinking that someone had farted in the kitchen. I do not know if Soderbergh was just following the screenplay or if he was told to give it a happy ending that over-explains everything, leaving no sense of mystery and easily spotted plot-holes.

Of course, even with the out-of-place, poorly written surprise conclusion, Side Effects is still better than the majority of thrillers being produced today. And though it disappoints, the ride up until that point was mesmerizing and thought-provoking.

An intriguing, complex psychological thriller

[parallel_projection · 8/10 · 9 February 2013]

Steven Soderbergh has decided to end his career what can only be described as a pharmaceutical, psychosexual thriller that deals with several morally ambiguous characters all revolving around one horrible incident. Out of fear of giving away the intelligent, twist-filled plot written by Scot Z. Burns, that's really all I can say, although I can tell you that Soderbergh directs the film with extreme confidence, and it shows. He was able to convey a sort of quiet chaos with his frequent close-ups, and, by shifting in-and-out of focus throughout the screen, he was able to draw attention to the many small, yet important details.

The real strength of this film, though, is not necessarily the story itself, but how it is presented. To be honest, the story is almost too smart to the point of absurdity, but it never comes off as such. By releasing only one small piece of information at a time, we are kept waiting through interviews, court hearings, false trails, and many psychiatrist visits until, finally, everything comes together into one neat conclusion. The entire film is very subdued, but if you pay attention, you will be rewarded in the end.

Of course, the story would not have turned out so well without the multiple impressive performances that carry it all the way through. Rooney Mara is once again stunning as Emily Taylor, a woman who starts taking prescription antidepressants to cope with her husband's release from prison. Without giving much away, Emily is far more complex than she first appears, and Mara plays this perfectly by retaining a dark mysteriousness about her. She truly steals every scene she's in, and displays such a range of emotions that, at times, it's difficult to tell what her character is truly thinking. This is unfortunate for Channing Tatum, who does a fine job as her loving and sympathetic husband trying to make everything right after being released for insider trading, but who doesn't have close to enough material to compete with Mara.

Jude Law, on the other hand, is arguably the most central figure as Dr. Jonathan Banks, Emily's psychiatrist who is thrown into a scandal when his patient is involved in a tragic accident after taking an antidepressant he prescribed for her. He slowly mentally unravels as his decisions come back to haunt him, and eventually has to cross several moral boundaries in order to get his life back on track. Law shows this frustration with expert skill, and gives one of the best performances of his recent career. The same can be said for Catherine Zeta- Jones, who—as Emily's former psychiatrist Dr. Victoria Siebert—gives possibly the most complex performance, and does it brilliantly despite her lack of screen time.

To give away any more would be to say too much, as the film is so perfectly structured, it is difficult to discuss without giving away the whole thing. All I can add is, it is not so simple and straightforward as it may appear. It is a complex of characters, their motives, and the consequences of their actions, and, despite taking a while to get started, it is truly a spectacular, thrilling, and intricate journey that should not be missed.

Good, but not great

[grantss · 7/10 · 17 March 2014]

Good, but not great, crime-drama. Starts well: set up is good, character and plot development is interesting. Set up for an intriguing finish, especially as Jude Law's character is presented with a conundrum.

However, just when you're hooked, cracks start to develop in the plot. Not that the plot has holes, it just starts to get rather far-fetched. Too many twists, some just for twists' sake.

Ending feels contrived and a tad too neat.

However, still an interesting movie.

Good performance from Jude Law and Rooney Mara in the main roles. Catherine Zeta-Jones just doesn't feel right in her role, however. She's maybe too intense, or too one-dimensional.

Channing Tatum is okay in his role.

Look in the Mirror

[ferguson-6 · 5/10 · 10 February 2013]

Greetings again from the darkness. Director Steven Soderbergh says this is it. His final film. At age 50, he says he is walking away from making movies. Over the years, he has provided some good and some not so good, but never has he bored us. Movie lovers will always be grateful to him for his 1989 Sex, Lies and Videotape, which single-handedly brought the spotlight back to indie film. While I am quite skeptical of his retirement claim, it's noteworthy because the absence of one of today's true auteur's would be a loss for the art of cinema.

