Effets secondaires

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.

The poster of Side Effects features four famous faces on it: clockwise, you see Jude Law, Catherine Zeta-Jones, Rooney Mara, and Channing Tatum. There is a suggestion of a complex relationship between their characters - and of somewhat equal parts in the story. Both of those assumptions are proven false. Dr Jonathan Banks (played by Law) is gradually revealed as the protagonist of Side Effects, while his patient Emily Taylor (Mara) has a supporting, if most remarkable, role. Zeta-Jones plays the snake in the grass and spends most of the film out of sight, while Channing Tatum is briefly introduced as a handsome piece of furniture.

Side Effects has most in common with a Hitchcock thriller: Dr Banks faces a false accusation and must clear his name, with no support from his colleagues or from authorities. Characters are duplicitous and untrustworthy, and the question is not who is lying (everyone, everyone is lying), but how and why. Someone dies.

Rooney Mara delivers a great performance as a mentally unstable socialite - I whole-heartedly agree with Peter Bradshaw (The Guardian) praising her 'ability to be scared and scary at the same time'. As Mara's part is that of an unreliable narrator, it soon proves difficult to empathise with her character fully; instead, you spend a good while doubting her, yourself, and whether you are experiencing a déjà vu and whether you are experiencing a déjà vu.

There is no doubt that Side Effects is clever, yet, for me, the picture lacks in three important respects. The big questions about the use of mood-altering medication, experimental and otherwise, are raised, but then dropped as soon as the focus of the plot development shifts elsewhere. Two, the perilous and exciting romance - the supposed undercurrent of the narrative - feels shoehorned and staged. Finally, the ending brings us nearly full circle, and you are left wondering if the whole experience has had any effect on the protagonist.

Given that my original goal, when picking the film, was to see more praiseworthy acting by Zeta-Jones, I should find Side Effects satisfying. Unfortunately, as intelligent, ambitious, and well-acted as the film is, it lacks narrative cohesion and unity of tone, with the finale appearing as if a bow on a box.

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.

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.

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.