As for this "last" film, it begins as Hitchcock-esque, but concludes as more like Basic Instinct or Dressed to Kill. Put simply, the first half is mesmerizing while the second half devolves into a trashy pulp thriller.

The first half brought to mind the term pharmacological thriller. It seems as though Soderbergh and frequent collaborator Scott Z Burns (Contagion, The Informant!) are making a statement about our current societal trend of seeking answers, or at least treatment, through medication ... despite the risky side effects. We meet Emily and Martin Taylor (Rooney Mara and Channing Tatum) as he is released from prison (insider trading) and she is falling back into her depressive ways. She is soon enough being treated by Dr. Jonathan Banks (Jude Law), a doctor who seems typical in his belief that finding the right pill cures most ills.

Since this is a suspense thriller filled with numerous twists and double, even triple-crossings, it's impossible to go too deep into what happens without spoilers ... something I won't do here. What can be said is the pharmacological thriller shifts into legal drama and finally a who-done-what kind of conclusion. The solving of the mystery comes courtesy of another oft-used Hitchcock theme: the wronged man seeking vindication.

Rooney Mara and Jude Law are both excellent here and to whatever extent the story works for you, they deserve the credit along with Soderbergh. Ms. Mara was outstanding in the American version of The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, and Mr. Law continues his transition from lame rom-com's to quality dramatic actor. The same shouldn't be said for Catherine Zeta-Jones, who plays Dr Victoria Seibert, Emily's first psychiatrist. Every scene she shares and every line she speaks just screams "look at me", not a desired quality for a supporting role.

Support work is provided by Polly Draper, Mamie Gummer (Meryl Streep's daughter), Vinessa Shaw, Peter Friedman, Laila Robins, and Ann Dowd. Soderbergh does not disappoint from a technical aspect. His odd camera angles and unique shots are quite impressive and effective in sustaining the mood, even as the story spirals towards far-fetched. If it's truly his swan song, it seems appropriate that we see both the highs and lows of director Soderbergh. Here's hoping he returns very soon to the medium where his impact is needed.

Quite good.

[13SecondFilmReviews · 28 May 2020]

This is one of those films that you believe you know what's coming, and then get pleasantly surprised that you were wrong. Really strong acting make this an enjoyable watch, and the direction from Mr. Soderburgh is near flawless. Film students and wannabe filmmakers should watch and take notes.

Everything You Need to Know About Ablixa

[lavatch · 7/10 · 16 May 2014]

"Side Effects" was two films in one. The first half was a documentary-like film addressing issues in the modern psychiatric and pharmaceutical worlds. At the midpoint, the plot veered away from that topic, and the film became a mystery-style "whodunnit."

By the end, a lingering question was whether there was a single character in the movie that was sympathetic. The only character I could identify who was not venal was the little boy. Beyond the child, the psychiatrists and the patients, the pharma reps and the salespeople, the lawyers and the cops all made me want to take a cold shower after this film. The content of the film, as well as the character developments, really says something about the world in which we live.

It was almost as if each actor was performing two roles--one for the documentary half of the film and an entirely new character for the mystery portion. While this schizoid nature afflicted all of the roles, it was especially true for the "double" characters of the two psychiatrists played by Jude Law (money grubbing pill-pusher/victim) and Catherine Zeta-Jones (caring therapist/Vampire Lady). Regarding Rooney Mara's character Emily: she too had two characters...or more.

In sum, the viewer of "Side Effects" is treated to two films in one. But as a whole, the film does not cohere into a single, seamless unit. Nonetheless, the two film styles were done efficiently, the first half informing the viewers all they need to know about Ablixa and the second a cat-and-mouse game in a well-told psychological drama.

Good flick with major hole in ending

[mark-deckard-1967 · 6/10 · 2 January 2023]

The movie is well acted and directed abd very provocative. But the ending was like the last east west construction of the leg of transcontinental railroad meeting only to find they are a mile apart.

I get that a woman conspires with a shrink to tank a pharmecuetical company and make bank on the stock options by killing her husband while under the "side effects of the drug.

There's a nice turn of the tables where the disgraced and manipulated character played by Jude law is able to tke control of the situation.

Here's what did not meet up. The police knew it was all a ruse between a patient and a doctor. So why does the patient who faked her illness have to keep pretending she is undergoing treatment when they have her with her lady doctor confessing they planned it all? Then Jude Laws doctor character proceeds to send her back to the asylum as if the terms of the medical plan still apply...when they already know it was all a put on?

So she gets committed back to the asylum when everybody already knows she should go to jail with her partner in crime and lover for premeditated murder.

Sloppy resolve tht made cheapened the movie.

very unusual thriller

[christopher-underwood · 7/10 · 28 January 2022]

A very unusual thriller and one that you feel it is going in one way and really changes and then again. Steven Soderbergh clearly as the side effects than more than we imagine and makes the film superior amusement. Rooney Mara and Jude Law excellent as her psychiatrist and her need of a new drug that helps. Catherine Zeta-Jones is fine and is rather than she seems so astute.

Strap on Your Seatbelt

[cattjones · 8/10 · 8 February 2013]

I saw a couple of interviews with the cast before this film came out and they talked about the fact that this film had a lot of twists and turns in it; and they weren't kidding. However, that being said I went in with a certain mindset and it took me a little time to figure it out, but I eventually did. Either the film was moving real slow for me or I have become accustom to seeing more action. This film is purely psychological in nature, so if you are looking for some action, there isn't any. It also got me to thinking how much power court appointed psychologists have and how they have the power to manipulate the system. On the other hand, it also made me realize that mental patients have absolutely no control over their lives (which may be a good thing). Dr. Jonathan Banks (Jude Law) is the psychologist on the case of a severely depressed patient. His world is quickly turned upside down by having to deal with anxiety, depression, pharmaceuticals and medical ethics. Emily Taylor (Rooney Mara) is the severely depressed woman who is desperately trying to find the right drug to cure her affliction. Dr. Victoria Siebert (Catherine Zeta-Jones) is a former attending psychologist of Emily who is consulted by Dr. Banks to try and uncover some of the dilemmas of her past. Martin Taylor (Channing Tatum) is Emily's husband and is shouldered with the responsibility of trying to care his wife as she tries medication after medication in addition to trying to keep the marriage together. Dierdre Banks (Vinessa Shaw) is Jonathan's wife and she becomes a victim and unwilling participant in the unfolding circumstances that is affecting her life. I think that the entire cast did an excellent job, but as I said before it was a tad slow for me in the beginning. This film definitely keeps you on the edge of your seat and you really do not know who is playing whom. It was difficult to know who to root for until all is revealed at the end. I thought that the story was a good one and it definitely takes you on a roller-coaster ride. I am not sure that anyone could ever reach the level of a Hitchcock film, but this one comes pretty close. Steven Soderbergh did an excellent job embracing this genre of film. I give this film a green light.

Ahem, just one minute please

[kiowhatta · 6/10 · 21 December 2020]

Side effects certainly feels like a high quality though run of the mill psychological drama.

I will skip the self indulgent refined and sophisticated critical analysis and instead point to one overlooked glaring problem with the plot, not just a goof, but a serious error that contaminates the entire film.

I'm shocked a director of Soderbergh's caliber could have let it slip.

How does Dr Banks ( Jude Law ) manage to conduct his own investigation and consult with a former patient from whom he became embroiled in an major ethics scandal that all but stripped him of his license to practice?

In fact, it gets to the point midway where he is so desperate he begs a former colleague to prescribe him medication?

There's no way in any reality that a consulting physician found negligent in treating a patient which results in a murder would be suddenly allowed to be reinstated as that patients chief physician no questions asked?!

How did that slip by? In any case of malpractice, impropriety, and so on the professional relationship is terminated immediately!

It's so outrageous I doubt the writers of such B grade crime dramas like Jake and the Fatman would allow such an egregious plot mistake.

Other than that, it's super.

A delicious dinner of a movie with the perfect dessert of betrayal and suspense

[zken · 9/10 · 10 February 2013]

What a delicious surprise of a movie for this early in the year. As has been the case before, a few films of greatness end up playing just after the first of the year. I saw this movie with expecting a clichéd crime drama. What I saw was one of the most inventive and riotous versions of suspense in years. Despite signs that this genre is dead and buried (no pun intended)here is a very modern film that updates the themes and tones of film noir without a pause or hitch of any kind. And as usual in great movies of this type, the setting is a character as strong as any of the actors. New York City has never looked this depressing and cold. But what really works here is a cast so perfect, that you can hardly remember their names. Each actor fits so perfectly in the tapestry of the plot, that the film has a naturalism so real it is surreal. There is a an incredible attention to detail that is what you would expect from a Broadway play or a painting by Dali. One suggestion-DO NOT go by yourself. Having a fellow traveler to discuss this is very required. And I say this as someone who goes to the movies alone often.

Good but not great

[RobertLThorpe · 6/10 · 15 February 2013]

Side Effects is the story of a Psychologist working with a depressed woman and managing her depression with drug after drug until they come across a new medication that has her do something within the film that puts both her life and the life of the Dr in the publics eye and possible Jail time. (not the best summary but I don't want to give anything away)

The film is well acted but the first 30 minutes are really long and I had a hard time getting into the film. However, once the twists start and the cover ups and the introduction of new ideas and possibilities it picked up nicely. I did figure it out relatively quickly after a couple of other thoughts were squashed. I think its worth seeing but not for 15 bucks a pop. If you can get it at the dollar theaters or matinée for 4 bucks, its worth it. AS I said, good acting, story is good but at times predictable and Soderbergh directs well. As thrillers go its one of the better ones in the last few years mainly because there haven't been many. Its all been large superhero films etc. So, its a good change of pace. AS i said, good but not great.

Side Effects virtually demands a three-word review: Just see it.

[robfollower · 10/10 · 17 June 2019]

Side Effects, chilly and noirish. Side Effects screws around in its own thriller architecture, toying with feints of structure and clever bits of misdirection, and otherwise playing the audience like a fiddle. Side Effects virtually demands a three-word review: Just see it.

Not what I thought it was about

[SnoopyStyle · 6/10 · 23 August 2013]

Emily Taylor (Rooney Mara) is reunited with husband Martin (Channing Tatum) fresh out of prison. She's depressed and drives directly at a parking garage wall. Her psychiatrist Jonathan Banks (Jude Law) prescribes an experimental new medication called Ablixa.

Steven Soderbergh directs this rather mysterious movie somewhat about the drug industry. In fact, that's what I thought this was about. I try not to do any spoilers in these comment, so it's actually hard to describe this movie. Safe to say, forget what you think this is about and try not to read any spoilers. Maybe it's the preconceived notions that I had or it's the depression of the main character, I could never quite get a hold of this movie. It's always depressing to watch a depressed person going thru depression. It's a drag. Although I didn't find this movie compelling, I do have to give Soderbergh credit for his skills. I did find the resolution less as satisfying but more tiring finish to a marathon.

Well-made, well-acted, but mostly predictable

[gridoon2024 · 5/10 · 13 March 2013]

It may be because I kept reading and hearing about how many "mind-bending twists" this movie contains, but I was somewhat disappointed with it. The one central twist of the plot is quite predictable, especially when you consider that there are only two possible "truths" about what you have already seen happening, and the film desperately wants you to believe one of them....there IS at least one genuine surprise (the "truth serum" test), but it's a fairly minor one in the whole pattern of things. So, while "Side Effects" is well-directed by Steven Soderbergh and well-acted by a well-selected quartet of stars (plus some key supporting players), it's not really the mind-blower it's being hyped as. ** out of 4.